American Canyon City Council
April 15, 2025

However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV). The PPV is normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration and other construction activity because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020). Table 4.7-1 summarizes the vibration damage criteria recommended by the FTA for evaluating the potential for architectural damage to buildings.

Table 4.7-1 Criteria for Vibration Damage Potential
Building Category PPV (in/sec)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Nonengineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: FTA 2018
c. Sensitive Receivers
According to the City’s 2040 General Plan, the City defines noise-sensitive land uses as residential uses, residential care, child/elder care facilities, schools, places of worship, and hospitals. Vibrationsensitive receivers, which are similar to noise-sensitive receivers include residences, hotels, and institutional uses, such as hospitals, schools, and churches. However, vibration-sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., recording studies or medical facilities with sensitive equipment). Other uses that may have particular sensitivity to groundborne vibration include historic sites and structures.

Noise-sensitive land uses are located throughout American Canyon. Residential development is located on the western and eastern sides of the City, mostly away from State Route (SR) 29 and the noise-generating areas of the airport and commercial area to the north. Schools, daycares, and assisted living facilities are located within these quieter residential areas, ensuring they are also located away from major noise sources.
d. Existing Conditions
Noise Sources
The most prevalent noise source in the City is from vehicle traffic along SR 29 and American Canyon Road. Motor vehicle noise is characterized by a high number of individual events that can create a sustained noise level in proximity to noise-sensitive uses. Roadways with the highest roadway vehicle volumes and speeds produce the highest noise levels. Table 4.7-2 provides existing roadway vehicle noise levels along roadway segments near the project area. Traffic noise modeling data are contained in Appendix C.
225
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-4
Table 4.7-2 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Along Roadway Segments Roadway Segment Existing ADT 1, 2
Existing Traffic Noise Level
at 50 feet (dBA CNEL) 3
SR 29 North of SR 37 43,483 77.1
SR 29 South of Mini Drive 37,492 76.3
SR 29 North of Mini Drive 43,469 76.6
SR 29 North of American Canyon Road 49,579 77.1
SR 29 South of Napa Junction Road 40,762 77.1
SR 29 North of Napa Junction Road 59,044 78.6
SR 29 North of Green Island Road 60,263 79.2
SR 29 South of SR 12 59,200 78.9
American Canyon Road West of SR 29 15,330 69.5
American Canyon Road East of Flosden Road 10,771 67.1
American Canyon Road West of I-80 4,076 66.0
Flosden Road South of American Canyon Road 21,510 71.1
Newell Drive North of American Canyon Road 9,685 64.0
South Kelly Road South of SR 12 1,602 59.2

1. ADT = average daily traffic

2. Source: GHD 2022

3. Traffic noise levels were estimated based on the existing ADT by Rincon staff.

Figure 4.7-1 shows the existing 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours from roadways and highways in the Planning Area.

Airport noise associated with Napa County Airport operations is an additional noise source in American Canyon. The northern City boundary is just south of the Napa County Airport, with industrial buildings closest to the airport and residences located approximately four miles south.

The Napa County Airport does not support commercial flights and mostly serves single-engine aircraft. Napa County projects that by 2021, the Napa County Airport would operate between approximately 210,000 and 260,000 total aircrafts (County of Napa 2007). The northern portion of American Canyon falls within the Napa County Airport Compatibility Zones D and E (Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 2008).

Railroad operations are another source of noise in some parts of the Planning Area. Average noise levels from rail traffic vary depending on the number of daily trains along a given rail line, the timing and duration of train pass-by events, and whether trains sound their warning whistles near “atgrade” crossings. When trains approach an at-grade crossing, they are required to sound their warning horn within a quarter mile unless a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Quiet Zone has been established. There are no FRA Quiet Zones in the Planning Area; therefore, trains must sound their warning horn in the Planning Area. Train warning horns typically generate maximum noise levels of 105 to 110 dBA at 100 feet.

Using train data provided by the FRA and the Bay Area Regional Rail Plan (FRA 2022, MTC 2006), railroad noise levels were modeled using the FTA CREATE Model and the FRA Grade Crossing Horn Model. Table 4.7-3 contains the calculated distances to the 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL contours from railroad noise, both from the main line and within a quarter mile of grade crossings where horn warnings are required. Switching train activity is also a source of noise in the area around Napa Junction. 226
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5
Table 4.7-3 Existing Railroad Noise Levels
Operator Line
Distance (feet) to 65 dBA
Ldn/CNEL Contour (Mail Line)
Distance (feet) to 65 dBA
Ldn/CNEL Contour
(Within ¼ Mile of Grade Crossing)
CFNR Ignacio to Fairfield/Suisun 50 218
CFNR Calistoga to Vallejo 35 199
Notes: CFNR = California Northern Railroad Company
Source: Calculated using the FTA CREATE Model and the FRA Grade Crossing Horn Model. See Appendix C.

Vibration Sources
Existing sources of operational vibration in the Planning Area include railroad operation and vehicle traffic on roadways. Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that “heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborn vibrations of normal traffic.” Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic-generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that “vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 in/sec, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings)” (Caltrans 2013). Construction vibration levels have the potential to be significant when equipment such as impact and vibratory pile drivers, rock blasting, and vibratory rollers are used during construction.

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the United State Environmental Protection Agency. Noise limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and could also apply to any proposed industrial land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is not addressed further in this analysis. Since the federal government has preempted setting noise level standards for transportation sources, local jurisdictions are limited to regulating noise generated by the transportation system through nuisance abatement ordinances and land use planning.
227
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-6
Figure 4.7-1 Existing Traffic Noise Contours
228
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-7
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set the goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed with HUD funding (this level is also generally accepted within the State of California). Although HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings typically provides 20 dBA or more of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA.
b. State Regulations
California General Plan Guidelines
State law requires general plans to include a Noise Element under Government Code Section 65302(f). The California General Plan Guidelines, published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, indicate acceptable, specific land use types in areas with specific noise exposure. The guidelines also offer adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution. These guidelines are advisory, and local jurisdictions have the authority to set specific noise standards based on local conditions.

California Building Code
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 12, and the California Building Code codify the State noise insulation standards. These noise standards apply to new construction in California to control interior noise levels as they are affected by exterior noise sources and interior noise sources from separate areas. The regulations specify that interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dB CNEL/Ldn in any habitable room, as well as specifying sound transmission class requirements for walls, floors, and ceilings around sleeping units.

In addition, the standards require an acoustical analysis that demonstrates the manner dwelling units will meet the interior standard, when units are proposed with exterior noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.

California Green Building Code
California Green Building Standards Code 2019 (CALGreen) Section 5.507.4, Acoustical Control, regulates construction of non-residential uses within the 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn contour of an airport, freeway, expressway, railroad, industrial noise source, or other fixed source. According to Section

5.507.4.1.1: buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB Leq(1-hr) during any hour of operation shall employ sound-resistant assemblies as determined by a prescriptive method (CALGreen Section

5.507.4.1) or performance method (CALGreen Section 5.507.4.2).

Projects may demonstrate compliance through the prescriptive method if wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source meet a composite sound transmission class (STC) rating of at least 50 or a composite outdoor/indoor transmission class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30. Projects may demonstrate compliance through the performance method if wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to the noise source 229
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-8
are constructed to provide an interior noise environment that does not exceed 50 dB Leq-1Hr in occupied areas during hours of operations.

California Airport Noise Standards
California Code of Regulations Title 21, Subchapter 6, Airport Noise Standards, establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports. Noisesensitive land uses are generally incompatible in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL. This standard remains unless an aviation easement for aircraft noise has been acquired by the airport proprietor, or the residence is a high-rise with an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less in all habitable rooms. Assembly Bill (AB) 2776 requires any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties in an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the property.
c. Regional
Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) governs land use around the Napa County Airport. The ALUCP was adopted by the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission in April 1991 and revised in December 1999. It identifies acceptable aviation noise levels by land use. d. Local Regulations
City of American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 8.12.070 of the American Canyon Municipal Code identifies that no person shall create any sound, or allow the creation of any sound, on any property that causes the exterior sound level on any other occupied property to exceed the sound level standards shown in Table 4.7-4 due to stationary sources.

Section 8.12.080 of the American Canyon Municipal Code identifies the following requirements.  Section 8.12.080 (B)(2)(a). Operating or causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration or demolition work between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., such that the sound therefrom creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial real property line, except for emergency work of public service utilities or by variance issued by the appropriate authority.
 Section 8.12.080 (B)(2)(b). Noise Restrictions at Affected Properties. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed those listed in Table 4.7-5.

Table 4.7-4 Exterior Noise Limits for Stationary Sources Zone Time Allowable Noise Limit (L50)
Residential Single and Double Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
50 60
Residential Multiple Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
55 60
Source: Section 8.12.070 of American Canyon Municipal Code 230
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-9
Table 4.7-5 Noise Limits for Construction Activities
Noise Limit by Receiving Land Use (Lmax)
Time Residential Commercial Industrial
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
75 60
80 65
85 70
Source: Section 8.12.080 of American Canyon Municipal Code

4.7.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on noise if it would:

1. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies

2. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels Construction Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted construction noise limits, as shown in Table 4.7-5 above. Project impacts would be significant if construction noise exceeds these standards.

Operational Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted noise standards in the American Canyon Municipal Code that regulate stationary operational noise sources in the City. The project would result in a significant impact if it generates noise from stationary sources in excess of the standards shown in Table 4.7-4.

For traffic noise, the following thresholds of significance similar to those recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receiver locations:
 Greater than 1.5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher;  Greater than 3 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of 60 - 64 CNEL; and  Greater than 5 dBA increase for ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL.

Groundborne Vibration Thresholds
The City has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts. Therefore, the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) is used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts. Construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed the FTA criteria shown in Table 4.7-1. For example, impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV for residential structures and 0.3 in/sec PPV for commercial 231
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-10
structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., architectural) damage may occur to these buildings.

Methodology
Construction Noise
Construction noise levels that could occur with implementation of the project are based on reference noise levels published by the FTA.

Operational Stationary Noise
Stationary noise (i.e., on-site operational noise) were analyzed in context of typical mechanical equipment on commercial, industrial, residential, and mixed-use development such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units.

Operational Traffic Noise
Development facilitated by the project would generate motor vehicle trips, thereby increasing offsite traffic on area roadways. The project’s traffic noise impacts are analyzed based on data provided by the City’s traffic engineer GHD, which is included as Appendix C to this EIR. Traffic noise levels for existing and project conditions were estimated using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model methodology. Traffic noise impacts are analyzed based on average daily traffic (ADT) roadway volume for existing and future conditions, as well as speeds, and number of lanes data. The FHWA model predicts noise levels through a series of adjustments to a reference sound level. These adjustments account for distances from the roadway, traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, car/truck mix, number of lanes, and road width.

Groundborne Vibration
Future development facilitated by the project would not include substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Construction activities have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Construction vibration levels that could occur due to buildout of the project are based on reference vibration levels published by the FTA.

Impact of the Environment on the Project
As a result of the Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on projects (California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478) issued December 17, 2015), it is generally no longer the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project. Therefore, this environmental analysis does not consider the potential impacts of the environment (i.e., existing noise) on the project. 232
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-11
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
IMPACT NOI-1 CONSTRUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD TEMPORARILY INCREASE NOISE LEVELS, POTENTIALLY AFFECTING NEARBY NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES. DEVELOPMENT

FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD ALSO INTRODUCE NEW NOISE SOURCES AND CONTRIBUTE TO INCREASES IN OPERATIONAL NOISE. THE CONTINUED REGULATION OF NOISE, CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN WOULD MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO ADJACENT LAND USES. HOWEVER, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL TRAFFIC NOISE COULD EXCEED STANDARDS EVEN AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.

Construction
Noise from individual development facilitated by the project would temporarily increase noise levels at nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Since project-level details are not available for future development, it is not possible to determine exact noise levels, locations, or time periods for construction. However, noise estimates have been developed for typical construction activities that are expected to occur due to the 2040 General Plan.

Construction activities would generate noise from demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving activities. Each phase of construction has a specific mix of construction equipment and associated noise characteristics, depending on the equipment used during that phase. Construction noise would typically be higher during the initial phases of construction (i.e., demolition, site preparation, and grading work) and would be lower during the later construction phases (i.e., building construction and paving). Table 4.7-6 illustrates typical noise levels associated with construction equipment at 50 feet and 100 feet.

Table 4.7-6 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Estimated Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
50 feet 100 feet
Air Compressor 80 74
Backhoe 80 74
Concrete Mixer 85 79
Dozer 85 79
Grader 85 79
Jack Hammer 88 82
Loader 80 74
Paver 85 79
Pile-drive (Impact) 101 95
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95 89
233
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-12
Equipment
Estimated Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
50 feet 100 feet
Roller 85 79
Saw 76 70
Scarified 83 77
Scraper 85 79
Truck 84 78
Source: FTA 2018.

The American Canyon Municipal Code Section 8.12 includes quantitative limits for construction noise at residential, commercial, and industrial receiving land uses. These construction noise limits are used to assess construction noise impacts.

Noise would typically drop at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, noise levels would be approximately 6 dBA lower than shown in Table 4.7-6 at 200 feet from the noise source and 12 dBA lower at a distance of 400 feet from the noise source. As shown in Table 4.7-6, construction noise may exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime construction noise thresholds for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, depending on the equipment used and the distance of equipment to noise-sensitive receivers.

The 2040 General Plan would include the following proposed goal and policy, which would minimize construction noise from individual development facilitated by the project:

Goal S-8: A comfortable community environment that is free from excessive stationary and mobile noise and vibration.
 Policy S-8.10: Construction Noise. Minimize exposure of sensitive receivers and enforce the limits in Section 8.12 of the municipal code for construction noise and vibration through methods such as restricting construction to daytime hours, use of sound barriers and/or other methods to dampen noise from construction equipment, and public notification prior to construction activities.

At this stage of planning, project-level details are not available for future projects and it is not possible to determine noise levels from construction of future development. Therefore, construction noise levels associated with future projects may exceed the City’s construction noise limits, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce construction noise impacts associated with future projects in American Canyon. However, even with implementation of mitigation, there is still the possibility that future development could exceed the City’s construction noise thresholds due to pile driving or other intensive construction activities, or due to construction occurring during sensitive nighttime hours. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Operational Stationary Noise
Stationary sources of noises may occur on different types of land uses. Residential uses would generate noise from landscaping, maintenance activities, and mechanical equipment such as ground-level and rooftop HVAC systems. Commercial uses would generate noise from HVAC 234
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-13
systems, loading docks, and other sources. Industrial uses may generate noise from HVAC systems, loading docks, and possibly machinery. Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short and intermittent. Industrial uses may generate noise on a more continual basis.

Nightclubs, outdoor dining areas, gas stations, car washes, fire stations, drive-throughs, swimming pool pumps, school playgrounds, athletic and music events, and public parks are other common noise sources. The proposed Safety Element contains goals, policies, and programs that require local planning and development decisions to consider noise-related impacts from stationary sources. The following proposed goal, policies, and programs in the 2040 General Plan would minimize potential adverse noise-related impacts from stationary sources:

Goal S-8: A comfortable community environment that is free from excessive stationary and mobile noise and vibration.
 Policy S-8.1: Land Use Compatibility. Use the land use-noise compatibility matrix in Table S-1 to guide the siting of future land uses.
 Policy S-8.2: Sensitive Facilities. Ensure appropriate noise mitigation is incorporated into the design of noise- sensitive facilities.
 Policy S-8.3: Site Design. Minimize noise impacts to adjacent noise-sensitive land uses in site planning and project design.
 Policy S-8.12: Residential Outdoor Mechanical Equipment. Require air conditioning units and pool equipment within residential areas be designed and sited in a manner that does not intrude upon the peace and quiet of adjacent noise-sensitive uses.  Program PPP: Noise Compatibility Matrix. Continue to enforce Chapter 8.12 Community Noise of the municipal code.
 Program QQQ: Acoustical Analyses. Require applicants to submit an acoustical analysis for projects near sensitive land uses or involving new or expanded sensitive land uses and require appropriate mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts if necessary to less than significant levels.
 Program RRR: Noise Insultation. Require new residential development meet the California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24 of the California Administrative Code) for interior and exterior noise levels.

Implementation of these policies and compliance with the City’s exterior noise standards for stationary sources would ensure that noise from new developments is analyzed and mitigated to acceptable levels prior to the approval of future development. Therefore, noise impacts from operational use of residential-scale HVAC units, industrial equipment, and other stationary noise sources would be reduced by proposed policies and programs in the 2040 General Plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Traffic Noise
Implementation of the project would result in additional buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase operational traffic noise. Figure 4.7-2 shows the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours from roadways and highways that are projected for 2040. The complete distances to the 60, 65, and 70 dBA CNEL noise contours for roadway segments are included in Appendix C. Table 4.7-7 shows the estimated roadway vehicle noise level increases on study roadway segments over existing conditions, at 50 feet from the centerline of the nearest travel lane.
235
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-14
In addition, the proposed Newell Drive extension would add new sources of roadway traffic noise.

Traffic noise levels for 2040 Buildout conditions were estimated using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model methodology and data provided by GHD. Under 2040 Buildout conditions, the Newell Drive extension is estimated to have up to 26,519 vehicles per day. The nearest sensitive receptor to the proposed Newell Drive extension are residences adjacent to the proposed roadway extension at the north end of Newell Drive (e.g., residences on Farentino Place and Cantada Court).

At a nominal distance of 50 feet from the roadway centerline, traffic noise from the proposed Newell Drive extension would result in noise levels of up to 68.4 dBA CNEL, as shown in Table 4.7-7, which would exceed the City’s exterior standard of 60 dBA CNEL. Traffic noise impacts from the proposed Newell Drive extension would be potentially significant.

As shown in Table 4.7-7, significant traffic noise increases are anticipated along SR 37 east of Fairgrounds Road; American Canyon Road east of Flosden Road and west of I-80; Flosden Road south of American Canyon Road; Newell Drive north of American Canyon Road, and South Kelly Road south of SR 12. Along all other roadway study segments, roadway vehicle noise increases would be less than significant.
236
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-15
Figure 4.7-2 2040 Traffic Noise Contours
237
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-16
Table 4.7-7 Roadway Vehicle Noise Increase Along Roadway Segments Roadway Segment Existing ADT 2040 Buildout ADT
Existing Roadway
Vehicle Noise Level
at 50 feet
(dBA CNEL)
2040 Roadway
Vehicle Noise
Level at 50 feet
(dBA CNEL)
Roadway
Vehicle Noise
Increase
(dBA CNEL)
Significant?
Y/N
I-80 – South of SR 37 110,006 146,018 83.6 84.8 1.2 N
I-80 - South of American Canyon Road 109,042 147,666 83.4 84.8 1.3 N I-80 - South of Red Top Road 112,650 149,993 83.6 84.9 1.2 N I-80 - South of SR 12 97,782 135,651 83.0 84.4 1.4 N
I-80 - North of SR 12 136,706 183,562 84.9 86.2 1.3 N
SR 29 - South of SR 37 24,051 31,935 73.2 74.4 1.2 N
SR 29 - North of SR 37 43,483 48,337 77.1 77.5 0.5 N
SR 29 - South of Mini Drive 37,492 40,554 76.3 76.7 0.3 N SR 29 - North of Mini Drive 43,469 46,425 76.6 76.8 0.3 N SR 29 - North of American Canyon Road 49,579 52,117 77.1 77.3 0.2 N SR 29 - South of Napa Junction Road 40,762 41,222 77.1 77.1 0.0 N SR 29 - North of Napa Junction Road 59,044 66,806 78.6 79.2 0.5 N SR 29 - North of Green Island Road 60,263 66,145 79.2 79.6 0.4 N SR 29 - South of SR 12 59,200 66,059 78.9 79.4 0.5 N
SR 29 - North of SR 12 88,600 113,419 80.4 81.4 1.1 N
Airport Boulevard - West of SR 29 10,500 10,837 69.5 69.6 0.1 N SR 12 - East of North Kelly Road 35,033 41,815 78.8 79.6 0.8 N SR 12 - West of Red Top Road 37,179 43,770 78.9 79.6 0.7 N SR 37 - West of SR 29 39,980 53,018 77.0 78.2 1.2 N
SR 37 - East of SR 29 62,495 79,835 78.8 79.9 1.1 N
SR 37 - East of Fairgrounds Road 69,800 104,578 79.4 81.1 1.8 Y SR 37 - East of I-80 42,000 55,652 76.6 77.8 1.2 N
American Canyon Road - West of SR 29 15,330 18,166 69.5 70.3 0.7 N American Canyon Road - East of Flosden Road 10,771 19,057 67.1 69.6 2.5 Y 238
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-17
Roadway Segment Existing ADT 2040 Buildout ADT
Existing Roadway
Vehicle Noise Level
at 50 feet
(dBA CNEL)
2040 Roadway
Vehicle Noise
Level at 50 feet
(dBA CNEL)
Roadway
Vehicle Noise
Increase
(dBA CNEL)
Significant?
Y/N
American Canyon Road - West of I-80 4,076 16,044 66.0 71.9 6.0 Y Hiddenbrook Parkway - East of I-80 6,023 7,962 64.5 65.7 1.2 N Flosden Road - South of American Canyon Road 21,510 31,811 71.1 72.8 1.7 Y Newell Drive - North of American Canyon Road 9,685 34,091 64.0 69.5 5.5 Y Newell Drive – South of Napa Junction Road - 26,519 - 68.4 - N South Kelly Road - South of SR 12 1,602 13,336 59.2 68.4 9.2 Y Devlin Road - North of Green Island Road - 10,312 - 74.7 - N Notes:

Neither Newell Drive – South of Napa Junction Road nor Devlin Road – North of Green Island Road exist in 2022.

ADT = average daily trips
Bold and underlined = significant increase
Source: GHD 2024
239
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-18
The following proposed policies in the 2040 General Plan would reduce traffic noise:

Goal S-8: A comfortable community environment that is free from excessive stationary and mobile noise and vibration.
 Policy S-8.4: Roadway Noise. Encourage nonmotorized transportation alternatives for local trips and decrease excessive motor vehicle noise by implementing traffic-calming road design, lateral separation, natural buffers, and setbacks.
 Policy S-8.5: Highway Noise. Continue to coordinate with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the NVTA to complete the American Canyon SR 29 Corridor Improvement Project.
 Policy S-8.7: Mobile Noise Sources. Minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to noise from roads through land use decisions, by encouraging the siting of sensitive noise receptors away from high traffic roadways.
 Policy S-8.8: Noise Mitigation Measures. Require heavy trucks to use designated truck routes that avoid residential and other sensitive land uses to the maximum degree feasible. When not feasible, investigate noise mitigation strategies such as noise barriers or truck travel restrictions, especially in areas of concern such as along American Canyon Road.

In addition, the following proposed goals, policies, and implementation programs in the 2040 General Plan would encourage active transportation modes, such as walking and bicycling, as well as the use of public transit, thereby reducing vehicle trips and traffic noise in American Canyon:

Goal LU-1: Establish American Canyon as a "complete city” with a diversity of distinct land uses that serve the needs of residents, businesses, and visitors.  Policy LU-1.4: Compact Development Pattern. Maintain a compact development pattern that fosters a walkable and bikeable urban form.

Goal MOB-1: Provide safe and convenient access throughout the community with a citywide network of complete streets that meet the needs of all users and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
 Policy MOB-1.7: Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycling for transportation, recreation, and improvement of public health.  Policy MOB-1.11: Reduce the Need to Drive. Implement land use policies designed to create a pattern of activity that makes it easy to shop, play, visit friends, and conduct personal business without driving.
 Policy MOB-1.12: Neighborhood Context. Support safe, complete, and well-connected neighborhood street, bicycle, and pedestrian access and connections that balance circulation needs with the neighborhood context.
 Policy MOB-1.17: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate travel modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by city and non-residents traveling to American Canyon to work or shop.  Policy MOB-1.22: Non-motorized Circulation System. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between places.
 Policy MOB-1.23: Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers' ability to walk safely around, to, and from their 240
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-19
workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route

29.  Policy CIR-1.24: Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be provided to complete a continuous bikeway system, consistent with state standards, as shown on the Bikeway Plan Map. In cases where existing right of way constraints limit development of Class II or Class IV facilities, Class Ill signage and demarcation may be permitted at the discretion of the City Engineer. Deviations from these standards and from the routing shown on the diagram shall be permitted with the approval of the City Engineer.
 Policy CIR-1.27: Sustainable Roadway Expansion. Monitor the effects of roadway expansion on air, noise, seismic and archeological resources, and nesting habitat.

Goal MOB-5: Support increased public transit to improve mobility, improve air quality, and support efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).  Policy MOB-5.2: Existing Transportation Demand Management Efforts. Continue to support the implementation of existing local and regional efforts to manage traffic demand, such as the Napa Logistics Park trip monitoring program, and employer TDM provisions of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAAQMD).
 Policy MOB-5.3: Multi-agency Transit support. Continue to cooperate with other agencies and jurisdictions to promote local and regional public transit, including ACT and VINE serving American Canyon.
 Policy MOB-5.5: Transit Stops. Work with NVTA to situate transit stops at locations that are convenient for transit users and promote increased transit ridership through the provision of shelters, benches, bike racks on buses, and other amenities.  Policy CIR-5.7: Future Transit Links. Consider orienting transit system expansion to link with other potential future commuter bus and/or rail services.  Program C: Active Transportation Plan. Prepare and update every five years an Active Transportation Plan to replace the Bicycle Master Plan and include pedestrian facilities. The Plan should include a full range of facilities for bicycle travel, including Class I bike/multiuse paths, Class II bike lanes, Class Ill bike routes, and Class IV separated bikeway to provide a continuous system of bikeways throughout the city.
 Program H: Bicycle Facility Development and Maintenance. Prepare and update every five years a bike facility development and maintenance program that includes the following provisions:
 signage consistent with according to Caltrans or City standards  lighting where needed;
 bicycle paths and lanes on bridges and overpasses;
 bicycle-safe drainage grates;
 bikeways free of hazards such as uneven pavement or gravel;  merging or crossing signage where bike routes and paths make transitions into or across roadways;
 promoting classes on bicycle safety in the schools in coordination with the Napa Valley Unified School District; and
 sweeping debris from and repairing bicycle paths and lanes 241
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-20
 Program K: Pedestrian Connections to Schools. Continue developing the existing network of walkways between schools and residential uses, and encourage the development of new continuous walkways between schools and residential uses. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route 29.

Implementation of these proposed policies and programs would reduce vehicle trips and associated traffic noise. However, implementation of these proposed policies and programs would not guarantee that traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be required to minimize roadway vehicle noise impacts on roadways that would generate significant traffic noise increases.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce operational traffic noise. Notable reductions in tire noise have been achieved via the implementation of special paving materials, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays. For example, Caltrans conducted a study of pavement noise along I-80 in Davis and found an average improvement of 6 to7 dBA reduction compared to conventional asphalt overlay (Caltrans 2011). This would reduce impacts along American Canyon Road east of Flosden Road and west of I-80; Flosden Road south of American Canyon Road; and Newell Drive north of American Canyon Road/the proposed Newell Drive Extension to less than significant.

However, SR 37 east of Fairgrounds Road and South Kelly Road south of SR 12 is outside of the City’s jurisdiction and the City is not able to add physical improvements along this roadway segment to reduce traffic noise. As the City has no jurisdiction over this roadway, it would be infeasible to implement mitigation measures to reduce traffic noise on SR 37 east of Fairgrounds Road and South Kelly Road south of SR 12. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
NOI-1 Conduct Construction Noise Analysis
The City shall review future developments within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receiver, and where applicable, require the following feasible measures as standard conditions of approval to reduce construction noise levels below a level of significance:
 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.  Equipment Staging Areas. Equipment staging shall be located in areas that will create the greatest distance feasible between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers.
 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 in compliance with applicable safety laws and regulations.
 Electrically-Powered Tools and Facilities. Electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities, where feasible.
242
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-21
 Noise Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of any noise complaint and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator and the City shall be posted at the construction site.  Temporary Noise Barriers. Erect temporary noise barriers, where feasible, when construction noise is predicted to exceed the City’s construction standards and when the anticipated construction duration is greater than is typical (e.g., two years or greater). 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. 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.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures The City shall install “quiet pavement” roadway improvements, such as rubberized asphalt or opengrade asphalt concrete overlays along impacted roadway segments (American Canyon Road east of Flosden Road and west of I-80; Flosden Road south of American Canyon Road; and Newell Drive north of American Canyon Road). The program may be funded by “fair share” developer contributions for proposed projects along impacted roadways to pay for the “quiet pavement” roadway improvements.

Significance After Mitigation
Construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1. Operational traffic noise impact would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2. Operational stationary noise impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
IMPACT NOI-2 CONSTRUCTION OF DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD TEMPORARILY GENERATE GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION AND NOISE, POTENTIALLY AFFECTING NEARBY LAND USES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION. OPERATION OF DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE

PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION AND NOISE AND THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction
Construction of development facilitated by the proposed 2040 General Plan could intermittently generate groundborne vibration at nearby properties. Table 4.7-8 identifies groundborne vibration levels from various types of construction equipment at various distances.

As shown in Table 4.7-8, buildings and structures could experience the strongest vibration during the use of pile-drivers and vibratory rollers. Vibration levels from pile-drivers could approach 1.519 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source and 0.190 in/sec at 100 feet, and vibration levels from vibratory rollers could approach 0.21 in/sec PPV at 25 feet and 0.026 at 100 feet. The threshold for 243
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-22
historic structures is 0.12 in/sec PPV; the threshold is higher for residential buildings at 0.2 in/sec PPV.

Vibration levels from typical equipment such as bulldozers and jackhammers would not exceed FTA thresholds for historic structures and residential buildings at a distance of 25 feet or greater.

However, vibration levels from pile driving equipment and vibratory rollers may exceed FTA thresholds.

Table 4.7-8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Approximate Vibration Level (in/sec PPV)
Equipment
25 feet
from Source
50 feet
from Source
100 feet
from Source
200 feet
from Source
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.011 0.004
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004 0.002
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011 0.004
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.027 0.010 0.003
Pile Driver (impact) Upper range 1.519 0.537 0.190 0.067 Typical 0.644 0.228 0.081 0.028
Pile Driver (sonic) Upper range 0.734 0.260 0.092 0.032 Typical 0.170 0.060 0.021 0.008
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.074 0.026 0.009
Source: FTA 2018.

Implementation of the following proposed goal, policy, and program in the 2040 General Plan would reduce construction vibration in residential areas:

Goal S-8: A comfortable community environment that is free from excessive stationary and mobile noise and vibration.
 Policy S-8.13: Vibration Impacts. Require project specific vibration impact assessments for projects involving the use of vibration generating equipment such as pile drivers and vibratory rollers that could generate groundborne vibration levels. For projects with significant vibration impacts, require feasible mitigation measures to reduce ground vibration levels and exposure to sensitive receptors.
 Program TTT: Vibration Impact Assessment. Require project specific vibration impact assessments and vibration impact reduction measures for new development projects using major vibration generating equipment.

Proposed policy S-8.13 and proposed Implementation Program TTT would require a vibration impact assessment be prepared to ensure that significant vibration impacts are mitigated and that vibration levels and exposure to sensitive receivers are reduced. Typical vibration minimization techniques include (1) limiting construction activities with the highest potential to produce vibration to hours with the least potential to affect nearby institutional, educational, and office uses and (2) notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities that would generate vibration. Since at this stage of planning, project-level details are not available for individual development, it is not possible to determine which projects may use pile driving or other vibration generating equipment, or their 244
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-23
exact vibration levels, locations, or time periods for construction. Therefore, even after implementation of proposed policy S-8.13, construction vibration impacts may exceed the FTA’s vibration levels for preventing architectural building damage, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would reduce construction groundborne vibration and noise impacts to less than significant.

Operation
Residential, commercial, industrial, and retail land uses facilitated by the project would not involve substantial vibration sources associated with operation such subways and would not directly increase the amount of railroad traffic on rail lines in the plan area. Therefore, project operational groundborne vibration and noise impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
NOI-3 Construction Vibration Control Plan
Prior to issuance of a building permit for a project that includes the following, the project applicant shall prepare a groundborne noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these construction activities:
 Pile driving within:
 135 feet of fragile structures such as historical resources;  100 feet of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential buildings); or
 75 feet of engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster);  A vibratory roller within:
 40 feet of fragile historical resources; or
 25 feet of any other structure
 A dozer or other large earthmoving equipment within:
 20 feet for a fragile historical structure; or
 15 feet of any other structure
The noise and vibration analysis shall be conducted by a qualified and experienced acoustical consultant or engineer. The vibration levels shall not exceed FTA architectural damage thresholds (e.g., 0.12 in/sec PPV for fragile or historical resources, 0.2 in/sec PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for engineered concrete and masonry). If vibration levels would exceed this threshold, alternative uses such as drilling piles as opposed to pile driving, static rollers as opposed to vibratory rollers, and lower horsepower earthmoving equipment shall be used.

If necessary, construction vibration monitoring shall be conducted to ensure FTA vibration thresholds are not exceeded.

Significance After Mitigation
Construction vibration impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3, which requires measures to reduce construction vibration. 245
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-24
Threshold 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
IMPACT NOI-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN AIRPORT OR AIRSTRIP ACTIVITY. THE CONTINUED REGULATION OF AIRPORT NOISE CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN, AND

COMPLIANCE WITH NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN WOULD MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING WITHIN PROXIMITY OF THE NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The Napa County Airport does not offer commercial airline service and would not serve residents and businesses associated with development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan. As such, implementation of the project would not increase airport activities or airport noise.

Existing requirements for airports would reduce the noise impacts of airport activity on residents and workers. Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations establishes noise standards for airports and the responsibilities of the regional Airport Land Use Commissions, which prepare land use compatibility plans with thorough evaluations of airport noise, as described above in Section 4.7.2, Regulatory Setting. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administrative Regulation Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program is designed to reduce the effect of airport noise on the surrounding communities as airports expand.

Furthermore, individual development would be subject to all development standards for each compatibility zone, and other policies contained within the Napa County ALUCP intended to reduce land use conflicts with airport operations. Lastly, the following proposed goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan would reduce noise from the Napa County Airport through airport land use consistency, mitigation, and coordination with the Napa County Airport:

Goal S-6: A community protected from loss of life, injury, and property damage from aircraft operations.
 Policy S-6.1: Airport Land Use Consistency. Review all applications for new development, expansion of existing uses, and re-use within Napa County Airport Compatibility Zones “A” through “E” for compliance with the appropriate use and development conditions.  Policy S-6.2: Adverse Airport Impact Mitigation. Work with the Napa County Airport Authority to ensure that onsite ground activities of the Airport do not adversely impact (e.g., noise, vibration, air emissions, or other pollution) the City of American Canyon.

Goal S-9: Limit aircraft noise impacts consistent with the Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
 Policy S-9.1: Land Use Compatibility. Restrict development of uses within the 65 CNEL contour of Napa Airport to industrial, agricultural, or other open space uses.  Policy S-9.2: Development Requirements. Require development in the vicinity of Napa Airport comply with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUP) noise standards.  Policy S-9.3: Napa County Airport. Work closely with Napa County Airport to ensure the airport’s operations do not generate adverse noise conditions in the City of American Canyon. 246
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-25
Given the existing regulations and implementation of proposed goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan, airport activity would not expose residents and workers to excessive noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 247
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.7-26
This page intentionally left blank.
248
Environmental Impact Analysis
Paleontological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1

4.8 Paleontological Resources
This section summarizes the potential to encounter paleontological resources in the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts on paleontological resources due to the project.

4.8.1 Setting
a. Regional Geology
The City of American Canyon is in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, one of the eleven geomorphic provinces of California (California Geological Survey 2002). The Coast Ranges extend along most of California’s coast from the California-Oregon border to Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County, and consist of northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys. The Coast Ranges are composed of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic strata. The eastern side is characterized by strike-ridges and valleys in the Upper Mesozoic strata. The Coast Ranges province runs parallel to and overlaps the San Andreas Fault in some areas (California Geological Survey 2002). The City of American Canyon is located on the northeastern shore of San Pablo Bay on the east side of Napa Slough, the outlet of the Napa River.

Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (SVP 2010). Fossils occur in a noncontinuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources. b. Geologic Units
The geology of the region surrounding the Planning Area was mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 by Graymer et al. (2002), who identified the following 12 distinct geologic units underlying the Planning Area:
 Artificial fill
 Quaternary stream channel deposits
 Bay Mud
 Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Holocene)
 Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene)
 Huichica Formation
 Cierbo Sandstone, intercalated basalt
 Markley Sandstone
 Markley Sandstone, Jameson Shale Member
 Domengine Sandstone
249
City of American Canyon
2040 American Canyon General Plan Update

4.8-2
 Great Valley Complex, sandstone and shale
 Great Valley Complex, serpentinite
The following section discusses the geographic distribution, lithologic characteristics, and paleontological sensitivity of each of these geologic units. Figure 4.8-1 identifies the geologic units in the Planning Area.

Artificial Fill (af)
Artificial fill is found in a small part of western American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1). Artificial fill consists of human-deposited sediments (Graymer et al. 2002), which have no paleontological sensitivity.

Quaternary Stream Channel Deposits (Qhc)
Quaternary stream channel deposits underlie American Canyon Creek, which primarily runs westward toward North Slough (Figure 4.8-1). Quaternary stream channel deposits consist of unconsolidated cobbles, gravel, and sand, with minor amounts of clay and silt that is deposited by active stream channels (Graymer et al. 2002). Quaternary stream channel deposits are undergoing active deposition, which means they are too young to preserve paleontological resources.

Therefore, Quaternary stream channel deposits have low paleontological sensitivity.

Bay Mud (Qhbm)
Bay Mud is found in much of western American Canyon beneath North Slough (Figure 4.8-1). Bay Mud consists of blue, gray, green, or black, bedded to massive, poorly to well-consolidated, silty clay with interspersed layers of sand, gravel, peat, and preserved shells (Graymer et al. 2002). Bay Mud is Holocene in age, meaning it is likely too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Therefore, Bay Mud has low paleontological sensitivity.

Quaternary Alluvial Fan Deposits (Holocene) (Qhf)
Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) are found in parts of central American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1). Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) consist of moderately to poorly sorted, moderately to poorly bedded, gravel, sand, silt, and clay (Graymer et al. 2002). Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) are likely too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources (SVP 2010); therefore, they have low paleontological sensitivity.

Quaternary Alluvial Fan Deposits (Pleistocene) (Qpf)
Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) underlie much of central American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1). Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) consist of poorly sorted, moderately to poorly bedded, gravel, silt, sand, and clay (Graymer et al. 2002). Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) have produced significant paleontological resources throughout the San Francisco Bay region, including mammoth (Mammuthus), ground sloth (Paramylodon), mastodon (Mammut), horse (Equus), rodents, reptiles, and birds (Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database [PBDB] 2022; University of California Museum of Paleontology [UCMP] 2022). Given this fossil-producing history, Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) have high paleontological sensitivity. 250
Environmental Impact Analysis
Paleontological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-3
Figure 4.8-1 Geologic Units in the Planning Area
251
City of American Canyon
2040 American Canyon General Plan Update

4.8-4
Huichica Formation (QTh)
The Huichica Formation underlies part of northwestern American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1). The Huichica Formation consists of yellow, massively bedded siltstone; well-sorted sandstone; or poorly consolidated gravel, that is early Pleistocene to Pliocene in age (Graymer et al. 2002). There are no known significant fossil localities from the Huichica Formation; therefore, it has low paleontological sensitivity.

Cierbo Sandstone, Intercalated Basalt (Tv)
As shown in Figure 4.8-1, a small part of northwestern American Canyon is mapped as a late Miocene, black basaltic deposit within outcrops of the Cierbo Sandstone (Graymer et al. 2002).

Basalt is an igneous rock, which forms through the cooling of lava at Earth’s surface. Therefore, intercalated basalt of the Cierbo Sandstone cannot preserve paleontological resources and has no paleontological sensitivity.

Markley Sandstone (Tmk) and Markley Sandstone, Jameson Shale Member (Tmjk)
The Markley Sandstone and the Jameson Shale Member of the Markley Sandstone are found in eastern American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1). The Markley Sandstone consists of white to light gray, buffweathering micaceous sandstone (Graymer et al. 2002). The Jameson Shale Member of the Markley Sandstone consists of brown, laminated, siliceous mudstone (Graymer et al. 2002). Although they differ in lithology, they are historically considered part of the same geologic formation; therefore, fossils are generally identified as coming from the ‘Markley Sandstone’ in general. The Markley Sandstone has produced numerous fossil localities throughout California, yielding taxa such as sharks, ray-finned fish, plants, gastropods, bivalves, and microfossils (Graymer et al. 2002; PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022). Given this fossil-producing history, the Markley Sandstone and the Jameson Shale Member of the Markley Sandstone have high paleontological sensitivity.

Domengine Sandstone (Td)
The Domengine Sandstone underlies a small part of eastern American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1). The Domengine Sandstone consists of white, gray-weathering, semi-friable, locally cross-bedded sandstone, that is also known as the Domengene Sandstone or Muir Sandstone (Graymer et al. 2002). The Domengine Sandstone is middle Eocene in age. The Domengine Sandstone (and Domengene/Muir Sandstone) have produced many bivalve, annelid, gastropod, and echinoid fossils throughout California (PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022). Given this fossil-producing history, the Domengine Sandstone has high paleontological sensitivity.

Great Valley Complex, Sandstone and Shale (Ku)
Sandstone and shale of the Great Valley Complex underlies parts of eastern and central American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1). These sandstone and shale beds are Late Cretaceous in age and consist of various interbedded lithologies, including carbonaceous biotite wacke; laminated fine sandstone; greenish-gray mudstone; greenish-gray, gray, or black shale; or white-mica sandstone (Graymer et al. 2002). Late Cretaceous sedimentary rocks of the Great Valley Complex (some of which are assigned to named units such as the Moreno, Panoche, or Yolo formations) have produced fossils throughout California, including dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae), mosasaurs, sharks, ray-finned fish, bivalves, gastropods, and cephalopods (PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022). However, the beds mapped within 252
Environmental Impact Analysis
Paleontological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5
American Canyon cannot be confidently assigned to these or any other named geologic unit of the Great Valley Complex. Therefore, sandstone and shale of the Great Valley Complex have undetermined paleontological sensitivity.

Great Valley Complex, Serpentinite (sp)
Serpentinite of the Great Valley Complex underlies parts of eastern American Canyon (Figure 4.8-1).

Serpentinite is a metamorphic rock (Graymer et al. 2002), meaning it was formed by the alteration of pre-existing rock by intense heat or pressure. This metamorphic process would destroy any fossils that may have been present within that original rock. Therefore, serpentinite of the Great Valley Complex has no paleontological sensitivity.

Summary of Paleontological Sensitivity
The Planning Area is underlain by 12 distinct geologic units, four of which have high paleontological sensitivity and one of which has undetermined paleontological sensitivity. Table 4.8-1 summarizes the paleontological sensitivity of geologic units in the Planning Area.

Table 4.8-1 Paleontological Sensitivity in the Planning Area Geologic Unit Age Paleontological Sensitivity
Artificial fill (af) Late Holocene Low
Quaternary stream channel deposits (Qhc) Holocene Low
Bay Mud (Qhbm) Holocene Low
Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) (Qhf) Holocene Low Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) (Qpf) Pleistocene High Huichica Formation (QTh) Pleistocene to Pliocene Low
Cierbo Sandstone, intercalated basalt (Tv) Miocene None Markley Sandstone (Tmk) Eocene High
Markley Sandstone, Jameson Shale Member (Tmjk) Eocene High Domengine Sandstone (Td) Paleocene High
Great Valley Complex, sandstone and shale (Ku) Late Cretaceous Undetermined Great Valley Complex, serpentinite (sp) Jurassic None

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal
The following federal regulations would apply for projects that receive federal funding, are located on federal lands, or are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The National Historic Preservation Act applies to paleontological resources that are found in culturally-related contexts; such related materials qualify as cultural resources. Consequently, recovery and treatment protocols included in the project-specific Cultural Resources Management Plan should be followed for discoveries of paleontological resources in culturally-related contexts. 253
City of American Canyon
2040 American Canyon General Plan Update

4.8-6
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009
The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) is part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111-011 Subtitle D). This act directs the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land and to develop plans for inventorying, monitoring, and deriving the scientific and educational use of such resources. It prohibits the removal of paleontological resources from federal land without a permit issued under this act, establishes penalties for violation of this act, and creates a program to increase public awareness about these resources. A paleontological resource use permit is required to collect paleontological resources of scientific interest. The act requires that paleontological resources collected under a permit remain United States property, preserved for the public in an approved repository, and available for scientific research and public education. The act also requires that the nature and location of paleontological resources on public lands remain confidential as a means of protecting the resources from theft and vandalism. Section 6301 of the PRPA and Departmental Proposed Rule at 43 CFR Part 49 define a paleontological resource as:

Any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on the earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth, except that the term does not include— (A) any materials associated with an archaeological resource… (B) any cultural item… (3) Resources determined in writing by the authorized officer to lack paleontological interest or not provide information about the history of life on earth, based on scientific and other management considerations.

Consistent with the definition of a paleontological resource under the PRPA, those paleontological resources that lack scientific interest (e.g., resources that are ubiquitous or do not provide information about the history of life on earth) are considered scientifically non-significant fossils. b. State
California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states the following:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

The term “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, and for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.
c. Local
There are no local regulations related to paleontological resources. 254
Environmental Impact Analysis
Paleontological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7

4.8.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to paleontological resources from implementation of the project would be significant if it would:

1. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Methodology
The paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the Planning Area were evaluated to assess the project’s potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of a review of existing information in the scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped in the Planning Area. According to the SVP (2010) classification system, geologic units can be assigned a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Following the literature review, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to each geologic unit mapped within the Planning Area. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units. a. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact PAL-1 THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Ground disturbance in previously undisturbed portions of the Planning Area underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity may result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. The 2040 General Plan contains the following proposed policy related to reducing impacts to paleontological resources.
 Policy ENV-5.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.

Although this proposed policy would reduce impacts, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed. The potential effects of a project on paleontological resources are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions (e.g., presence and depth of disturbed sediments or artificial fill) and the characteristics of the proposed ground‐disturbing activity (i.e., depth of ground disturbance and construction activity). Therefore, ground disturbing construction activities in disturbed or developed areas may impact paleontological resources if previously undisturbed, high-sensitivity sediments are encountered below the surface.
255
City of American Canyon
2040 American Canyon General Plan Update

4.8-8
Ground disturbing activities associated with construction facilitated by the project have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface in areas of high paleontological sensitivity. Consequently, damage to or destruction of fossils could occur due to development facilitated by the project. Impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure PAL-1 would require future projects be assessed for their potential to significantly impact paleontological resources.

Mitigation Measure
PAL-1 Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist Prior to submittal of a discretionary development application in areas underlain by high or undetermined sensitivity geologic units (i.e., Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits; Markley Sandstone; Jameson Shale Member of Markley Sandstone; Domengine Sandstone; and sandstone and shale of the Great Valley Complex), the City shall require a Qualified Professional Paleontologist [as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010)] be retained to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards. If necessary, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall recommend 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.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL-1 would reduce adverse effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 256
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1

4.9 Population and Housing
This section summarizes existing and projected population and housing in the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts on population and housing due to the project.

4.9.1 Setting
a. Population
The City of American Canyon was incorporated in 1992. American Canyon was developed following World War II, with the McKnight Acres subdivision in the 1940s and Rancho Del Mar in the 1950s (City of American Canyon 2022). In 1992, when American Canyon was incorporated, the population was 8,341 (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2000). By the year 2000, the population grew approximately 17 percent to 9,774 (DOF 2000). From 2000 to 2010, the City experienced a rapid population growth and population increased approximately 99 percent to 19,454 (DOF 2010b).

Growth after 2010 slowed and experienced an approximately seven percent population increase from 2010 to 2020 (DOF 2020a). From 2020 to 2024, the City’s population continued to slowly increase from 21,544 residents in 2020 to 21,758 residents in January 2024, representing an approximately one percent increase (DOF 2024).
b. Housing
A household is defined as a group of people who occupy a housing unit (U.S. Census Bureau 2021). A household differs from a dwelling unit because the number of dwelling units includes both occupied and vacant dwelling units. Typically, not all the population in a given area lives in households. A portion of the population lives in group quarters, such as board and care facilities, while others are homeless.

Housing Units
Table 4.9-1 shows the growth in number of housing units in the City, County, and State between 2010 and 2024. As shown in Table 4.9-1, between 2010 and 2024, 643 units were added to the City’s housing inventory resulting in an overall growth of 10.2 percent during this period. Between 2010 and 2024, the County grew at a slower rate of 2.6 percent. The State also grew at a slower rate of

8.1 percent.

Table 4.9-1 Housing Inventory in the City, County, and State American Canyon Napa County California
2010 2024 2010 2024 2010 2024
Total Housing Units 5,982 6,625 54,759 56,181 13,670,304 14,824,827 Occupied 5,657 6,473 48,876 50,544 12,568,167 13,880,371 Vacancy Rate 5.4% 2.3% 10.7% 10% 8.1% 6.4%
Percent Change in Total
Housing Units from 2010
to 2024

10.2% 2.6% 8.1%
Note: The number of housing units added to American Canyon exceeds that of the total number of housing units added to Napa County. This can be attributed to the removal of housing units in Napa County between 2010-2022.

Source: DOF 2010a (for 2010 data) and DOF 2024 (for 2024 data) 257
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.9-2
In January 2024, approximately 5,174 of the housing units in the City were single-family detached homes, approximately 51 units were single-family attached homes, approximately 572 units were multi-family units (buildings of at least two units), and approximately 828 units were mobile homes (DOF 2024).

Household Size
Small households (one to two persons per household [pph]) traditionally occupy units with zero to two bedrooms; family households (three to four pph) normally occupy units with three to four bedrooms. Large households (five or more pph) typically occupy units with four or more bedrooms.

The number of units in relation to the household size may reflect preference and economics. Many small households obtain larger units, and some large households live in small units, for economic reasons. Table 4.9-2 compares the size of households in the City, County, and State in 2010 and 2024.

Table 4.9-2 Household Size in the City, County, and State American Canyon Napa County California
2010 2024 2010 2024 2010 2024
Household Size (pph) 3.43 3.35 2.69 2.55 2.90 275
Percent Change from 2010 to 2022 2.4% 5.3% 5.4%
Source: DOF 2020b (for 2010 data) and DOF 2024 (for 2024 data) As shown in Table 4.9-2 the average household size in American Canyon decreased from 3.43 pph in 2010 to 3.35 in 2024. Over the same period, household size in the County decreased from 2.69 to

2.55, a decrease of approximately 5.3 percent. Household size in the State decreased from 2.90 to

2.75, a decrease of approximately 5.4 percent. Between 2010 and 2024, the City maintained a higher average household size in comparison to the County and State average household sizes. c. Jobs Housing Ratio
Information on the jobs-housing ratio is provided for informational purposes only. The jobshousehold ratio in a jurisdiction is an overall indicator of jobs availability within the area. A balance of jobs and housing can give residents an opportunity to work locally and avoid employment commutes to other places in the region. DOF estimates that American Canyon has a ratio of 0.95 jobs per dwelling unit. The Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) regional map depicting projected household and job growth also illustrates a 1 percent job growth in south Napa County, including American Canyon, as a share of the regional job growth (ABAG 2021). That amounts to more than one job per household, which means that workers do not have to travel to other communities to find employment. Most households have more than one worker; therefore, a ratio of jobs to housing should be above 1:1 to have a balance of jobs to households. d. Projections
Table 4.9-3 presents population, dwelling units, and employment projections by DOF and ABAG through 2040 for American Canyon. It is estimated the population of American Canyon will grow approximately 15 percent between 2024 and 2040 (DOF 2024, ABAG 2019). This translates to an estimated 3,522 new residents by 2040. The available data shows dwelling units decreasing in American Canyon; however, this is unlikely the case because the American Canyon Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is 622 residential units and the city anticipates 1,055 new dwelling units in 258
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3
the next 8 years. The City’s Housing Element is the 6th Cycle State requirements for the 2023-2031 planning horizon. The City’s Housing Element will help facilitate the development of housing. Jobs are expected to increase 31 percent between 2021 and 2040. American Canyon’s jobs-housing ratio would increase by approximately 0.32. However, these projections included within this Setting do not represent the projections that the City of American Canyon anticipates from implementation of its updated General Plan. A discussion of the City's anticipated projections is included within Section 2, Project Description, and discussed in Impact POP-1.

Table 4.9-3 American Canyon Estimated Population, Dwelling Units, and Employment American Canyon 2022 2040
Change
2022 to 2040
Percent Change
2022 to 2040
Population 21,758 25,280 3,522 15%
Dwelling Units 6,625 6,420 -205 -3.1%
Jobs 6,2101 8,165 1,955 31%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.95 1.27 0.32 14%
Source: ABAG 2019, DOF 2024
1 Data is from most recent projections for the year 2020 (ABAG 2019)

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that would be applicable to the project. b. State Regulations
California Relocation Assistance Act
The California Relocation Assistance Act of 1971 (Government Code Section 7260 et seq.) applies to State and local program that receive State funding. This Act requires notification, counseling, social services, and financial assistance for persons displaced by transportation and land redevelopment projects. These procedural protections and benefits apply when the project causing the displacement has received State funding during any phase of the program or project.

Housing Element Law
First enacted in 1969, housing element law (Government Code Sections 65580–65589.8) mandates that local governments adequately plan to meet the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community. The law acknowledges that in order for the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, local governments must adopt land use plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. As a result, housing policy in the State rests largely upon the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements. Housing element law also requires the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review local housing elements for compliance with State law and to report its written findings to the local government.
259
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.9-4
California Government Code Section 65583 specifies the State Housing Element requirements. The Housing Element is one of the State-mandated elements of the General Plan and is updated every eight years. HCD is responsible for reviewing Housing Elements to ensure compliance with State law.

Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) is summarized in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning. c. Regional and Local Regulations
City of American Canyon Housing Element
The Housing Element is one of the seven State-mandated elements of the General Plan (Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4). The Housing Element serves as a tool to identify and provide for the housing needs of the community. It identifies recent demographic and employment trends that may affect existing and future housing demand and supply. California law requires the Housing Element to establish policies and programs that will support the provision of an adequate housing supply for citizens of all income levels. The Housing Element is the only element that requires review by the State. The element addresses the city’s ability to meet the regional housing needs as determined by the State of California. American Canyon’s 6th cycle Housing Element was adopted on January 31, 2023 and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on June 30, 2023.

4.9.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on population and housing if it would:

Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area either directly or indirectly; or Displace substantial number of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

For purposes of this analysis, substantial population growth is defined as growth exceeding ABAG population forecasts for American Canyon. Substantial displacement would occur if implementation of the project would displace more residences than would be accommodated through growth accommodated by the project.

Methodology
Population and housing trends in the City were evaluated by reviewing the most current data available from the DOF, ABAG, and the City’s Housing Element. Impacts related to population are generally social or economic in nature. Under CEQA, a social or economic change generally is not considered a significant effect on the environment unless the changes are directly linked to a physical change.
260
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Impact POP-1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING IN AMERICAN CANYON AND WOULD INCREASE POPULATION. THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN WOULD

ACCOMMODATE AND PLAN FOR POPULATION GROWTH AND INCLUDES POLICIES TO MANAGE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

This EIR identifies a maximum buildout for the project and is a conservative assumption developed for this analysis, not meant to be a predictor of future growth. Overall, maximum buildout will be dependent on multiple factors, including local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. The maximum buildout scenario for this EIR is estimated to be approximately 3,204 net new residential units by the year 2040 (see Section 2, Project Description).

According to the California Department of Finance’s population estimates, the average persons per household in American Canyon was 3.35 in 2022 (DOF 2024). Assuming 3.35 persons per household, the 3,204 additional residential units could generate approximately 10,734residents. According to Plan Bay Area 20401
, the population of American Canyon is expected to increase to 25,280 residents by the year 2040 (ABAG 2019). As described in Section 4.9.1, Setting, the population of the City of American Canyon in January 2024 was approximately 21,758 residents. Therefore, the addition of roughly 10,734 residents by the year 2040 would exceed ABAG projections by roughly 7,212 residents or 25 percent.

However, the population growth associated with the project would not be considered unplanned for several reasons. Buildout under the General Plan consists of projected growth facilitated by several approved plans and projects including the Broadway District Specific Plan, Watson Ranch Specific Plan, and Oat Hill Residential General Plan Amendment. These projects have undergone separate CEQA review and have been approved by the City of American Canyon. Cumulatively, these planned projects result in most of the projected growth. Furthermore, the State requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their communities. Given that the State is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional residential units under the project would further assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the City’s communities.

Finally, the following policies from the 6th Cycle Housing Element support the goals to direct future development to minimize the impacts of growth by emphasizing the intensification and reuse of already developed areas and redevelopment to infill areas:
 Policy H-1.1: Sufficient Lower-Income Capacity. Designate sufficient vacant land and underutilized sites with maximum densities to facilitate housing development affordable to lower-income households.
 Policy H-1.3: Existing Residential Capacity. Protect residentially designated sites from reclassification to nonresidential designations or downzoning to lower densities. 1 Plan Bay Area 2040 population estimates were used instead of Plan Bay Area 2050 because the latter did not include population estimates at the city level.
261
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.9-6
 Policy H-2.1: Diversity of Housing Types. Promote a diversity of housing types, including largelot development, single family detached and attached residences, mobile homes, manufactured homes, townhomes, multi-family rental and ownership units, accessory dwelling units, and units combined with nonresidential uses.
 Policy H-2.2: Housing Type Flexibility. Allow flexibility in the type of units developed on vacant, residentially designated properties in master-planned communities and other planned developments.
 Policy H-2.6: Mixed Use Development. Encourage development of residential uses in association with compatible nonresidential uses in commercial zones.

Therefore, because the project is designed for planned and orderly growth, as mandated by the State, development in accordance with the project would not indirectly induce growth in the City.

Impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, the Mobility Element for the 2040 General Plan identifies major street improvements that the City has proposed. The street improvements include extension of roadways, such as Newell Drive and new pedestrian overcrossing. The roadway extensions would serve the existing population of American Canyon, as well as development that has already been planned and would not induce unplanned growth. For example, the Newell Drive Extension would serve the planned development for both the Watson Ranch Specific Plan and the Watson Lane Annexation Project. As such, the roadway improvement associated with the project would serve already planned growth.

Impacts on indirect population growth due to roadway infrastructure would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

Threshold 2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact POP-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE DISPLACEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF HOUSING OR PEOPLE. THE PROJECT WOULD FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW

HOUSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, WHILE PRESERVING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As described in Impact POP-1, the conservative estimate of the maximum residential buildout for the project is an additional 3,204 housing units. In addition, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the conservative estimate of the maximum non-residential buildout (i.e., commercial, retail, hotel, industrial, warehouse, and research and development uses) is 5,704,000 square feet. It is not currently known whether future development projects would result in the displacement of housing. Nonetheless, the Housing Element includes the following proposed policies to minimize displacement of housing:
 Policy H-1.3: Existing Residential Capacity. Protect residentially designated sites from reclassification to nonresidential designations or downzoning to lower densities. 262
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population and Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-7
 Policy H-2.9: Missing Middle Housing. Encourage development of missing middle and workforce housing appropriate for households with incomes between 80 and 140 percent of the median household income.
 Policy H-3.4: Older Neighborhood Infrastructure. Through the Capital Improvement Program, as a social justice program measure maintain infrastructure of older neighborhoods in good condition.
 Policy H-4.2: Neighborhood Rehabilitation. Support rehabilitation in older residential neighborhoods and low resource areas.
 Policy H-4.6 Housing Balance. Promote a balance of rental and affordable ownership housing.  Policy H-6.3 Affordable Unit Replacement. Require applicants to replace housing as a condition of development approval when discretionary development applications convert or remove housing units occupied by, and are affordable to, very low- or low-income households.  Policy H-6.5 Mobile Home Park Protection. Protect mobile home park residents from involuntary displacement and unreasonable rent increases.

Overall, the Housing Element would promote infill development; the redevelopment of abandoned, obsolete, or underutilized properties; and the adaptation of existing residential units to support multi-family use. These development patterns would minimize displacement. Additionally, the Housing Element includes policies, such as those above, which would reduce the impacts of future development on existing neighborhoods and residents within the city. Furthermore, the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1971 would apply to potential future development facilitated by the General Plan and requires notification, counseling, social services, and financial assistance for persons displaced by transportation and land redevelopment projects. These procedural protections and benefits apply when the project causing the displacement has received State funding during any phase of the program or project. Through this program as well as the project objectives and policies stated above, the General Plan would not result in the net loss or displacement of housing and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 263
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.9-8
This page intentionally left blank
264
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1

4.10 Public Services and Recreation
This section summarizes the public services, including recreational resources in the Planning Area and analyzes the potential effects on public services and recreation related to implementation of the project.

4.10.1 Setting
a. Fire Protection
Fire protection, emergency medical services, and technical rescue services in the City of American Canyon are provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). The ACFD provides a wide range of programs, including fire suppression, training, emergency medical services, hazardous materials cleanup, public education, and urban search and rescue. The ACFD provides a response to an approximately 15 square mile area that includes the city limits of the City of American Canyon and nearby unincorporated areas of southern Napa County (ACFD 2020). ACFPD is a subsidiary special District of the City of American Canyon, with the elected City Council members serving as the ex-officio Board of Directors. ACFPD is funded primarily through property taxes and voter approved special taxes, ACFPD’s budget is separate and distinct from the City of American Canyon.

Personnel, Facilities, and Equipment
The ACFPD currently employs 23 career fire personnel (City of American Canyon 2022a) and is staffed daily with a minimum of six personnel, of which a minimum of two firefighters are Paramedics. Staffing is accomplished by having twenty-one career firefighters assigned to three platoons referred to as “A,” “B,” and “C” shift. All sworn ACFPD employees are trained to the level of Emergency Medical Technician or as an Emergency Medical Technician-Paramedic. ACFPD employees are able to provide advanced live support. In 2021, the ACFPD responded to 1,689 incidents in their jurisdiction, as well as 98 incidents in Napa County and 61 incidents in Vallejo (ACFPD 2022a). The typical response time by the ACFPD is approximately 5 minutes or less (ACFPD 2022a).

The ACFPD operates out of two stations located at 225 James Road and 911 Donaldson Way East, both located centrally within the City. Across the two locations, the AFCD is equipped with firefighting apparatuses and support vehicles. A fire engine is staffed by at least one firefighter who is also a licensed paramedic on a 24-7 basis. The ACFPD and American Medical Response (AMR) have established a public- private partnership that enhances the emergency medical system in Napa County and are working together to provide shorter response times. Table 4.10-1 details ACFPD equipment (ACFPD 2022a).

Table 4.10-1 ACFPD Equipment
Equipment Equipment Features
Engine 211  Spartan Cab and Chassis
 1,500 Gallons Per Minute Single Stage Pump
 500 Gallon Water Tank
 20 Gallon of Class A Foam Tank
 Advanced Life Support
265
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.10-2
Equipment Equipment Features
Engine 411  500 Gallon Water Tank
 750 Gallon Per Minute Darley Pump
Truck 11  1,500 Gallon Per Minute Single Stage Pump
 500 Gallon Water Tank
 20 Gallons of Class A & B Foam
Rescue 11  25 Kilowatt Power Take Off Generator
 LED Telescopic Lighting System
 Cascade Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Breathing Air Fill System Brush 11  350 Gallon Water Tank
 10 Gallon Class A Foam
 180 Gallon Per Minute Darley Pump
 Advanced Life Support
Engine 11  2018 Pierce Enforcer Cab and Chassis
 1,500 Gallon per minute single stage pump
 500 gallon water tank
 20 gallon class A foam tank
 Advanced Life Support
Source: City of American Canyon 2022b
Services Provided
The Fire District provides emergency operations, fire suppression, advanced life support emergency medical care, and rescue in a public-private partnership with American Medical Response. Other services and functions include fire prevention, public education, business fire safety inspections, plan review, construction site inspection, code enforcement, fire investigation, public education outreach programs, disaster preparedness, emergency operations plan development, emergency operations center operations, and coordination of disaster preparedness training. The Fire District is also recognized by California Emergency Management Agency as a Type 1 (heavy) rescue single resource.

Aid Agreements
The ACFPD participates in the Napa Interagency Hazard Team which responds to hazardous materials incidents that occur within the County (ACFPD 2022a). The ACFPD also participates in the Napa Interagency Rescue Team which is a joint search and rescue team comprised of fire department personnel from other agencies within Napa County (ACFPD 2022a). The ACFPD also participates in both mutual aid and automatic aid agreements to multiple agencies in Napa and Solano Counties (City of American Canyon 2022a).

Incidents and Response Times
ACFPD responded to 1,868 incidents in 2021 (ACFPD 2022a). Rescues and emergency services accounted for 63 percent of the incidents (ACFPD 2022a). ACFPD has an established response time standard of first unit arrival within 5 minutes (total travel time) for 90 percent of all incidents (ACFPD 2022a).
266
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3
Insurance Services Office Rating
ACFPD has an Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating of Class 2 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best (City of American Canyon 2022a). An ISO rating accounts for factors such as emergency communication systems, personnel, training, equipment, and water supply. b. Police Protection
The American Canyon Police Department (ACPD) provides police protection services within the City through a contract with the Napa County Sheriff’s Office. As a result of this contract, the ACPD is staffed by Napa County Sheriff’s Office personnel who wear ACPD uniforms. ACFPD officers serve a variety of roles including patrol, K-9, D.A.R.E., investigations, communications, and School Resource Officers.

The ACPD operates out of one station located at 911 Donaldson Way East. For the Fiscal Year 2021/2022 the ACPD was staffed with 24 sworn officers, two police technicians, and one administrative clerk (ACPD 2022). At a minimum, there are three officers on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the ACDP ratio is 1.1 offers per 1,000 residents (County of Napa 2022a). Sworn staffing was comprised of the following: 1 chief; 4 sergeants; 2 traffic officers; 2 k-9 handlers; 2 school resource officers; 1 community resource officer; and 12 patrol officers. Between 2014 and 2021, ACPD responded to between 15,903 and 18,698 calls for service annually (ACPD 2022). c. Schools
Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD) provides elementary school (Kindergarten through 12th grade), Transitional Kindergarten, independent study, and one adult education program that serve the residents of the City. There are 27 schools in NVUSD, five of which are in the City: American Canyon High, American Canyon Middle, Canyon Oaks Elementary, Donaldson Way Elementary, and Napa Junction Elementary (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES] 2022a). Table 4.10-2 shows enrollment trends for these five schools. As shown in Table 4.10-2, enrollment at all middle and elementary schools has decreased and enrollment at American Canyon High school has increased between the 2017-2018 and 2020-2021 school years.

Table 4.10-2 Enrollment Trends for NVUSD Schools in American Canyon School Name Grades 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 Percent Change
2017-2018 to
2020-2021
American Canyon
High
9-12 1,572 1,617 1,670 1,707 8.6%
American Canyon
Middle
6-8 1,041 1,013 1,025 1,011 -2.9%
Canyon Oaks
Elementary
K-5 682 682 681 674 -1.2%
Donaldson Way
Elementary
K-5 602 591 574 524 -13.0%
Napa Junction
Elementary
K-5 446 409 417 420 -5.8%
Source: California Department of Education [CDE] 2022; NCES 2022b, 2022c, 2022d, 2022e, 2022f 267
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.10-4
d. Parks and Recreation
American Canyon has multiple recreational opportunities. The Planning Area has three mini-parks1, fifteen neighborhood parks2
,and five community parks3. These 23 parks total approximately 102 acres and are identified in Table 4.10-3. Amenities at these parks include picnic areas, diamond baseball fields, rectangle fields, outdoor basketball multi-use courts, tennis courts, playgrounds, dog parks/off leash areas, skate parks, swimming pool, and trails.

The City of American Canyon’s Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for the maintenance of park land and City recreation facilities as well as planning all City-sponsored recreation classes, programs, and special events. The City also jointly manages 10 miles of the Napa River Bay Trail with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Napa County Parks and Open Space District (City of American Canyon 2022c). Additionally, the Newell Open Space Preserve includes 642 acres of open space east of the City and is connected via Newell Creek (City of American Canyon 2022d).

In addition, American Canyon also has Wetlands Edge Park, which provides trails and offers opportunities to view marshland and the Napa River. Furthermore, the Napa County Regional Parks and Open Space District is in the process of acquiring the Suscol Ridge Regional Park, which totals 711 acres. According to the Bay Area Open Space Council, there are almost 1.4 million acres of regional trails and open space areas that are currently provided in the Bay Area (Bay Area Open Space Council 2014). By 2027, the Bay Open Space Council predicts that 2 million acres of regional trails and open space areas would be available for users.

There are also several additional nearby open space areas, including Lynch Canyon Open Space, Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area, Fagan Marsh Ecological Reserve, and Bull Island. Beyond the nearby open space areas and trails provided in Napa and Solano Counties, there are also other nearby regional parks in Sonoma and Marin counties, as well as park and open space amenities provided through the East Bay Regional Parks District, California State Parks system, and the National Parks Service lands.

In December 2015, the City published a Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment that compared the City’s park system to other similar cities nearby and determined the City ranks higher in terms of total park acreage, but ranks lower in terms of total park and facility sites due to its lack of indoor facilities (City of American Canyon 2015). The assessment determined that residents of the City have an unmet need for outdoor exercise and fitness areas, covered picnic areas, adventure areas, Napa River access, mountain biking trails, sports complexes, off-leash dog parks, community gardens, and community center space. Specifically, the assessment concluded that by 2030 the City should develop 77 additional acres of community parkland, four adult softball diamonds, three basketball multi-use outdoor courts, two off-leash dog parks, 23,305 square feet of indoor recreation space, and 3,927 square feet of indoor recreation space dedicated to senior citizens (City of American Canyon 2015).
1 As identified in the Environment, Parks and Recreation Element of the 2040 General Plan, mini-parks are not designed for active recreational uses but do provide passive open space. 2 As identified in the Environment, Parks and Recreation Element of the 2040 General Plan, neighborhood Parks are usually two and a half to five acres in size and primarily planned for children five to fourteen years of age. 3 As identified in the Environment, Parks and Recreation Element of the 2040 General Plan, community Parks are designed to serve several neighborhoods and parks are planned for youths and adults and provide for a wider range of activities than the neighborhood park or playground.
268
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5
Table 4.10-3 Parks in the Planning Area
Name Address/Location Acreage
Mini Parks
Bedford & Kensington 323 Bedford Lane 0.14
Nottingham & Bently 270 Nottingham Lane 0.10
Danrose Sports Court 785 Danrose Drive 1.24
Neighborhood Parks
Banbury Park 100 Banbury Way 8.83
Elliott Park 2234 Elliott Drive 2.83
Gadwall Park 161 Gadwall Street 2.0
Linwood Park 285 Linwood Lane 1.32
Main Street Park 5050 Main Street 3.0
Melvin Park 19 Melvin Road 1.3
Montecarlo Park 54 Montecarlo Way 2.75
Northampton Park 243 Northampton Drive 4.0
Pelleria Park 54 Pelleria Drive 1.0
Quarry Park (Proposed) N/A 7.1
Shenandoah Park 100 Sonoma Creek Way 6.0
Silver Oak Park 485 Silver Oak Drive 5.0
Via Bellagio Park 100 Via Bellagio 1.0
Watson Ranch Center Park (Proposed) Marcus Road 3.8
Watson Ranch Newell Park (Proposed) Newell Drive 7.4
Community Parks
Community Park I 1400 Rio Grande Drive 8.0
Community Park II 20 Benton Way 6.3
Kimberly Park 600 Kimberly Way 10.0
Little League Complex 280 Napa Junction Road 10.0
Veterans Memorial Park 2801 Broadway 9.0
e. Library Services
Library services in the City are provided by the Napa County Library system at the American Canyon Library. This library, located at 300 Crawford Way, is part of the four libraries within the Napa County Library system. The library consists of a 55,550-piece collection (books, DVDs, music CDs, audiobooks, magazines, and subscriptions to area newspapers), a group study area that can accommodate 18 people, 28 computers, and a meeting room, which can seat up to 100 people for a total of 16,000 sf of usable space. During fiscal year 2017/2018, the library had approximately 8,669 registered users (County of Napa 2022b).

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that would be applicable to the project. 269
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.10-6
b. State Regulations
Fire Protection
California Fire and Building Codes
The State of California provides minimum standards for building design through the California Building Code (CBC), which is located in Part 2 of Title 24, California Building Standards Code, of the California Code of Regulations. The CBC is based on the International Building Code but has been amended for California conditions. It is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions. Commercial and residential buildings are plan-checked by local building officials for compliance with the CBC. Typical fire safety requirements of the CBC include: the installation of sprinklers in all high-rise buildings; the establishment of fire resistance standards for fire doors, building materials, and particular types of construction; and the clearance of debris and vegetation within a prescribed distance from occupied structures in wildfire hazard areas.

California Code of Regulations
The California Code of Regulations, Title 5 Education Code, governs all aspects of education within the State. California State Assembly Bill 2926 (AB 2926) – School Facilities Act of 1986 – was enacted by the State of California in 1986 and added to the California Government Code (Section 65995). It authorizes school districts to collect development fees, based on demonstrated need, and generate revenue for school districts for capital acquisitions and improvements. It also established that the maximum fees which may be collected under this and any other school fee authorization are $1.50 per square foot for residential development and $0.25 per square foot for commercial and industrial development. AB 2926 was expanded and revised in 1987 through the passage of AB 1600, which added Section 66000 et seq. of the Government code. Under this statute, payment of statutory fees by developers serves as total mitigation under CEQA to satisfy the impact of development on school facilities. However, subsequent legislative actions have alternatively expanded and contracted the limits placed on school fees by AB 2926.

California Senate Bill 50
As part of the further refinement of the legislation enacted under AB 2926, the passage of SB 50 in 1998 defined the Needs Analysis process in government Code Sections 65995.5-65998. Under the provisions of SB 50, school districts may collect fees to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of development. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available; whether the school district is eligible for State funding; and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year-round schools, and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.

California Government Code sections 65995-65998 sets forth provisions to implement SB 50.

Specifically, in accordance with section 65995(h), the payment of statutory fees is “deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization…on the provision of adequate school facilities.” The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.
270
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7
Pursuant to Government Code section 65995(i), “A State or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve a legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization as defined in section 56021 or 56073 on the basis of a person's refusal to provide school facilities mitigation that exceeds the amounts authorized pursuant to this section or pursuant to section 65995.5 or 65995.7, as applicable.”
California Education Code section 17620(a)(1) states that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. NVUSD has developed an impact fee schedule with requires a payment of $0.66 per square foot of commercial and industrial development.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) establishes guidelines for developers’ exactions and in-lieu fees that may be used for parkland development. The act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new subdivisions to dedicate land for parks, pay an in-lieu fee, or perform a combination of the two. The Quimby Act provides two standards for the dedication of land for use as parkland (1) if the existing area of parkland in a community is three acres or more per 1,000 persons, then the community may require dedication based on a standard of 5 acres per 1,000 persons residing in the subdivision, (2) if the existing amount of parkland in a community is less than three acres per 1,000 persons, then the community may require dedication based on a standard of only three acres per 1,000 persons residing in the subdivision. The Quimby Act also requires a city or county to adopt standards for recreational facilities in its general plan recreation element if it is to adopt a parkland dedication/fee ordinance.

The amount of land dedicated, or fees paid, shall be based upon the residential density, determined based on the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household.
c. Local Regulations
City of American Canyon General Plan
The City’s Public Services and Facilities Element of the General Plan include the following policies (City of American Canyon 1994):
 Policy 6.3.1: Require that City planning staff work closely with Fire District officials to ensure that fire facilities and personnel are expanded commensurably to serve the needs of the City’s growing population and development base.
 Policy 6.3.3: Continue to respond to 90% of all calls within five minutes or less.  Policy 6.7.1: Periodically evaluate population growth, development characteristics, level of service (response time and staffing), and incidence of crime in the City to ensure that an adequate level of police protection is maintained.
 Policy 6.8.1: Annually monitor the adequacy of policing services to ensure that they are commensurate with the needs of the City, as judged by response times, types and quality of service, personnel skills, the crime rate and other relevant criteria. 271
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.10-8
American Canyon Fire Protection District Long-Range Master Plan The ACFPD Long-Range Master Plan, (LRMP) guides the efficient future growth and development of the Fire District to provide the community of American Canyon with the highest possible level of service balanced with long term financial sustainability. Adopted in October 2022, (Resolution 2022- 26) the LRMP identifies recommendations to improve long-range planning and delivery of fire and emergency services to the community (ACFPD 2022b).

The Plan recommendations relate to operations, procedures, and community involvement to deliver desired levels of service at the most efficient cost. To maintain long-range service levels, the LRMP recommends construction of a new relocated Fire Station 211.

City of American Canyon Impact Fees
Measure B, 1980 and Resolution 83-4 as amended by Resolution 2022-11 In 1980, voters approved Measure B, a special tax assessment to maintain levels of fire protection services in American Canyon. All property and mobile homeowners in American Canyon are required to pay this fee. The fee is calculated based on the physical building characteristics of a project, its use, and its immediate surroundings, to determine the gallons per minute that would be utilized to put out the most serious fire likely to occur near the development. Currently, singlefamily residential pays $0.2585 per square foot, multi-family residential pays $0.3154 per square foot, commercial uses pay $0.4731 per square foot, and industrial uses pay $0.5738 per square foot.

American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 15.08
Chapter 15.08 of the American Canyon Municipal Code establishes the Civic Facility and Park Impact Fee for all residential, accessory dwelling unit, commercial, office, and industrial developments. The fee is calculated by unit or by square foot depending on the type of development. The Civic Facility and Park Impact Fees collected are utilized for the expansion of City Hall, provision of additional support for the police station, support for the Aquatic Center offices, construction of the City library, corporate yard expansion, public parks, park facilities, and other offsite improvements.

4.10.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on public services and recreation if it would:

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection;
b. Police protection;
c. Schools;
272
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-9
d. Parks;
e. Other public facilities.

Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Methodology
The assessment of potential environmental impacts related to public services and recreation is based on a review of existing services within the Planning Area. As a programmatic document, this Program EIR presents a City-wide assessment of the project. Because the Program EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions for many years into the future, this analysis relies on programlevel and primarily qualitative evaluation.

Threshold 1a: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Threshold 1b: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Threshold 1e: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR FIRE, POLICE, AND LIBRARIES.

COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND CONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW WOULD MINIMIZE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR PHYSICALLY ALTERED FIRE, POLICE, OR LIBRARY FACILITIES. THESE IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Future development facilitated by the project would result in an increase in the Planning Area’s population, which would result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection, police protection, and other public services such as libraries.

The Planning Area would be served with fire protection and emergency medical services provided by ACFPD. As future buildout occurs in accordance with the project, the City would evaluate operations and deployment of fire protection services. Future development would be required to meet the standard fire code safety and access requirements administered by the City of American Canyon Building Division and specified by the California Building Code. In accordance with standard practices, ACFPD would review project plans before permits are issued to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building code standards and ensure adequate emergency access is provided to 273
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.10-10
the site. The project would be required to pay two separate special assessments to fund fire protection and emergency medical services. The first is the “Fire Mitigation Fee,” a one-time assessment to all new development. The second is the “Fire Service Fee” and an annual assessment for each parcel based on a formula that includes structure construction type, the fire flow area (square feet), proximity of other structures, the type of occupancy, and the presence of fire protection devices. In addition, the Public Services and Facilities Element includes policies 6.3.1 and

6.3.3, which requires that planning staff work closely with Fire District officials to ensure that fire facilities and personnel are expanded commensurably to serve the needs of the City’s growing population and development base and that 90 percent of calls are responded to within five minutes or less.

The Planning would be served with police protection provided by the ACPD. The Police Department is staffed by the Napa County Sheriff’s Office, which provides law enforcement services on a contract basis to the City of American Canyon. Development facilitated by the project would increase the number of annual incidents. The Police Department will have the opportunity to review and comment on security measures during the plan check review process for future development.

In addition, the Public Services and Facilities Element includes policies 6.7.1 and 6.8.1, which required periodically evaluating population growth, development characteristics, level of service (response time and staffing), and incidence of crime in the City to ensure that an adequate level of police protection is maintained and annually monitoring the adequacy of policing services to ensure that they are commensurate with the needs of the City.

Future development facilitated by the project would result in an increase in population which could result in an increased demand for library services. Pursuant to the City’s 2022 Civic Facilities Fees, future development would be required to pay fees that are collected and used to fund expanded library services in the City.

The City has identified the requirements for additional personnel and equipment as functions of fees implemented through Resolution 2022-11 and American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter

15.08. New development is required to pay impact fees and contribute their fair share to the cost of funding fire protection, police protection, and library services in American Canyon. The 2040 General Plan Land Use Element provides the following proposed policy that would ensure adequate fire and police protection is provided in American Canyon:
 Policy LU-1.8: Infrastructure Coordination. Ensure that new development consistent with the Land Use Plan is coordinated with the provision of adequate public infrastructure (e.g., transportation facilities, capital improvements, wastewater collection and treatment, water supply, electrical, natural gas, telecommunications, solid waste disposal, and storm drainage) and public services (e.g., governmental administrative, police, fire, recreation) Given the demand for fire, police, and library services in the City, fire and police staffing needs in American Canyon are likely to increase, which could require the construction of new facilities.

Future facilities could be located within the Planning Area but would require adherence to all applicable building and zoning codes and additional CEQA review to analyze project and location specific impacts. It is not possible to identify the specific nature, extent, and significance of physical impacts on the environment that could result from the construction and operation of future fire facilities without knowing the size and nature of the facility, or its location. For example, future facilities could feasibly be housed in an existing building, which would have less of a physical impact on the environment than the construction of a new facility. As such, impacts related to fire, police, and library services would be less than significant.
274
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-11
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

Threshold 1c: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-2 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PAY IMPACT

FEES THAT WOULD PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PROVISION OR EXPANSION OF NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65995(B). IMPACTS FROM THE PROJECT WOULD BE OFFSET BY THE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Future development facilitated by the project would result in an increase in population in the Planning Area, which would contribute to an increase in students who would be served by NVUSD.

Future residential, commercial, and industrial development in American Canyon would be required to pay state-mandated impact mitigation fees to provide funding for additional schools to serve the area, pursuant to Senate Bill 50. Pursuant to Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code the payment of statutory fees “… is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” The mandatory payment of impact mitigation fees would serve as full and complete mitigation for future development. Therefore, future development facilitated by the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associate with the provision of or need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 275
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.10-12
Threshold 1d: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Threshold 2: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Threshold 3: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact PS-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE USE OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. ADHERENCE TO AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS AND PROPOSED 2040 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES WOULD ENSURE IMPACTS RELATED TO PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Future development facilitated by the project would result in an increase to the Planning Area’s population, which would result in an incremental increase in demand on existing public parks or other recreational facilities. The City’s existing service ratio is approximately 34.4 acres per 1,000 residents for the existing population of 21,758.
4 With the project, the addition of a maximum of
10,734 residents would decrease the service ratio to 22.9 acres per 1,000 residents.5 Although there would be a reduction, this would still be consistent with the City’s proposed goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (see proposed Policy ENV-6.1 below). The population growth associated with the project would not require the need for new recreational facilities.

The 2040 General Plan provides the following proposed policies that would ensure adequate park and recreation facilities are provided in the Planning Area:
 Policy LU-1.8: Infrastructure Coordination. Ensure that new development consistent with the Land Use Plan is coordinated with the provision of adequate public infrastructure (e.g., transportation facilities, capital improvements, wastewater collection and treatment, water supply, electrical, natural gas, telecommunications, solid waste disposal, and storm drainage) and public services (e.g., governmental administrative, police, fire, recreation).  Policy ENV-6.1: Park Standards. Provide a variety of mini, neighborhood, community, and regional park facilities to achieve a minimum standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
 Policy ENV-6.3: Parks System. Work toward the establishment of a of public parks system interconnected by off-street trails or bicycle lanes.
 Policy ENV-6.9: Broadway District Specific Plan Parks. Evaluate feasible locations for public parks to serve residents in the Broadway District Specific Plan area.  Policy ENV-6.10: Watson Ranch Specific Plan. Incorporate by reference the Watson Ranch Specific Plan recreation program which includes private recreation facilities, public parks, trails, and community center and plaza.
 Policy ENV-6.12: Park Dedications. Review the Subdivision Ordinance as necessary to ensure park dedication requirements remain consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. 4 34.4 acres per 1,000 residents = (744 acres of parks / 21,758 persons) * 1,000 persons 5 22.4 acres per 1,000 residents = (744 acres of parks / 32,492 persons) * 1,000 persons 276
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services and Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-13
 Policy ENV-6.14: Park Fee Revenue. Periodically review the parks and recreation fee structure to ensure it is meeting established cost-recovery objectives without placing an excessive financial burden on residents. (Source: Existing Policy 7.8.5 modified)  Policy ENV-6.15: Park Impact Fee. The City shall update, as needed and appropriate, the park in-lieu fee assessed to all new development.
 Policy ENV-6.26: Park Maintenance. Rehabilitate existing American Canyon parks based on such measures as increased public access, lower maintenance costs and increased service delivery.

In addition, pursuant to Chapter 15.08 of the American Canyon Municipal Code, future development facilitated by the project would be required to pay impact fees, which would promote the maintenance and expansion of public parks. The project does not include any specific development proposals for parks or recreational facilities; however, any future development proposals for parks and/or recreational facilities would be subject to City review, including environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, development facilitated by the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered parks or result in substantial adverse impacts due to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. These impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 277
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.10-14
This page intentionally left blank.
278
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-1

4.11 Transportation
This section summarizes the transportation network that serves the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts on transportation due to the project.

4.11.1 Setting
a. Streets and Highways
The City of American Canyon is located in southern Napa County, approximately 35 miles northeast of San Francisco. Adjacent and south of the City limits is the City of Vallejo in Solano County. North of the City limits, a succession of cities in Napa County are located along State Route (SR) 29, which serves the main commercial corridor through the center of American Canyon. SR 29 is a main route to wine country destinations. These cities include Napa, Yountville, St. Helena, and Calistoga. As with American Canyon, these cities are bisected by SR 29.

The transportation network serving the area includes a network of city and county-maintained streets and state-maintained highways. SR 29 bisects the City at grade with one bridge over the Union Paciific Railroad. SR-29 serves as a main thoroughfare for local and pass-through traffic to regional connections and access to local properties . In addition, the City of American Canyon streets serve a variety of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, passenger cars, and heavy trucks for freight with a mix of local, recreational, and regional trips. American Canyon Road is a major east-west arterial street that connects with the Interstate (I-) 80 freeway to the east. The City lies generally northwest of the I-80/ SR 37 interchange. b. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The Highway Design Manual, published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), classifies bikeways into four categories:
 Class I Multiuse Path: a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.  Class II Bike Lane: a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.  Class III Bike Route: signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.
 Class IV Bikeway: also known as a separated bikeway, a Class IV Bikeway is for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between the bikeway and the motor vehicle traffic lane.

The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

There are currently over 13 miles of bicycle network within the City of American Canyon, including over 8 miles of Class I multiuse paths, 2.8 miles of Class II bike lanes, and over 2 miles of Class III designated bicycle routes on public roadways. While most of the City has sidewalks, , several older neighborhoods of the City have limited or lack pedestrian infrastructure. There is minimal sidewalk infrastructure along SR 29.
279
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.11-2
c. Transit Services
Public transportation within the City is provided by American Canyon Transit, which is a part of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Vine Transit system. American Canyon Transit is a fixed route and on-demand, door-to-door, transit service within specific areas of the city. Vine Transit’s Route 29 (Napa-BART) Express connects the BART Station in El Cerrito to the Redwood Park-n-Ride in the City of Napa and stops in American Canyon at the Post Office on Crawford Way. d. Taxi and On-demand Ride-hailing
On-demand private taxi services are available in the project site 24 hours a day. Taxis can be used for trips within the Planning Area and farther destinations, including nearby airports. Other ridehailing applications are also available in the Planning Area and provide transportation throughout the Bay Area.
e. Rail Transportation
Rail transportation in the City is currently limited to freight service only. No commuter rail service exists in the City or County. The main rail line in the City is owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company and enters the City parallel to and on the east side of SR 29 at the Solano County line. f. Aviation
The Napa County Airport is northwest of the City limits in unincorporated lands. It is a General Aviation airport with charter flights available, but no scheduled commercial flights. The airport can accommodate most private aircraft including jets, up to 120,000 pounds. The airport was built by the United States Army Air Force in 1942 and was deeded to Napa County after World War II for civilian use. In 1971 International Air Services Company opened a flight training school at the airport.

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 provides comprehensive rights and protections to individuals with disabilities. The goal of the ADA is to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for people with disabilities. To implement this goal, the United States Access Board, an independent Federal agency created in 1973 to ensure accessibility for people with disabilities, has created accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way. While these guidelines have not been formally adopted, they have been widely followed by jurisdictions and agencies nationwide in the last decade. The guidelines, last revised in July 2011, address various issues, including roadway design practices, slope and terrain issues, pedestrian access to streets, sidewalks, curb ramps, street furnishings, pedestrian signals, parking, and other components of public rights-of-way. The guidelines apply to all proposed roadways in the City.
280
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-3
Federal Highway Administration
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) responsible for the federally funded roadway system, including the interstate highway network and portions of the primary state highway network. FHWA funding is provided through the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). MAP-21 can be used to fund local transportation improvement projects, such as projects to improve the efficiency of existing roadways, traffic signal coordination, bikeways, and transit system upgrades. b. State Regulations
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining all state highways. The jurisdictional interest of Caltrans includes state highways and facilities and extends to improvements to roadways at the interchange ramps serving area freeways. Any federally funded transportation improvements would be subject to review by Caltrans staff and the California Transportation Commission.

Circulation Element
California law mandates the development of a Circulation Element as part of General Plans (often titled as the “Transportation Element” or “Mobility Element”). The Circulation Element must contain the “general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities,” all correlated with the land use element of the General Plan per Government Code Section 65302 (b).

In addition, the General Plan must incorporate “Complete Streets” policies, as described in the section below.

Complete Streets Act
The California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) adopted in 2008, requires that cities and other public agencies incorporate “Complete Street” policies when updating their General Plan Circulation Element. The term “Complete Streets” refers to a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors. A “Complete Street” is one that provides safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the local context. Complete Streets make travel safe for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, transit vehicles, and people of all ages and abilities. Each street does not need to provide dedicated space to all users, but the network must accommodate the needs of all users.

Capital Improvement Programs
California Government Code Section 65401 specifies that public works projects must be in conformity with the General Plan. In practice, this requires that the City, during each adoption of the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), make findings that the proposed City of American Canyon Five-Year CIP is in conformance with the General Plan, including the Mobility Element. 281
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.11-4
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the State agency responsible for rail safety. The CPUC’s jurisdiction includes railroad interlocking plants and public highway grade crossings. CPUC approval is required to modify a railroad interlocking plant (including construction of a new spur track) or modification to an existing public railroad grade crossing. Completion and submittal of a General Order 33-B is required for any proposed work to a railroad interlocking plant (e.g., spur track), and a General Order 88-B is required for any proposed work to a public highway grade crossing.

Senate Bill 743
California Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed in 2013, addresses a range of topics and aims to better promote statewide policies that (a) combat climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and particulates; (b) encourage infill development and a diversity of uses instead of sprawl; and (c) promote multi-modal transportation networks, providing clean, efficient access to destinations and improving public health through active transportation.

SB 743 changed the way transportation impact analyses are conducted as part of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These changes eliminated automobile delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. Prior rules treated automobile delay and congestion as an environmental impact. SB 743 required the CEQA Guidelines to prescribe an analysis that better accounts for transit and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2018, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released the final update to CEQA Guidelines consistent with SB 743 that went into effect statewide on July 1, 2020, which state that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is “generally” the most appropriate metric of transportation impacts to align local environmental review under CEQA with California’s long-term greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. At the same time as the release of the updated CEQA Guidelines, OPR also released a non-binding Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which outlines potential VMT analysis methodologies and thresholds of significance for use by agencies in California based on substantial evidence developed by OPR related to achievement of the State’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets.

Although OPR provides recommendations for adopting new impact analysis guidelines, lead agencies have the final say in designing their methodology, provided that the selected analysis methodology aligns with the SB 743 goals to promote infill development, reduce greenhouse gases, and reduce VMT. The City’s approved methodology and thresholds for transportation impacts consistent with SB 743 are described in Section 4.11.3, Impact Analysis. c. Regional Transportation Plans
Plan Bay Area 2050
The Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the San Francisco Bay Area, named Plan Bay Area 2050 was jointly produced and adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) on October 21, 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the strategic update to Plan Bay Area 2040, and it connects the elements of housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment through 35 strategies that will make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face 282
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-5
of unexpected challenges. It is a roadmap to help Bay Area cities and counties preserve the character of our diverse communities while adapting to the challenges of future population growth.

The SR 29 corridor has been designated by MTC and ABAG as a Priority Development Area (PDA), meaning that it is recognized as an area with substantial opportunity for infill development near transit. PDAs play a critical role in accommodating future growth in the regional agencies' SCS plans.

Countywide Transportation Plan
The NVTA oversees the countywide transportation plan for Napa County. The countywide transportation plan outlines priorities for the NVTA and Napa County’s transportation system to relieve congestion, improve traffic safety, create more active transportation infrastructure, provide more reliable and frequent bus service, and maintain and repair the existing transportation system.

Local planning efforts led by NVTA have resulted in the development of preliminary concepts for SR 29 that have been presented to the public through workshops for input and comment. Some of these initial concepts were evaluated in more detail through the regional NVTA study and subsequent public workshops. Options already discussed with the community include creative intersection capacity enhancements, including roundabout options. d. Local Regulations
American Canyon Bicycle Plan
The City of American Canyon updated the Bicycle Plan in February 2020. The Bicycle Plan was prepared in accordance with the California Bicycle Transportation Act as part of the Napa Countywide Bicycle Plan and was coordinated with existing City and Regional Plans at the time of its adoption. The Bicycle Plan adoption was one of several City actions implementing SB 375, the Sustainable Communities Strategy Act (City of American Canyon 2020).

American Canyon Pedestrian Plan
The City of American Canyon adopted a Pedestrian Plan in June 2017. Together with the Bicycle Plan, the Pedestrian Plan creates an Active Transportation Plan that will position American Canyon to effectively compete for project funding. This plan follows the Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) Guidelines, which outline statewide requirements for what should be included in active transportation plans (City of American Canyon 2017).

American Canyon Vehicle Miles Travelled Policy
SB 743 also requires local jurisdictions to reduce automobile travel by replacing LOS from transportation analysis under CEQA with Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”), or another measure that “promote(s) greenhouse gas emissions reduction, development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” In August 2023, the City of American Canyon adopted a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) policy (Resolution 2023-72).

The City’s Traffic Model calculates the existing rate of residential VMT per capita to be 16.6 miles and the existing daily rate of VMT per employee is estimated to be 34.1 miles. The VMT policy requires new development to improve the existing citywide VMT rate by 19 percent, consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 19 percent reduction target in per capita greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035, when compared to 2005 for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. The VMT threshold standard applies to all General Plan amendments, long-range plans, discretionary development applications, and transportation projects. 283
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.11-6

4.11.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on transportation if it would:

Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b); Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment); or Result in inadequate emergency access
Methodology
The methodology for assessing impacts under thresholds 1, 3 and 4 is qualitative in nature and considers the existing regulations in place that would minimize potential impacts related to transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities; geometric design features; and emergency access.

Impact TRA-2 evaluates whether the project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which describes specific considerations for analyzing transportation impacts as amended on July 1, 2020 pursuant to SB 375. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) states that VMT is “generally” the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. No particular methodology or metric is mandated by Section 15064.3(b) and the methodology or metric is left to the lead agency, bearing in mind the criteria the legislature had in mind for determining the significance of transportation impacts in SB-743. These were expressed in Public Resource Code section 21099(b)(1), which states: “[t]hose criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” The assessment of VMT impacts for this EIR under Impact TRA-2 was determined by utilizing the American Canyon travel demand model to forecast the typical daily weekday rates of VMT per capita attributable to the residential population of American Canyon, and VMT per employee attributable to jobs in American Canyon. The American Canyon travel demand model is a trip-based model and identifies the following estimates:
 Residential VMT per capita was estimated based on the VMT attributable to home-based trip productions, to and from residences in American Canyon.  VMT per employee was estimated based on the VMT associated with home-based work (HBW) trips, to and from places of employment in American Canyon.

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 81 percent of the existing rate of VMT in each category for American Canyon, based on the American Canyon travel demand model. 284
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-7
Table 4.11-1 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 13.4 miles, or if the forecasted year 2040 rate of VMT per employee were to exceed 27.6 miles.

Table 4.11-1 VMT Impact Thresholds
Scenario Residential VMT per Capita VMT per Employee
Existing Conditions 16.6 34.1
Significant Impact Threshold
(81 percent of Existing rate)

13.4 27.6
Source: American Canyon Travel Demand Model, GHD, December 2022 b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Impact TRA-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The 2040 General Plan would be consistent with the California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358), which requires that cities and other public agencies incorporate “Complete Street” policies when updating their General Plan Circulation Element. Complete Streets make travel safe for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, transit vehicles, and people of all ages and abilities. The Mobility Element incorporates the recommendations of the American Canyon Bicycle Plan and American Canyon Pedestrian Plan. The circulation network plan identified in the Mobility Element is consistent with recent regional planning efforts for SR 29 that would maintain its current 4-lane configuration. The proposed Mobility Element includes the following proposed policies that are relevant to ensuring consistency with other applicable programs and plans that emphasize multimodal transportation, including the Complete Streets Act, American Canyon Bicycle Plan, and American Canyon Pedestrian Plan:
 MOB-1.1: Complete Streets. Maintain and update street standards that that serves not just automobile operations, but also multi-modal movement and adjacent land uses, including pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities, in a form that is compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses, and promotes connectivity between uses and areas.
 MOB-1.4: Development Review. Evaluate new development to ensure that the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users are given equal level of consideration to motor vehicle operators.
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.
285
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.11-8
 MOB-1.6: Transportation Facility Construction and Modification. When constructing or modifying transportation facilities, strive to provide for the movement of vehicles, commercial trucks, alternative and low energy vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians appropriate for the road classification and adjacent land use.
 MOB-1.7: Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycling for transportation, recreation, and improvement of public health.
 MOB-1.9: SR 29 Mobility. Work with regional partners, including Caltrans, NVTA, and other agencies to explore a complete streets approach that will expand the travel capacity of SR 29.  MOB-1.16: Agency Coordination. Coordinate with State, Regional, County, and neighboring agencies to ensure highway improvements (i.e.: SR-12, SR-29, and SR-37) appropriately consider impacts to American Canyon.
 MOB-1.17: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate travel modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by city and non-residents traveling to American Canyon to work or shop.  MOB-1.20: Bicycle Plan Funding. Include funding for the City's Bicycle Plan updates and bikeway improvements consistent with the Bicycle Plan in the City's transportation financing program and TIF, recognizing the multi-modal travel needs of the City.  MOB-1.21: Address Mobility Needs. Recognize and meet the mobility needs of persons using wheelchairs and those with other mobility limitations.
 MOB-1.22: Non-motorized Circulation System. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between places.
 MOB-1.23: Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers' ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces.

Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route 29.  MOB-1.24: Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be provided to complete a continuous bikeway system, consistent with state standards, as shown on the Bikeway Plan Map. In cases where existing right of way constraints limit development of Class II or Class IV facilities, Class Ill signage and demarcation may be permitted at the discretion of the City Engineer. Deviations from these standards and from the routing shown on the diagram shall be permitted with the approval of the City Engineer.
 MOB-1.26: Universal Design. Provide pedestrian facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement projects address accessibility by using universal design concepts such as bus pullouts and shelters, street lighting, and curbside management features such as pickup/drop-off locations for shared ride/ transit network companies and spaces for delivery vehicles to park safely for short durations. (Source: Modified Existing Policy 2.7)
 MOB-1.28: Coordination with Adjacent Jurisdictions. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure connected and consistent non-vehicular facilities, including bridges, grade-separate crossings, as appropriate.

Compliance with these proposed policies would ensure that the project is consistent with other applicable programs and plans that emphasize multi-modal transportation and impacts would be less than significant.
286
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-9
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

Threshold 2: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 THE FUTURE (2040) CITYWIDE RATE OF RESIDENTIAL VMT PER CAPITA WITH THE PROPOSED 2040 GENERAL PLAN WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD. THE PROJECT WOULD THEREFORE CONFLICT WITH OR BE INCONSISTENT WITH CEQA GUIDELINES 15064.3(B) AND IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.

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 27.6 miles or the rate of residential VMT per capita of the project exceeded 13.4 mile.

Currently, the existing rate of residential VMT per capita exceeds the significance thresholds for both VMT per Resident and VMT per Employee. Overall, future development is anticipated to add significant employment opportunities to an area that currently has fewer jobs than employed residents. As such, a larger share of future residents of American Canyon and adjacent communities would be able to reduce their work commute distance by being employed closer to their residence, supporting regional efforts to reduce VMT. Table 4.11-2 compares the model-forecasted rates of residential VMT per capita and VMT per employee under both Existing and Future (Year 2040) conditions. As shown the citywide rate of residential VMT per capita would be reduced by more than four percent from Existing/Baseline Conditions but would continue to exceed the significance threshold. VMT per employee would be reduced by more than 24 percent from Existing/Baseline Conditions and would be below the significance threshold. Therefore, transportation impacts associated with VMT would be potentially significant since the forecasted rate of 15.9 VMT per resident would exceed the significance threshold of 13.4.

Table 4.11-2 Project VMT
Scenario VMT per Resident VMT per Employee
Existing/Baseline Conditions 16.6 34.1
Future (2040) Conditions 15.9 25.7
Significance Threshold 13.4 27.6
Impact Finding Significant Less than Significant
Source: American Canyon Travel Demand Model, GHD, July 2024.

The 2040 General Plan also includes the following proposed policies that are potentially selfmitigation by increasing the use of multi-modal transportation which would reduce VMT:
 MOB-1.1: Complete Streets. Maintain and update street standards that that serves not just automobile operations, but also multi-modal movement and adjacent land uses, including 287
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.11-10
pedestrians, motorists, bicyclists, and transit riders of all ages and abilities, in a form that is compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses, and promotes connectivity between uses and areas.
 MOB-1.4: Development Review. Evaluate new development to ensure that the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users are given equal level of consideration to motor vehicle operators.
 MOB-1.6: Transportation Facility Construction and Modification. When constructing or modifying transportation facilities, strive to provide for the movement of vehicles, commercial trucks, alternative and low energy vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians appropriate for the road classification and adjacent land use.  MOB-1.7: Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycling for transportation, recreation, and improvement of public health.  MOB-1.9: SR 29 Mobility. Work with regional partners, including Caltrans, NVTA, and other agencies to explore a complete streets approach that will expand the travel capacity of SR

29.  MOB-1.16: Agency Coordination. Coordinate with State, Regional, County, and neighboring agencies to ensure highway improvements (i.e.: SR-12, SR-29, and SR-37) appropriately consider impacts to American Canyon.
 MOB-1.17: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate travel modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by city and non-residents traveling to American Canyon to work or shop.  MOB-1.20: Bicycle Plan Funding. Include funding for the City's Bicycle Plan updates and bikeway improvements consistent with the Bicycle Plan in the City's transportation financing program and TIF, recognizing the multi-modal travel needs of the City.  MOB-1.21: Address Mobility Needs. Recognize and meet the mobility needs of persons using wheelchairs and those with other mobility limitations.  MOB-1.22: Non-motorized Circulation System. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between places.
 MOB-1.23: Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers' ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route 29.
 MOB-1.24: Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be provided to complete a continuous bikeway system, consistent with state standards, as shown on the Bikeway Plan Map. In cases where existing right of way constraints limit development of Class II or Class IV facilities, Class Ill signage and demarcation may be permitted at the discretion of the City Engineer. Deviations from these standards and from the routing shown on the diagram shall be permitted with the approval of the City Engineer.
 MOB-1.26: Universal Design. Provide pedestrian facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement projects address accessibility by using universal design concepts such as bus pullouts and shelters, street lighting, and 288
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-11
curbside management features such as pickup/drop-off locations for shared ride/ transit network companies and spaces for delivery vehicles to park safely for short durations. (Source: Modified Existing Policy 2.7)
 MOB-1.28: Coordination with Adjacent Jurisdictions. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure connected and consistent non-vehicular facilities, including bridges, gradeseparate crossings, as appropriate.

Compliance with these proposed policies combined with the increased provision of jobs in American Canyon would support efforts to reduce VMT. However, VMT would still exceed the significance threshold of 13.4. Typical VMT mitigation would require the implementation of transportation demand management (TDM) programs as a condition of approval for new residential development projects to achieve specific reductions in VMT. However, most successful TDM programs focus on employment sites rather than residential development. TDM programs are intended to maximize travel choices, while focusing on trip reduction and parking needs. These types of VMT reduction programs, when focused on residential development are challenging to implement and monitor.

Further, the General Plan policies identified above already encompass those policies and programs that may have some likelihood of success that would otherwise be incorporated into a TDM.

As discussed above, VMT per employee would be below the significance threshold but VMT per resident would exceed the significance threshold by 2.5. As such, it is unlikely that such measures would be effective in lowering the citywide rate of VMT per resident below the applicable threshold. “an EIR need not analyze every imaginable alternative or mitigation measure, its concern is with feasible means of reducing environmental effects.” League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v.

County of Placer (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 63, 159–161. Here, there are no additional known policies or mitigations measures that could feasibly be implemented that would further reduce the citywide rate of VMT per resident, more than it has already been reduced, to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Potentially self-mitigating measures are included within the 2040 General Plan which would increase the use of multi-modal transportation and could reduce VMT. However, measures to reduce specific VMT per resident are challenging to implement and monitor in a meaningful way.

Other than the self-mitigating measures and policies outlined above, there is no known additional feasible mitigation that is likely to further reduce the citywide rate of VMT per resident.

Significance After Mitigation
The 2040 General Plan includes policies which would reduce VMT. However, because there is no specific mitigation to reduce VMT per resident and the General Plan policies cannot realistically enforce mitigation programs or policies that might reduce VMT below the threshold, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Threshold 3: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
Impact TRA-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO A GEOMETRIC DESIGN FEATURE AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT. 289
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.11-12
The project is a program-level planning effort which does not directly address geometric design features. The 2040 General Plan includes proposed polices that would ensure efficient circulation and adequate access are provided in the city, which would minimize hazards.

Future development would be required to comply with street design standards, Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) requirements, fire code requirements and zoning regulations, ensuring that the adoption of the 2040 General Plan would minimize design hazards. In addition, the Mobility Element includes Vision Zero goals and policies. Vision Zero aims to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. The proposed Mobility Element includes the following key policies focusing on safety:
 MOB-2.1: Vision Zero. Strive for the elimination of all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all.  MOB-2.2: Context Sensitive Design. Improve multimodal transportation safety by expanding the City’s non-motorized transportation infrastructure using context sensitive design.  MOB-2.3: Bicycle Safety. Increase the safety of those traveling by bicycle by sweeping debris from and repairing bicycle paths and lanes.
 MOB-2.4: Improved Bikeway Visibility. Use visual cues, such as brightly colored paint on bike lanes or a one-foot painted buffer strip, along bicycle routes to provide a visual signal to drivers to watch out for bicyclists and nurture a "share the lane" ethic, prioritizing bikeways with recent automobile-bicycle collisions.
 MOB-2.5: Speeds on Residential and Arterial Streets. Explore innovative ways to reduce vehicular speeds through residential neighborhoods to posted speed limits, such as implementing traffic calming strategies such as: enhanced cross walks, lighted crosswalks, reducing lane widths, and others).
 MOB-2.6: Site Designs and Safety. Ensure,through the developmentreview process,that development projects follow best design practices to reduce conflicts between multiple travel modes.

Compliance with these proposed policies, as well as compliance with existing design standards, MUTCD requirements, fire code requirements, and zoning regulations, would ensure that implementation of the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

Threshold 4: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Implementation of the project would result in increased development and facilitate population growth, which would increase the number of users on the City’s transportation system. The existing street and highway system (including SR 29, American Canyon Road, and streets connecting to 290
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-13
Vallejo streets) has sufficient capacity to ensure adequate emergency access provisions to accommodate increased population and growth. Future development would be required to comply with existing regulations, including fire code, building code, street design standards, and zoning regulations that address site-specific provisions related to emergency access. This will further ensure that the adoption of the proposed General Plan would minimize impacts on emergency access. In addition, the proposed Mobility Element includes the following policies to support a key goal of ensuring adequate evacuation routes in the event of an emergency:
 MOB 3.1: Parallel North-South Roadway. Prioritize construction of roadways that provide alternate vehicle access parallel to Highway 29 through American Canyon and coordinate continuation of parallel routes outside the City with Regional Agencies.  MOB-3.2: Evacuation Routes. Identify important roadways that would serve as evacuation routes in the event of an emergency.
 MOB-3.3: Natural Hazard Awareness Week. Coordinate with the American Canyon Fire Protection District to conduct outreach to the community on emergency evacuation routes in our community.
 MOB-3.4: Evacuation Route Obstacles. Evaluate potential physical conditions that could impede an evaluation route. Examples include overhead utility poles, dead/ dying trees, aging infrastructure.

Compliance with these proposed policies, as well as compliance with existing regulations (i.e., fire code, building code, street design standards, and zoning regulations) that address site-specific provisions related to emergency access, would ensure that implementation of the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 291
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.11-14
This page intentionally left blank.
292
Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-1

4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section summarizes the potential tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts on tribal cultural resources due to the project.

4.12.1 Setting
a. Ethnographic Overview
The Planning Area is in the traditional tribal territory of the Patwin, members of the larger Wintun Tribe. Patwin territory extends from Clear Lake to the San Pablo and Suisun bays. The Patwin may be further separated into River Patwin along Sacramento River, as well as in the Sacramento and Suisun valleys towards the San Pablo and Suisun bays; and the Hill Patwin along the northern Coast Ranges, closer to Clear Lake Basin (Elliott 2011). Patwin language is a subgroup of the Penutian language family along with Wintun (Johnson 1978). Historically, the southern Patwin were distinguished from the northern Wintun, based on the linguistically distinct words for people: Wintun or Win-tu in the north and Pat-win in the south (Kroeber 1925). For this discussion, Patwin refers to both Patwin and Wintun peoples.

Political organization consists of small tribelets and several satellite settlements. A male chief would head each tribelet and direct activities. Their main purpose was to govern ceremonial and economic activities of the village. His administration included tree grove and fishing ownership, how food would be distributed among the villagers, and what ceremonies would be held and who would be invited to join (McKern 1922, Johnson 1978). This position typically passed down patrilineally. Yet, the village could determine a chief to be incompetent and village elders would then elect a new Chief based on qualifications (McKern 1922).

The Patwin family unit had three levels. The first is the paternal family, which includes the extended family following male blood relations. The second is the family social group that dictated marital matrilocality, with the husband moving to the area of his wife. On the third level, the household of the nuclear family would situate in proximity of the family social group. Other types of family-like units would take part in specific activities. Paternal families participated in one of four practices that passed down secret medicines and charms. Trade families engaged in producing or consolidating resources, such as hunted animals or musical instruments for distribution. Shamanistic families utilized supernatural powers to influence the spirits. Official families held one individual that served in an official capacity, such as ceremonial song leader or hesi dance fire tender (McKern 1922).

Additionally, a series of ceremonial dances took place from October to May related to the Kuksu Cult. These dances would take place in a small and secret ceremonial dance hall with an earthcovered roof (Kroeber 1925).

Patwin residential structures were typically elliptical or circular shaped and earth-covered or semisubterranean. The earth covering was imported from outside the villages. Villages consisted of family homes, a ceremonial dance house, menstrual hut, and a sweat lodge.

Patwin subsistence practices centered on the use of acorns and other seeds as a primary food source. River Patwin would process these foods with wooden log mortars, while Hill Patwin preferred flat stone slab-and-basket hopper mortars (Elliott 2011). Both groups engaged in hunting of deer, tule elk, antelope, bear, turtles, and various species of waterfowl. Hunting was done typically with a sinew-backed bow and arrow. Fishing was a particularly important activity for the Patwin, using gates and pens to catch salmon and sturgeon, while pike, steelhead, trout, and smaller 293
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.12-2
salmon were caught with nets. Additionally, tobacco was collected from along the river and dried for smoking but not cultivated (Johnson 1978).

The Patwin made both twined and coiled basketry, usually from willow and redbud. Baskets were an important tool in their daily lives for transporting, preparing, and storing foods and burial remains.

They utilized animal hides for bedding, floor mats, skirts, burial robes, and tobacco sacks. Tule balsa rafts were crafted and used to navigate rivers. Bone, mussel shell, and stone tools were used as knives (Johnson 1978).

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Archaeological Resources Protection Act
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) amended the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] 431–433) and set a broad policy that archaeological resources are important to the nation and should be protected, and required special permits before the excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Indian lands. The purpose of the ARPA was to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public lands and Indian lands, and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals having collections of archaeological resources and data that were obtained before October 31, 1979.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) established federal policy to protect and preserve the inherent rights of freedom for Native groups to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions. These rights include but are not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally-funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation. b. State Regulations
Assembly Bill 52
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect 294
Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3
on the environment” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). AB 52 further states when feasible, the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,” and meets either of the following criteria:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).

A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

In recognition of California Native American tribal sovereignty and the unique relationship of California local governments and public agencies with California Native American tribal governments and with respect to the interests and roles of project proponents, it is the intent AB 52 to accomplish all the following:

Recognize that California Native American prehistoric, historic, archaeological, cultural, and sacred places are essential elements in tribal cultural traditions, heritages, and identities.

Establish a new category of resources in CEQA called “Tribal Cultural Resources” that considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeological values when determining impacts and mitigation.

Establish examples of mitigation measures for tribal cultural resources that uphold the existing mitigation preference for historical and archaeological resources of preservation in place, if feasible.

Recognize that California Native American tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, which concern the tribal cultural resources with which they are traditionally and culturally affiliated (because CEQA calls for a sufficient degree of analysis, tribal knowledge about the land and tribal cultural resources at issue should be included in environmental assessments for projects that may have a significant impact on those resources).

In recognition of their governmental status, establish a meaningful consultation process between California Native American tribal governments and lead agencies, respecting the interests and roles of all California Native American tribes and project proponents, and the level of required confidentiality concerning tribal cultural resources, early in the CEQA environmental review process, so that tribal cultural resources can be identified, and culturally appropriate mitigation and mitigation monitoring programs can be considered by the decision-making body of the lead agency.

Recognize the unique history of California Native American tribes and uphold existing rights of all California Native American tribes to participate in, and contribute their knowledge to, the environmental review process pursuant to CEQA.

Ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents have information available, early in CEQA environmental review process, for purposes of identifying and addressing potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources and to reduce the potential for delay and conflicts in the environmental review process. 295
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.12-4
Enable California Native American tribes to manage and accept conveyances of, and act as caretakers of, tribal cultural resources.

Establish that a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.

AB 52 requires that lead agencies “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Senate Bill 18
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill [SB] 18) requires local governments to contact, refer plans to and consult with tribal organizations prior to making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have traditional lands in a local government’s jurisdiction and are identified, upon request, by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California Office of Planning and Research’s Tribal Consultation Guidelines (2005), “The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.” CEQA Guidelines 15064.5(c)—Effects on Archaeological Resources CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed on any register to be found historically significant. CEQA Guidelines direct lead agencies to evaluate archaeological sites to determine whether they meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR. If an archaeological site is a historical resource, in that it is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, potential adverse impacts to it must be considered. If an archaeological site is considered not to be a historical resource but meets the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as defined in PRC Section 21083.2, then it would be treated in accordance with the provisions of that section.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)—Effects on Human Remains Native American human remains and associated burial items may be significant to descendant communities and/or may be scientifically important for their informational value. They may be significant to descendant communities for patrimonial, cultural, lineage, and religious reasons.

Human remains may also be important to the scientific community, such as prehistorians, epidemiologists, and physical anthropologists. The specific stake of some descendant groups in ancestral burials is a matter of law for some groups, such as Native Americans (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d); PRC Section 5097.98). CEQA and other State regulations regarding Native American human remains provide the following procedural requirements to assist in avoiding potential adverse effects on human remains within the contexts of their value to both descendant communities and the scientific community:
 When an initial study identifies the existence or probable likelihood that a project would affect Native American human remains, the lead agency is to contact and work with the appropriate Native American representatives identified through the NAHC to develop an agreement for the 296
Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-5
treatment and disposal of the human remains and any associated burial items (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d); PRC Section 5097.98).
 If human remains are accidentally discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted. If the County Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, the Coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must identify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to provide for the opportunity to make recommendations for the treatment and disposal of the human remains and associated burial items.
 If the MLD fails to make recommendations within 24 hours of notification or the project applicant rejects the recommendations of the MLD, the Native American human remains and associated burial items must be reburied in a location not subject to future disturbance within the project site (PRC Section 5097.98).
c. Local Regulations
City of American Canyon General Plan
The City’s Housing Element of the General Plan includes the following policy(City of American Canyon 2023):
 H-8.12 Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol. In the event any Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground disturbing activity, the “Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation” shall be implemented as included as Appendix A to the Housing Element Background Report.

4.12.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Significance Thresholds
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the following criteria for determining whether a project’s impacts would have a significant impact to tribal cultural resources:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
297
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.12-6
Methodology
The presence and significance of a potential tribal cultural resource is determined through consultation between lead agencies and local California Native Americans. Impacts to tribal cultural resources are highly dependent on the nature of the resource but, in general, could occur if there is destruction or alteration of the resource and its surroundings, access restrictions to the resource, or other disturbances.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
Threshold 1b: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
Impact TCR-1 THE PROJECT COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT THROUGH CONSULTATION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO AB 52.

On August 16, 2022 the City mailed and emailed out letters to the Cortina Band of Indians, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation to inform them of the proposed General Plan Update. To date, one response dated September 14, 2022 was received on from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation which stated that the project is within the aboriginal territories of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. The Tribe requested formal consultation with the lead agency, a project timeline, detailed project information, and the latest cultural study conducted for the project. On November 16, 2022; December 9, 2022; and December 12, 2022, the City communicated with the Tribe to coordinate a date and time to meet regarding the General Plan Update. A consultation meeting was held on January 12, 2023 between City staff and representatives of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. During the consultation meeting, the representatives of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation identified their want to take a proactive approach related to tribal cultural resources, considering that the area around American Canyon is sensitive and tribal cultural resource finds have occur. City staff identified that the 2040 General Plan would include a policy to follow the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol in the event tribal cultural resources are found. On January 13, 2023, City staff emailed the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation with the policies that are proposed in the 2040 General Plan to minimize impacts on tribal cultural resources.

The Environment Element of the 2040 General Plan contains the following proposed goals and policies, which would minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources within the City of American Canyon:

Goal ENV-4: Protect cultural and tribal resources.
 Policy ENV-4.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code. 298
Environmental Impact Analysis
Tribal Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-7
 Policy ENV-4.2: Development. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.  Policy ENV-4.3: Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol. In the event any Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground disturbing activity, the “Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation” shall be implemented as included as Appendix A to the Housing Element.

It remains a possibility that tribal cultural resources may be present within geographic areas affiliated with tribal organizations. In compliance with AB 52, a determination of whether projectspecific substantial adverse effects on tribal cultural resources would occur, along with identification of appropriate project-specific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. Due to the programmatic nature of the environmental analysis, it is not possible to fully determine impacts on tribal cultural resources. The project would have a less than significant impact to tribal cultural resources because project-specific tribal cultural resource consultation would occur when specific projects are implemented and because the approved 2023 Housing Element and proposed 2040 General Plan includes policies to comply with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol (Policy ENV-4.3).

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 299
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.12-8
This page intentionally left blank.
300
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-1

4.13 Utilities and Service Systems
This section analyzes the potential effects on utilities and service system related to implementation of the project.

4.13.1 Setting
a. Water Supply and Delivery
The City of American Canyon supplies water service to residential, commercial, and industrial users within the City and its sphere of influence (SOI). The City’s potable water service area is approximately 30 square miles. The City water supply is provided from purchased or imported water sources, mainly State Water Project (SWP) water and the City of Vallejo, in addition to supplemental imported water sources. Table 4.13-1 identifies the City’s current sources of water, which are discussed in detail after the table.

Table 4.13-1 Current and Projected Sources of Water Supply Source
Contracted Volume/Capacity
(Acre feet/Year)
State Water Project (Table A Allotment) a 5,200
Vallejo Permit Water b 500
Vallejo Treated Water 2011-2015 2,074
2016-2021 2,640
2021-Onward 3,206
Vallejo Emergency Water c 500
Groundwater d 0
American Canyon Recycled Water e 1,241
Napa Sanitation District-Produced Recycled 591
Notes:
a Includes allotment for American Canyon and additional supply from Kern County Water Agency b Raw Water delivered pursuant to Vallejo’s appropriative right (License 007848), provided pursuant to Addendum 2 dated June 4, 1998. c Available only in dry years
d No groundwater is used for citywide supply
e As reported 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), approximately 1,241 AFY of recycled water are projected by 2035.

Maximum capacity of the City’s recycled water treatment system by 2035.

Source: City of American Canyon 2023
State Water Project
A significant portion of the City’s water supply is obtained through various indirect contracts for water from the SWP. The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is the State Water Contractor with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the City receives its water through subcontracts with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
301
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-2
Table A Allocation
In January 1967, the American Canyon County Water Agency1 entered into an agreement with the Napa Flood Control and Water Conservation District for water supply from the North Bay Aqueduct.

In 2010, the agreement allowed for the delivery of up to 5,200 acre-feet of water per year.2 This contract runs through 2035 with provisions for extension. The actual amount of SWP water available to the City under the “Table A” allocation process (the method used by the DWR to allocate water in the SWP system) varies from year-to-year due to hydrologic conditions, water demands of other contractors, SWP facility capacity, and environmental/regulatory requirements. Deliveries have varied between 5 percent (in 2014) and 100 percent (last occurring in 2006) of the contracted amount.

City of Vallejo
In 1996, the City of American Canyon entered into an agreement with the City of Vallejo to allow the purchase of additional water supply. Vallejo receives its water from a variety of sources, including SWP water and an appropriative water right.

Licensed Vallejo Water (Raw)
The City of Vallejo holds an appropriative right for Sacramento Bay-Delta water from the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) that pre-dates the construction of the SWP (License 7848). The City of American Canyon has an agreement with the City of Vallejo for delivery of up to 500 acre-feet of water per year under this permit. This source of water is more reliable than the City’s Table A supply, but the agreement with Vallejo still allows for reductions.

Addendum 2 to the 1996 Vallejo Agreement states that “[i]n the event the State Water Resources Control Board, or any other agency, restricts Vallejo’s diversion of water [under the appropriative pre-SWP permit] for any reason whatsoever, American Canyon’s diversions will be reduced in the same proportion.” As such, curtailment of this supply occurs less often than reductions of the City’s Table A supply due to environmental or other constraints. Nevertheless, it is possible that the City may not receive its full allotment under this agreement during dry years.3 Vallejo Treated Water (Potable)
In 1996, the City of American Canyon entered into an agreement with the City of Vallejo to purchase up to 629 acre-feet per year of potable treated water supply.4 This agreement included the option for additional (cumulative) purchases in 5-year increments through 2021. Ultimately, this results in a total of 3,206 acre-feet of treated water available for purchase each year by the City from Vallejo for 2021-2040. Under certain conditions, the maximum delivery of this supply may be “reduced in the same proportions as any reduction to Vallejo customers inside the Vallejo city limits.”5 1 A predecessor local agency to the City of American Canyon, which was not incorporated until 1992. 2 A total of 500 acre-feet of this water was obtained through a purchase of water, by the Napa Sanitation District, from Kern County Water Agency in 2000.
3 For example, Vallejo Permit Water delivery was curtailed in both 2014 and 2015 as well as in 2021 and 2022. 4 The 1996 Vallejo Agreement is currently the subject of litigation pending in Sacramento Superior Court (Case No. 34-2022-00327471-CUCO-GDS). While it is speculative to discuss any potential outcome from the litigation, it should be noted that neither party seeks recission of the underlying agreement.
5 Vallejo Water Service Agreement. May 1, 1996 (Page 7-7 in the 2015 American Canyon UWMP). 302
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-3
Vallejo Emergency Water (Raw)
When the City’s Table A water allotment is curtailed, the City of American Canyon has the option to purchase up to 500 acre-feet of emergency raw water supply from Vallejo under an addendum to the 1996 Vallejo Agreement. The 2020 Urban Water Management Program (UWMP) assumes that this water would be available under dry year and multiple dry year scenarios but not during a normal year. During consecutive dry years 3 to 5, the 2020 UWMP assumes a reduction to 400 AF.

Groundwater
The City of American Canyon does not currently rely on groundwater as a source of water, though the 2020 UWMP states that the City remains open to the possibility and will consider potential supply opportunities as they present themselves.

Other Sources of Potable Supply
Dry Year Water Bank
In 2009, the City of American Canyon (along with other SWP contractors) entered into an agreement with DWR to obtain emergency supplies if rice farmers in the Sacramento Valley are willing to make their supplies available. The year-to-year availability of this supply is not known.

Turn-Back Water Pool Program
DWR has a program for interested SWP contractors called the Turn-back Water Pool Program. SWP contractors may choose to sell Table A water or purchase turn-back pool water that is available through the program. The amount of pool water available to the City of American Canyon is not a significant amount. For example, during 2010 the City purchased 17 acre-feet, and in 2012 it purchased 64 acre-feet. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2016.

Napa Treated Water
The City has an agreement with the City of Napa for the purchase of treated (potable) water under emergency conditions, or when the North Bay Aqueduct system is off-line for maintenance or other reasons. Napa treated water provides operational flexibility (such as providing water to customers even when the City’s water treatment plant is off-line for an extended period of time). During 2010, the City purchased 306 acre-feet of treated water when the plant was off-line for maintenancerelated issues. Under this informal arrangement, the Napa treated water purchase counts against the City’s SWP Table A allotment. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2014.

Dry Year Transfer Program
During dry years, varying amounts of additional water may be made available to SWP contractors through DWR’s Dry Year Transfer Program, which allows for transfers through a combination of crop idling, groundwater substitution, and changes in reservoir operation. For example, in 2015 the City of American Canyon purchased 92 acre-feet of additional supply (for that year) through this program. Because this option is available to the City on a per year authorization, the long-term reliability of this supply is not known. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2015.
303
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-4
Single Year Transfers
Single year water transfers, typically between agricultural water users and urban suppliers, are commonly used to supplement municipal supplies during dry years. Such transfers are negotiated between parties and may be subject to State Water Board approval, which is routinely granted. In adopting the most recent amendments to the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan, the State Water Board assumed such transfers would be employed to meet municipal demand during times of shortage.

Yuba Accord
In 2008, the DWR adopted the Lower Yuba River Accord, an agreement to settle issues related to instream flows in the Yuba River and fisheries habitat. As part of that agreement, the DWR is able to purchase water from the Yuba River Water Agency to, in part, offer to participating SWP contractors as a transfer during dry years. The Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has authorized the execution of Yuba Accord Dry-year Water Purchase Agreement, and the City of American Canyon has the option to purchase water through this agreement in dry years, though at a cost that is considerably higher than under normal conditions. In 2015, the City authorized the purchase of 124 acre-feet through this program to cover projected water supply shortfalls during the drought. The City of American Canyon has not purchased water through this program since 2015.

Recycled Water
American Canyon Recycled Water
The City of American Canyon completed the first phase of its Recycled Water Distribution System Project in 2010, which included a 1-million-gallon reservoir, distribution piping, and associated improvements at the City’s water treatment plant. Initially, 13 users were connected to the system and 73 acre-feet of water was delivered in 2010. The Recycled Water Master Plan projected over 1,200 acre-feet of water demand at buildout in 2035 for landscaping and agricultural irrigation (City of American Canyon 2016a). However, utilization of this supply is dependent on connection of additional users and completion of additional distribution pipe segments. Currently, the City produces recycled water to meet demand on an as needed basis. The 2020 UWMP identifies 1,241 acre-feet per year (AFY) as the full system capacity by 2035. In 2022, the Recycled Water Delivery Program allowed American Canyon to conserve more than 3-million gallons of potable water during emergency drought conditions (City of American Canyon 2024). However, due to plentiful rain and increased Sierra snowpack during the winter of 2023, the Department of Water Resources announced a 100 percent allocation from the State Water Project this year. As such, American Canyon did not continue the Recycled Water Delivery Program into 2023 or 2024 (City of American Canyon 2024).

Water Treatment Plant
The City owns, maintains, and operates the Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which has a maximum capacity of 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd) with an average daily demand of approximately 3 mgd.

Treated water is delivered by gravity to the 2.5-million-gallon (MG) water storage tank located at the WTP and flows from the tank to the distribution system. The potable water distribution system consists of approximately 102 miles of water mains, 3 storage tanks, and 2 booster pump stations. 304
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-5
The total demand (potable and non-potable) in 2020 was approximately 2,613 acre-feet (AF) (City of American Canyon 2023). Residential demands account for 1,454 AF (56 percent) of the total demand; while commercial, industrial, and institutional demands account for 763 AF (29 percent); and landscape irrigation demands account for 139 AF (5 percent) (City of American Canyon 2023).

Raw water for agricultural irrigation was 63 AF (2 percent). The remaining balance is attributed to other uses (fire hydrants, construction) at 73 AF (3 percent) and water loss of 121 AF (5 percent) (American Canyon 2023). The per capita water demand was 116 gallons per capita per day in 2020. b. Wastewater
Introduction
The City and NapaSan provide municipal wastewater and recycled water services within the City’s water service area. The City’s wastewater collection system consists of gravity pipelines, two force mains (the Main and Industrial Basins from the southern and northern ends of the City, respectively) and a series of pump stations. The wastewater is conveyed to the City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) for treatment. Wastewater collected in the NapaSan systems is conveyed to NapaSan’s Soscol Water Recycling Facility, which produces treated wastewater and recycled water. The City’s recycled water distribution system includes approximately 13 miles of pipeline, a pump station, and two storage tanks with capacities of 1 million gallons and 1.5 million gallons. The City’s and relevant portions of the NapaSan’s sewer/recycled water service area is shown in Figure 4.13-1.

Water Reclamation Facility
The City owns, maintains, and operates the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) located near the Napa River. The WRF treats both domestic and industrial wastewater flows and is a secondary/tertiary treatment plant. It began operations in 2002 and employs a Membrane Bio Reactor and ultraviolet light disinfection. Treated wastewater discharges are regulated under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R2-2022-2019. The WRF has a total wastewater treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd at average dry weather flow conditions and 5.0 mgd at peak wet weather flow conditions. In 2020, the City treated 1,625 AF of wastewater, which is equivalent to 1.45 mgd (City of American Canyon 2023).6 In 2020, there was 1.05 mgd of remaining capacity for wastewater treatment.

Approximately 17 percent of total influent inflow received at the WRF becomes recycled water. In 2019, 282 acre-feet of recycled water were delivered to various users for non-potable use. The remaining effluent is treated and discharged to the Napa River.

Collection System
The City’s wastewater collection system consists of gravity pipelines (53 miles), force mains (5 miles), and five pump stations that convey wastewater to the City’s WRF. The City’s system operates its collection system to segregate domestic water from high strength industrial wastewater flows.

The Kimberly Pump Station and the Sunset Meadows Pump Station collect wastewater from residential areas and deliver 75 percent of the flow to the wastewater treatment plant. The Tower Road and Green Island Sewer Pump Stations transport wastewater from industrial areas in the northern part of the City. These two stations discharge a combination of domestic and industrial wastewater to a common force main and deliver the remaining 25 percent of the flow to the WRF. 6 1.45 mgd = [1,625 AF * (325,851 gallons pe 1 acre foot) / 1,000,000 gallons] / 365 days per year 305
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-6
Figure 4.13-1 Water Service Area

306
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-7
a. Storm Drainage
The City of American Canyon is located along the alluvial marshlands of the east bank on the Napa River and the lower slopes of the Sulphur Springs Mountain Range. The watersheds within the City include tributary areas of five creeks. The creeks all drain in a westerly direction from the rolling hills in the east to the Napa River on the west. The existing drainage system in the City consists of natural creeks in the hilly areas, with improved channels in the upland areas and levied channels and sloughs in the lower marshlands near the Napa River.

Developed subdivisions in the City are served by piped drainage facilities that discharge into the creek channels. Watershed boundaries follow ridgelines in the upper elevations, and follow levees, roadways, and other manmade obstructions in the upland and lower watershed areas. The watershed drainages of the five primary creeks in the City are American Canyon Creek, Walsh Creek, North Slough, Fagan Creek, and Sheehy Creek.

An overview of the natural drainage systems and man-made drainage systems are provided in Section 4.15, Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant (see subsection 4.15.5). Major storm drainage infrastructure within the City is owned and operated by the City of American Canyon and maintained by the City’s Department of Public Works. Storm drainage infrastructure includes drainpipes, concrete channels, culverts, and swales, which convey storm drainage to Rio Del Mar Creek, American Canyon Creek or North Slough before joining Napa River in the west, and then to San Francisco Bay.

The City maintains a Storm Drainage Master Plan and engineering standards that guide the development of the municipal storm drainage system (City of American Canyon 1996). The City requires stormwater discharges to comply with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) permit requirements and establishes non-point source pollution control measures as required by federal and State law. Stormwater pollution prevention measures for new development projects, such as bioswales, detention ponds, erosion, and sedimentation control, are incorporated in the planning, design, construction, and operation of projects with the potential to create pollutants in stormwater runoff.
b. Solid Waste and Recycling
Residential and commercial trash and recycling services in the City are provided by American Canyon Recology through a franchise waste hauling agreement with the City of American Canyon.

Recology transports solid waste from American Canyon to the Devlin Road Recycling & Transfer Facility (DRRTF) where it is loaded into trucks and sent to Potrero Hills Landfill (PHLF) in Suisun (Solano County).

The DRRTF is a 35-acre regional transfer station operated by the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority (NVWMA), a joint powers agency. NVWMA members include the cities of Napa, American Canyon, and Vallejo (in Solano County), and County of Napa. The DRRTF is permitted by the Napa County Local Enforcement Agency as Large Volume Transfer Processing Facility. DRRTF receives solid waste primarily from NVWMA member jurisdictions and a much smaller portion of the waste stream is received from twenty to thirty non-member jurisdictions in the surrounding area. The DRRTF is permitted to receive 1,440 tons of solid waste per day (County of Napa 2008).

According to the Solid Waste Facility Permit for the PHLF, the peak tonnage of incoming waste is not to exceed 4,330 tons per day. The maximum permitted capacity of the landfill is 83.1 million cubic yards or 87.1 million tons. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the remaining capacity of the landfill is 13.9 million tons (CalRecycle 2022a). 307
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-8
PHLF is designated as a Class III landfill. This means that the landfill can accept only nonhazardous waste for disposal. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB may also, at its discretion, allow Class III landfills to accept certain types of “designated wastes.” Designated waste is defined (in the California Water Code, Section 13173) as either: (1) non-hazardous waste that consists of or contains pollutants that, under ambient environmental conditions at a waste management unit could be released in concentrations exceeding applicable water quality objectives, or that could reasonably be expected to affect beneficial uses of the waters of the state as contained in the appropriate state water quality control plan; or (2) hazardous waste that has been granted a variance from hazardous waste management requirements pursuant to Section 25143 of the Health and Safety Code. c. Natural Gas/Electricity
Since 2016, the City has been enrolled in the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Light Green Program, MCE’s default energy plan that offers 60 percent renewable energy. Before switching to MCE, the City was enrolled in the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 29 percent renewable option. MCE is an alternative to PG&E for energy generation. All residents and local businesses are automatically enrolled in the Light Green Program and have the option to opt up to the Deep Green Program, which offers 100 percent renewable energy. In 2021, American Canyon City Council voted to supply the City's facilities with MCE Deep Green 100 percent renewable energy.

Some electrical and all natural gas service in the City of American Canyon is provided by PG&E. The company provides natural gas and electric service to approximately 16 million people throughout a 70,000-square-mile service area in northern and central California. PG&E maintains and services all transmission and distribution lines within the region. These transmission lines traverse the plan area, both underground and above ground. Of particular note are the high-power electrical transmission lines which run northeast by southwest through the plan area. (PG&E 2022a). A natural gas transmission pipeline runs north to south through the eastern part of the Planning Area along Newell Drive and Flosden Road (PG&E 2022b).
d. Telecommunications
Telecommunication utilities, including phone, internet, and television, are mainly a privately owned enterprise and are offered by a variety of companies in the City and its surrounding area. The number of providers offering the service, the type of service available, and the transmission speed of the service all affect the quality of telecommunications. This approach differs from that of most other utilities, which are generally publicly owned or offered by limited or individual service providers in a given area. Telecommunications providers will usually complete infrastructure and other service improvements for an area as the need arises to meet customer demand.

4.13.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Protection of Underground Infrastructure
California Government Code Section 4216
California Government Code Section 4216 et seq. requires that persons planning to conduct any excavation first contact the regional notification center. Section 4216 includes several related 308
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-9
requirements, including requirements for excavations near “high priority utilities,”7 which include high-pressure natural gas pipelines and other pipelines that are potentially hazardous to workers or the public if damaged or ruptured. Underground Service Alert North (USA North) is the regional notification center for the areas where the project would be located. USA North receives planned excavation reports and transmits the information to all participating members that may have underground facilities at the location of excavation. The USA North members then mark or stake their facility, provide information about the location, or advise the excavator of clearance. b. Water Supply and Quality
Federal
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in American Canyon are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, MS4 Order No. 2013-001 (General Permit). In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to mandate controls on discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). Acting under the federal mandate and the California Water Code, RWQCBs require cities, towns, and counties to regulate activities that can result in pollutants entering their storm drains. All municipalities prohibit non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and require residents and businesses to use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the amount of pollutants in runoff. The Municipal Regional Permit is overseen by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. On February 5, 2013, the State Water Board reissued the Phase II Stormwater NPDES Permit for small MS4s.

Provision E.12, “Post-Construction Stormwater Management Program,” mandates municipalities to require specified features and facilities–to control pollutant sources, to control runoff volumes, rates, and durations, and to treat runoff before discharge from the site–be included in development plans of projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more impervious surface as conditions of issuing approvals and permits. The new requirements continue a progression of increasingly stringent requirements since 1989.

Provision E.12 requires all municipal permittees to implement these requirements by June 30, 2015, to the extent allowed by applicable law. This includes projects requiring discretionary approvals that have not been deemed complete for processing and discretionary permit projects without vesting tentative maps that have not requested and received an extension of previously granted approvals.

In July of 2014, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), through the BASMAA Phase II Committee, created the BASMAA Manual to assist applicants for development approvals to prepare submittals that demonstrate their project complies with the NPDES permit requirements. Applicants who seek development approvals for applicable projects should follow the manual when preparing their submittals. The manual is designed to ensure compliance with the requirements and promote integrated Low Impact Development (LID) design.

Section E.12.c of the NPDES Permit pertains to LID and how it relates to hydromodification management. This permit provision requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff flow 7 Consistent with California Government Code Section 4216(e), high priority utilities include natural gas pipelines carrying petroleum with normal operating pressures greater than 415kPA (60 pounds per square inch gauge); petroleum pipelines; pressurized sewage pipelines; high voltage electric supply lines, conductors, or cables that have a potential to ground of greater than 60 kilovolt; and hazardous materials pipelines that are potentially hazardous to workers or the public if damaged. 309
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-10
and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated preproject rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force.

State
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
In September 2014, the governor signed legislation requiring that California’s critical groundwater resources be sustainably managed by local agencies. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act gives local agencies the power to sustainably manage groundwater and requires groundwater sustainability plans to be developed for medium- and high-priority groundwater basins, as defined by the California Department of Water Resources. American Canyon underlies the Napa Sonoma Lowlands Subbasin, which is classified as a Very Low Priority basin by the DWR (DWR 2022).

California Water Code
The California Water Code contains regulations including, but not limited to water supply, safe drinking water, clean water, and water quality. More specifically, Division 24, Chapter 6, contains provisions for water supply reliability through water conservation and groundwater recharge, local projects, feasibility projects, management of Sacramento Valley water and habitat protection measures, and implementation of the river parkway program.

California Plumbing Code
The California Plumbing Code is codified in Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5. The Plumbing Code contains regulations including, but not limited to, plumbing materials, fixtures, water heaters, water supply and distribution, ventilation, and drainage. More specifically, Part 5, Chapter 4, contains provisions requiring the installation of low flow fixtures and toilets. Existing development will also be required to reduce its wastewater generation by retrofitting existing structures with water efficient fixtures (Senate Bill [SB] 407 [2009] Civil Code Sections 1101.1 et seq.).

Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (Water Code, Section 10610 et seq.), which requires urban water suppliers to develop water management plans to actively pursue the efficient use of available supplies. Every five years, water suppliers are required to develop Urban Water Management Plans to identify short-term and long-term water demand management measures to meet growing water demands.

In preparing a UWMP, an urban water supplier must describe or identify the following, among other things (as set forth in Water Code Section 10631):
 “The service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier’s water management planning.”  “Projected population estimates” based on “data from the State, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area,” in “five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available.”
 “Past and current water use” and “projected water use.” 310
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-11
 “Existing and planned sources of water” for each five-year increment of the 20-year planning period.
 Specific detailed information about groundwater where it is identified as “an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier.”
 “All water supply projects and water supply programs” that may be undertaken to meet “total projected water use,” including “specific projects” and the “increase in water supply” expected from each project.
 An estimate of “the implementation timeline for each project or program.”  “Plans to supplement or replace” any “water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors” with “alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable.”  “The reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable,” for (i) an “average water year,” (ii) a “single dry water year,” and (iii) “[m]ultiple dry water years.”
 “Opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis.”  “Opportunities for development of desalinated water, including, but not limited to, ocean water, brackish water, and groundwater, as a long-term supply.”  “Water demand management measures.”
Senate Bill 610: Water Supply Assessments
As revised by Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Stats. 2002, ch. 643), Section 10910, et seq. of the California Water Code set forth the circumstances in which California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies must seek preparation of, or prepare themselves, “water supply assessments” for defined proposed “projects.” At the time a lead agency determines that a proposed project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the lead agency shall identify any “public water system” that would serve the project site and shall request that any such entity prepare a WSA for the project. In the absence of such a public water system, the city or county lead agency must prepare its own WSA. SB 610 functions together with CEQA, in that a WSA must be included in “any environmental document” for any “project” subject to SB 610 (Water Code Section 10911(b); see also State CEQA Guidelines Section 15155(e); see also Id. Section 15361 [defines “environmental documents” to include “Negative Declarations…[and] draft and final EIRs”]).

One of the fundamental tasks of a WSA is to determine whether “total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses” (Water Code Section 10910 (c)(3), (c)(4)). In making such a determination, the authors of the WSA must address several factors. Specifically, the WSA must contain information regarding existing water supplies, projected water demand, and dry year supply and demand. In Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 433 (“Vineyard”), the California Supreme Court briefly summarized the key content requirements as follows:

With regard to existing supply entitlements and rights, a water supply assessment must include assurances such as written contracts, capital outlay programs and regulatory approvals for facilities construction . . . but as to additional future supplies needed to serve the project, the assessment need include only the public water system’s plans for acquiring the additional 311
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-12
supplies, including cost and time estimates and regulatory approvals the system anticipates needing (Water Code §§ 10910, subd. (d)(2), and 10911, subd. (a)). (Original italics.) “Existing” water supplies can be based on different kinds of legal rights or arrangements, including entitlements, water rights, and water service contracts. In many cases, these supplies are likely already described in detail in the supplier’s UWMP (Water Code Section 10631(b)). Suppliers are expressly permitted to rely on information contained in the most recently adopted UWMPs, provided that the water needed for proposed development project was accounted for therein (Water Code Section 10910(c)(2)).

In preparing a WSA, the public water system must disclose and document the quantity of water received from these various sources. Such supplies must be demonstrated by providing the following:
 Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply.  Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system.
 Federal, State, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply.
 Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to convey or deliver the water supply.

A finding of insufficiency in a WSA does not require a city or county to deny or downsize a proposed development project. Rather, after identifying a shortfall, the public water system must provide its plans for acquiring “additional supplies” (or what the California Supreme Court called “future” supplies) (Water Code Section 10911(a)). These plans should include information concerning the following:

1. The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies.

2. All federal, State, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies.

3. Based on the considerations set forth in bullet points (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city and county . . . expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies.

These particular Water Code requirements for assessments are action-forcing, in that they require the public water system to lay out a roadmap for obtaining new water supplies once it becomes aware that existing supplies are insufficient for the proposed project together with other foreseeable planned growth.

Regardless of the information provided to a city or county in a WSA, SB 610 stops short of preventing cities and counties from approving the “projects” at issue absent “sufficient” water supplies. But where “existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts” are “insufficient” to serve proposed projects, SB 610 does require that, in approving projects in the face of insufficient supplies, cities and counties must “include” in their “findings for the project[s]” their “determination[s]” regarding water supply insufficiency. SB 610 functions together with CEQA, in that a water supply assessment must be included in “any environmental document” for any “project” subject to SB 610. (Id. subd. (b); Guidelines, Section 15155, subd. (e); see also id. Section 312
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-13
15361 [defines “environmental documents” to include “Negative Declarations. . . [and] draft and final EIRs”]).

When a project is proposed in the Planning Area, the applicant may need to submit a WSA per SB 610 depending on the size of the project.

Recycled Water Policy
On February 3, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-0011, the State Water Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy in an effort to move toward a sustainable water future. The Recycled Water Policy states “we declare our independence from relying on the vagaries of annual precipitation and move toward sustainable management of surface waters and groundwater, together with enhanced water conservation, water reuse and the use of stormwater.” The following goals were included in the Recycled Water Policy:
 Increase use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1 million AFY by 2020 and at least 2 million AFY by 2030.
 Increase the use of stormwater over use in 2007 by at least 500,000 AFY by 2020 and at least 1 million AFY by 2030.
 Increase the amount of water conserved in urban and industrial areas by comparison to 2007 by at least 20 percent by 2020.
 Included in these goals is the substitution of as much recycled water for potable water as possible by 2030.

The Recycled Water Policy provides direction to the RWQCBs regarding issuing permits for recycled water projects, addresses the benefits of recycled water, addresses a mandate for use of recycled water and indicates the State Water Board will exercise its authority to the fullest extent possible to encourage the use of recycled water.

The Recycled Water Policy also indicates that some groundwater basins contain salts and nutrients that exceed or threaten to exceed water quality objectives established in basin plans and states that it is the intent of this Recycled Water Policy that all salts and nutrients be managed on a basin-wide or watershed-wide basis through development of regional or subregional management plans.

Finally, the Recycled Water Policy addresses the control of incidental runoff from landscape irrigation projects, recycled water groundwater recharge projects, anti-degradation, control of emerging constituents and chemicals of emerging concern and incentives for use of recycled water.

In accordance with the provisions of the Recycled Water Policy, a Constituents of Emerging Concerns Advisory Panel was established to address questions about regulating constituents of concern (COCs) with respect to the use of recycled water. The Advisory Panel’s primary charge was to provide guidance for developing monitoring programs that assess potential COC threats from various water recycling practices, including groundwater recharge/reuse and urban landscape irrigation. On June 25, 2010, the Advisory Panel provided recommendations to the State Water Board and California Department of Public Health in their Final Report “Monitoring Strategies for Chemicals of Emerging Concern in Recycled Water – Recommendations of a Scientific Advisory Panel”. The State Water Board used those recommendations to amend the Recycled Water Policy in 2013 (State Water Board Resolution No. 2013-003).

The April 2013 amendment provides direction to the RWQCBs on monitoring requirements for COCs in recycled water. The monitoring requirements pertain to the production and use of recycled water 313
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-14
for groundwater recharge reuse by surface and subsurface application methods, and for landscape irrigation. The amendment identifies three classes of constituents to monitor:
 Human health-based COCs: COCs of toxicological relevance to human health.  Performance indicator COCs: An individual COC used for evaluating removal through treatment of a family of COCs with similar physicochemical or biodegradable characteristics.  Surrogates: A measurable physical or chemical property, such as chlorine residual or electrical conductivity, that provides a direct correlation with the concentration of an indicator compound. Surrogates are used to monitor the efficiency of COC treatment.

Only groundwater recharge reuse facilities would be required to monitor for COCs and surrogates.

Surface application and subsurface application facilities would have different mandatory COCs and a different monitoring schedule. Monitoring is not required for recycled water used for landscape irrigation projects that qualify for streamlined permitting unless monitoring is required under the adopted salt and nutrient management plan. Streamlined permitting projects must meet the criteria specified in the Policy including compliance with Title 22, application at agronomic rates, compliance with any applicable salt and nutrient management plan, and appropriate use of fertilizers.

Water Conservation Act of 2009
Requirements regarding per capita water use targets are defined in the Water Conservation Act of 2009, which was signed into law in November 2009 as part of a comprehensive water legislation package. Known as SB X7-7, the legislation sets a goal of achieving a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use Statewide by 2020. SB X7-7 requires that retail water suppliers define in their 2010 UWMPs the gallons per capita per day targets for 2020, with an interim 2015 target.

Assembly Bill 1881
Assembly Bill (AB) 1881 expanded previous legislation related to landscape water use efficiency. AB 1881, the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006, enacted landscape efficiency recommendations of the California Urban Water Conservation Council for improving the efficiency of water use in new and existing urban irrigated landscapes in California. AB 1881 required the DWR to update the existing Model Local Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and local agencies to adopt the updated model ordinance or an equivalent. The law also requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Assembly Bill 2882
AB 2882 was passed in 2008 and encourages public water agencies throughout California to adopt conservation rate structures that reward consumers who conserve water. AB 2882 clarifies the allocation-based rate structures and establishes standards that protect consumers by ensuring a lower base rate for those who conserve water.
314
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-15
Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 13.06.090 of American Canyon Municipal Code establishes that at the time of submission of an application for a building permit for connection to the city water system, an applicant shall be required to pay a water capacity fee, in proportion to the new connection’s impact on the water system.

Section 13.10 of the American Canyon Municipal Code limits new industrial water users within the City’s water service area to a net use of 650 gallons per acre per day (GPAD) and requires dualplumbing with purple pipe.8 For use greater than 650 GPAD, offset options include, but are not limited to, retrofit of existing residences with low flow fixtures, purchase of otherwise developable land as permanent open space, or acquisition of other water supply resources as provided for by a water supply analysis that follows the Zero Water Footprint (ZWF) methodology (see below).

American Canyon 2020 Urban Water Management Plan
The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan identifies the following policies that would apply to the project:
 ZWF Policy: This policy has a goal of no loss in reliability or increase in water rates for existing water service customers due to new demand for water within the City’s water service area.

Developers must ensure that all new developments offset the amount of increased potable water that will be consumed by their project on a one-to-one basis. Developers are required to minimize their demand for new potable water by using water efficient fixtures, consuming recycled water for non-potable uses when available, dual plumbing buildings, installing water wise landscaping and irrigation, and other appropriate measures. Methods for offsetting the increase in potable water consumption might include contributing to the City’s existing conservation programs, converting an existing public use of potable water to recycled water, contributing to projects that reduce potable water demand, increase capacity to produce recycled water, or expand the reclaimed water system, or acquiring water supply from another source.
c. Wastewater
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
In 1972, the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act was amended to require that the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. from any point source be effectively prohibited unless the discharge follows a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This amendment became the basis for what was by 1977 referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA). In 1987, the CWA was again amended to require that the USEPA establish regulations for the permitting of stormwater discharges (as a point source) by municipal and industrial facilities and construction activities under the NPDES permit program. The regulations require that discharges to 8 Purple pipe allows for use of recycled water for landscaping. 315
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-16
surface waters from municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)9 be regulated by an NPDES permit.

Regulations on storm water discharges from MS4s were implemented with a two-phased program.

Phase I, promulgated by USEPA in November 1990, requires NPDES permits for storm water discharges from MS4sserving populations of 100,000 or greater, construction sites disturbing greater than 5 acres of land, and ten categories of industrial activities. The USEPA recognized that smaller construction projects (disturbing less than 5 acres) and small MS4s (serving populations smaller than 100,000) were also contributing substantially to pollutant discharges nationwide.

Therefore, to further improve storm water quality, the USEPA promulgated the NPDES Phase II program (Federal Register Vol. 64, No. 235, December 8, 1999). The Phase II regulations became effective on February 7, 2000, and require NPDES permits for storm water discharges from regulated small MS4s and for construction sites disturbing between 1 acre and 5 acres of land.

State and Regional
Standards for wastewater treatment plant effluent are established using State and federal water quality regulations. After treatment, wastewater effluent is either disposed of or reused as recycled water. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCBs) set the specific requirements for community and individual wastewater treatment and disposal and reuse facilities through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements, required for wastewater treatment facilities under the California Water Code Section 13260.

The California Code of Regulations Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Sections 60301 through 60355 are used to regulate recycled wastewater and are administered by the RWQCBs. Title 22 contains effluent requirements for four levels of wastewater treatment, from un-disinfected secondary recycled water to disinfected tertiary recycled water. Higher levels of treatment have higher effluent standards, allowing for a greater number of uses under Title 22, including irrigation of freeway landscaping, pasture for milk animals, parks and playgrounds, and vineyards and orchards for disinfected tertiary recycled water.

Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 14.06.020 establishes that at the time of submission of application for building permit for connection to the city wastewater collection system, an applicant shall pay a wastewater capacity fee in proportion to use of the capacity of the wastewater system. d. Stormwater
Federal
Federal Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act is described above.
9 An MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances designed or used to collect or convey stormwater (e.g., storm drains, pipes, ditches) that are that owned by a state, city, town, or other public entity and discharge to waters of the United States. 316
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-17
State
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit
The General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002, as amended by Order Nos. 2010- 0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ (Construction General Permit), adopted by the State Water Board, regulates construction activity that includes clearing, grading, and excavation resulting in soil disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. The Construction General Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater to surface waters from construction activities. The Construction General Permit requires that all developers of land where construction activities will occur over more than 1 acre do the following:
 Complete a Risk Assessment to determine pollution prevention requirements pursuant to the three risk levels established in the General Permit;
 Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the United States;
 Develop and implement a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will reduce pollution in stormwater discharges to the Best Available Technology/ Economically Achievable/Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology standards;
 Perform inspections and maintenance of all BMPs; and
 Conduct stormwater sampling, if required based on risk level.

To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a project applicant must electronically file all permit registration documents with the State Water Board prior to the start of construction.

Permit registration documents must include a:
 Notice of Intent (NOI),
 Risk Assessment,
 Site map,
 Construction SWPPP,
 Annual fee, and
 Signed certification statement.

Typical BMPs contained in construction SWPPPs are designed to minimize erosion during construction, stabilize construction areas, control sediment, and control pollutants from construction materials. The construction SWPPP must also include a discussion of the program to inspect and maintain all BMPs.

Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 14.28.082 of the American Canyon Municipal Code identifies that the City may establish volume and rate of stormwater controls from new developments and redevelopment as may be appropriate to minimize peak flows or total runoff volume, and to mimic the pre-development site 317
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-18
hydrology. This section also includes the requirement that qualifying projects prepare a SCP that meets the criteria in the BASMAA Post Construction Manual. e. Solid Waste
Federal
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 258 (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the Federal landfill criteria.

State
California Code of Regulations Tile 14
The California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 7, outlines current CalRecycle regulations pertaining to non-hazardous waste management in California, which includes minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal; compostable materials handling operations and facilities regulatory requirements; standards for handling and disposal of asbestos containing waste; resource conservation programs; enforcement of solid waste standards and administration of solid waste facility permits; special waste standards; used oil recycling program; electronic waste recovery and recycling; mandatory commercial recycling; and short-lived climate pollutants.

Assembly Bill 341
The purpose of Assembly Bill (AB) 341 of 2011 (Public Resource Code [PRC] Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California. In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 of 2016 (PRC Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) established the following goals: a 50-percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2020, and a 75- percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025.

This bill also authorized CalRecycle to adopt regulations, to take effect on or after January 1, 2022, to achieve these targets.

Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (PRC 41780) requires cities and counties to prepare integrated waste management plans and to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills beginning in calendar year 2000 and each year thereafter. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare source reduction and recycling elements as part of the integrated waste management plans. These elements are designed to develop recycling services to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing, and stimulate the purchase of recycled products.
318
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-19
Assembly Bill 1826
AB 1826 of 2014 (PRC Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) requires businesses that generate a specified amount of organic waste per week to arrange for recycling services for that waste, and that jurisdictions implement a recycling program to divert organic waste from businesses subject to the law. The jurisdictions must report to CalRecycle on their progress in implementing an organic waste recycling program. As of January 1, 2017, businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of organic waste per week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services.

Senate Bill 1016
SB 1016 requires that the 50 percent solid waste diversion requirement established by AB 939 be expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 changed the CalRecycle review process for each municipality’s integrated waste management plan. After an initial determination of diversion requirements in 2006 and establishing diversion rates for subsequent calendar years, the Board reviews a jurisdiction’s diversion rate compliance in accordance with a specified schedule. Since January 1, 2018, the Board is required to review a jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element and hazardous waste element once every two years.

Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 8.20 of the American Canyon Municipal Code includes requirements for mandatory municipal solid waste, recycling, and composting material disposal reductions. Section 8.20.030 includes the requirements for commercial businesses, which would apply to the project. Section

8.20.100 requires new buildings to comply with California Green Building Standards (CALGreen), including the requirements for new commercial buildings to provide readily accessible areas identified for blue container and green container material storage and collection, consistent with the three-container collection program offered by the city, as well as compliance with CALGreen requirements for diverting construction and demolition debris. f. Electric Power and Natural Gas
State
California Energy Commission
As the State’s primary energy policy and planning agency, the CEC collaborates with State and federal agencies, utilities, and other stakeholders to develop and implement State energy policies.

Since 1975, the CEC has been responsible for reducing the State’s electricity and natural gas demand, primarily by adopting new Building and Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards that have contributed to keeping California’s per capita electricity consumption relatively low. The CEC is also responsible for the certification and compliance of thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger, including all project-related facilities in California (CEC 2022).

California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates investor-owned electric and natural gas utilities operating in California. The energy work responsibilities of the CPUC are derived from the California State Constitution, specifically Article XII, Section 3 and other sections more generally, numerous State legislative enactments and various Federal statutory and administrative 319
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-20
requirements. The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers that receive natural gas from PG&E and other natural gas utilities across California (CPUC 2022a).

Local
American Canyon Municipal Code
Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires that all utilities be installed underground in accordance with the provisions of the American Canyon Municipal Code. It also requires that all underground utilities be installed before preparation of subgrade for paving or any other site improvements that may affect the orderly installation of the underground utilities.

4.13.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on utilities and service systems if it would:

1. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;

2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years;

3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;

4. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or

5. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Methodology
This analysis considers the existing capacity of utilities serving the City, estimates qualitatively and quantitively the potential additional demand on utilities, and identifies whether the existing system can serve the demand of the existing demand plus the project’s estimated demand. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
320
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-21
Threshold 1: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
IMPACT UTL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR WATER, WASTEWATER, ELECTRIC POWER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, AND STORMWATER DRAINAGE; HOWEVER, NO

ADDITIONAL RELOCATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF UTILITY SERVICES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVICE THE PROJECT BEYOND CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES. THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN A MINIMAL INCREASE IN NATURAL GAS DEMAND. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Water and Wastewater
Growth and development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would create additional demand for water. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would occur within developed areas of the City, generally as infill development or redevelopment. Therefore, water infrastructure exists and is available for new development. Water infrastructure, such as pipelines, could require upgrades for future development. Installation of upgraded infrastructure would result in ground disturbance.

Generally, this ground disturbance would occur in previously disturbed or developed areas, reducing the potential for environmental impacts. Such facilities would be installed during individual project construction and generally within the disturbance area of such projects or the rights-of-way of previously disturbed roadways; therefore, the construction of these infrastructure improvements would not substantially increase the project’s disturbance area or otherwise cause significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout this EIR.

In addition, the City of American Canyon has several policies to address and minimize additional water demand, as well as wastewater. Sections 13.06.090 and 14.06.020 of the American Canyon Municipal Code require any applicants for development within the City or its sphere of influence that will be served by the City to pay a water capacity fee and wastewater capacity fee, respectively in proportion to the new connection’s impact on the water and wastewater system. The payment of this fee will help ensure that the City has sufficient capacity within its water and wastewater system to accommodate the project. In addition, and as described in further detail in Impact UTL-2, all projects must implement the ZWF policy to have a net zero water demand. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan includes the following proposed policies related to water and wastewater facilities:

Goal U-1: Water Reliability. Establish and maintain a secure water supply and treatment, distribution, and storage system to serve the land uses proposed under the general plan.  Policy U-1.2: Facility Upgrades. Require construction of upgraded and expanded, distribution, storage, and treatment facilities to support existing and new development.  Policy U-1.3: Upgrade Responsibilities. Ensure that improvements to the existing water supply, distribution, storage, and treatment facilities are borne by project proponent in proportion to benefit; either through the payment of fees, or by the actual construction of the improvements.  Policy U-1.5: Adequate Supply Prior to Occupancy. Implement a Will Serve Process to ensure adequate water supply, distribution, storage, and treatment facilities is available to serve a project prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy.

Goal U-2: Water Conservation. Establish policies that make the most efficient use of our water resources to for a variety of public benefits, such as: improve water reliability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and minimize environmental impacts from drawing water from the environment. 321
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-22
 Policy U-2.1: Zero Water Footprint. Ensure new development offsets potable water demand by funding or constructing potable water conservation efforts elsewhere in the water delivery system.
 Policy U-2.2: City Facilities Retrofits. Improve water use efficiency at City facilities through retrofits, recycled water usage, and employee education.  Policy U-2.3: Retrofits Existing Buildings. Promote existing buildings upgrades to support water conservation by encouraging owners of residential, commercial, and industrial properties to replace inefficient plumbing fixtures, install drought-tolerant and water-wise landscaping, and harvest rainwater for landscaping and other household uses.

Goal U-3: Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Establish and maintain adequate planning, construction, maintenance, and funding for wastewater collection and treatment facilities to support land uses; upgrading existing deficient systems, and expanding, where necessary, in the City's service area.
 Policy U-3.1: Demand Requirements for Facilities. Through the Capital Improvement Plan process, ensure wastewater collection and treatment facilities are installed, maintained, and upgraded in a timely manner to meet usage requirements and maximize cost efficiency.  Policy U-3.2: Capacity Demand. Require all new development to evaluate sewer capacity demand during the discretionary review process.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would result in new connections to the existing water and wastewater system but would not create a substantial water demand (due to implementation of the American Canyon Municipal Code and policies), such that new or expanded water or wastewater facilities would be needed. The water connections associated with the project would not cause significant environmental effects beyond those already identified throughout this EIR. As such, impacts related to potential new water and wastewater facilities would be less than significant.

Stormwater
As discussed in Section 4.15, Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant, runoff associated with future development and mobility improvements would be regulated by Section 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code, which ensure compliance with the Phase II MS4 Permit. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that future development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would mimic the pre-development site hydrology, which would ensure that there is proper stormwater drainage on the project site and would minimize any operational impacts related to water quality or flooding. The project would not require any new or expanded stormwater facilities, beyond what would be installed pursuant to the regulatory requirements in Section 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan includes the following proposed policies related to stormwater facilities:

Goal U-4: Flood Control. Establish and maintain adequate planning, construction, maintenance, and funding for storm drain and flood control facilities to support permitted land uses and preserve public safety.
 Policy U-4.1: Storm Drainage Maintenance. Maintain existing public storm drains and flood control facilities and construct upgraded and expanded storm drain and flood control facilities, where necessary, to protect existing and accommodate new permitted development. 322
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-23
 Policy U-4.3: Financial Obligations. Ensure new storm drain and flood control facility costs are borne by the project proponent in proportion to benefit; either through the payment of fees, or by constructing new improvements.
 Policy U-4.9: Floodwater Diversions. Implement engineering standards that prevent new development from increasing historical stormwater flows onto neighboring properties.

Goal U-5: Stormwater Quality. Maintain the quality of surface and subsurface water resources within the City of American Canyon and its Planning Area.  Policy U-5.1: Passive Treatment Systems. Consistent with engineering standards and water quality regulations, reduce pollutant loading through passive treatment systems such as vegetated filter strips, grass swales, and infiltration/sedimentation areas in suitable open space areas and incorporated into landscaping adjacent to parking lots and streets.  Policy U-5.2: Water Detention Facilities. Consistent with engineering standards and water quality regulations, require new and existing development to include drainage detention facilities that enhance the quality of water discharges from the facility.  Policy U-5.4: Storm Water Permitting. Require industrial operations to obtain coverage under the State Storm Water Permit For Industrial Activities, and comply with provisions of the Permit, through notification and educational activities.

These policies would ensure current and future development in the City of American Canyon would comply with stormwater facilities. Therefore, impacts related to potential new stormwater facilities would be less than significant.

Electricity/Natural Gas
The project would require connections to existing electrical transmission and distribution systems in the City to serve development facilitated by the project. This service would be provided in accordance with the rules and regulations of both MCE and PG&E and under the authority of the CPUC. Based on the availability of existing electrical infrastructure, it is not anticipated that the construction of new electrical transmission and distribution lines would be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan includes the following proposed policies related to electrical facilities:

Goal U-9: Energy Resilience and Conversation. Improve energy system resilience with energy conservation and access to renewable energy sources.
 Policy U-9.2: Electric Energy Systems. Coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to ensure that electrical energy systems do not adversely impact land uses and population in the City of American Canyon.
 Policy U-9.3: Resilient Grid. Cooperate with PG&E to obtain applicable City permit approvals that improve electric grid resilience to natural hazards (seismic events, flooding, wildfires, extreme wind events).
 Policy U-9.4: Overhead Utility Undergrounding. Develop a comprehensive strategy to underground existing overhead utilities.

These policies would ensure current and future development in the City of American Canyon would lessen impacts on electrical facilities. In addition, as required by proposed Policy U-9.4, future 323
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-24
development would be subject to review for utility undergrounding which would further reduce impacts such as wildfire. Therefore, there would be adequate electrical facilities to serve development facilitated by the project. Impacts related to potential new electrical facilities would be less than significant.

The following proposed policy from the Utilities element would reduce demand on natural gas:
 Policy U-9.1: Reach Building Code. Reduce energy use in new development by considering a local amendment that requires a 15% energy efficient standard improvement over the California Building Code.

If future development requires natural gas, then development facilitated by the project would connect to existing natural gas infrastructure to meet the needs of residents and tenants. Based on the availability of existing natural gas infrastructure, construction of new natural gas pipelines would not be required, and development would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate natural gas facilities to serve the development facilitated by the project and impacts related to potential new natural gas facilities would be less than significant.

Telecommunications
Implementation of the project would require connections to existing utility infrastructure to meet the needs of future development. Based on the availability of existing telecommunications infrastructure, construction of new telephone and cable lines would not be required, and all sites would be able to connect to existing infrastructure. Development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to applicable laws and regulations related to the connection to existing telecommunication infrastructure. Therefore, there would be adequate telecommunications facilities to serve the development facilitated by the project and impacts related to potential new telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.

Conflicts with Existing Utilities
Existing underground utilities are located within the Planning Area. Because development facilitated by the project would require excavation, construction could result in conflicts to underground utilities. As required by Government Code Section 4216, applicants for development would be required to contact USA North to avoid underground utilities during construction. As such, impacts on underground utilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 324
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-25
Threshold 2: Would the project have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
IMPACT UTL-2 THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR WATER. WATER SUPPLY FOR THE PROJECT

WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON FROM EXISTING AND PLANNED SUPPLY SOURCES

INCLUDING IMPORTED WATER AND SUPPLEMENTAL WATER PURCHASED FROM THE CITY OF VALLEJO AS WELL AS LOCALLY DEVELOPED RECYCLED WATER. POTENTIAL IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development facilitated by the project would create additional demand for water. The water demand for the project was estimated using water demand rates for land use types identified in the American Canyon Potable Water Master Plan and the Broadway District Specific Plan EIR (City of American Canyon 2016, 2019). Each development type has its own associated water use factor by unit, which were used to calculate projected water demand volumes for each type of development.

Table 4.13-2 summarizes the estimated water demand from the project. Overall, the project is estimated to increase annual water demand by 0.18 mgd or 207 AFY, in addition to existing demand.

Table 4.13-2 Projected Water Demand
Development Type
Estimated Project
Buildout b Water-use factor c
Projected Water Demand a
gpd mgd AFY d
Residential
Single-Family 238 units 266 gpd/unit 63,308 0.05 56
Multi-Family e 513 units 160 gpd/unit 82,080 0.07 78
Non-Residential
Office 65,000 sf 0.21 gpd/sf 13,650 0.01 11
Commercial 4 acres f 1,445 gpd/acre 5,780 0.005 6
Industrial 99 acres g 650 gpd/acre 64,350 0.05 56
Total 229,168 0.18 207
Source: City of American Canyon 2016, 2023
Notes:
a. gpd = gallons per day; sf = square foot; mgd = million gallons per day; AFY = acre feet per year b. The total estimated project buildout has been revised to exclude two projects previously evaluated in the 2020 UWMP: the Watson Ranch Project and the Broadway District Specific Plan because these two projects were considered within total projects demand and supply for the city through 2040. Therefore, the estimated project buildout reflects the net additional projected water demand of the project.
c. The single-family, multi-family, and office water use factors are from the Broadway District Specific Plan EIR (City of American Canyon 2019). The commercial and industrial water use factors are from the City of American Canyon Potable Water Master Plan (City of American Canyon 2016).
d. AFY Calculated by dividing mgd by 0.000892, which is the amount of mgd that are in 1 AFY. e. Moderate- and high-density residential water-use rate. f. The acreage of commercial buildout was calculated by 189,000 sf / 43,560 g. The acreage of industrial buildout was calculated by 4,310,000 sf / 43,560 The City’s UWMP identifies the existing and projected supply and water demand for normal, dry, and multiple dry years. These projections are summarized in Table 4.13-3, which accounts for water supply sources including imported SWP water purchased from the City of Vallejo and supplemental water supply purchased from the City of Vallejo (City of American Canyon, 2023). 325
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-26
Table 4.13-3 2020 UWMP Projected Water Supply and Demand 2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Years
Supply Totals (af/yr) 4,959 4,959 5,575 5,575
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference 1,416 1,174 994 753
Single-Dry Year
Supply Totals (af/yr) 1,897 1,897 2.132 2,132
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -1,646 -1,888 -2,448 -2,689
Multiple Dry Years (First Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,359 3,359 3,776 3,776
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -184 -426 -804 -1,046
Multiple Dry Years (Second Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,359 3,359 3,776 3,776
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -184 -426 -804 -1,046
Multiple Dry Years (Third Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,251 3,251 3,655 3,655
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -291 -534 -925 -1,167
Multiple Dry Years (Fourth Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,251 3,251 3,655 3,655
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -291 -534 -925 -1,167
Multiple Dry Years (Fifth Year)
Supply Totals (af/yr) 3,251 3,251 3,655 3,655
Demand Totals (af/yr) 3,543 3,785 4,580 4,822
Difference -291 -534 -925 -1,167
Source: City of American Canyon 2023
As shown in Table 4.13-2, the proposed project would increase water demands projected in the City’s UWMP by approximately 207 AFY; as shown in Table 4.13-3, which accounts for imported water and supplemental water purchased from the City of Vallejo, the UWMP projects water supply shortages during single-dry and multiple-dry year conditions. As discussed in Chapter 8 of the UWMP and Municipal Code Chapter 13.14, the City addresses dry-year conditions through implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to conserve water and reduce demand such that available water supply is sufficient to meet demands.

In addition to purchased water and water savings from conservation, the City also produces recycled water and plans to produce up to 1,000 AFY of recycled water with buildout of 15 capital improvement projects to expand its existing recycled water capabilities. Table 6-2 of the UWMP shows that approximately 1,625 acre-feet of wastewater was collected within the City of American 326
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-27
Canyon in 2020; Table 6-5 of the UWMP shows that 513 acre-feet of recycled water was projected for use in 2020, while only 151 acre-feet of recycled water was used in 2020 (City of American Canyon, 2023). These rates demonstrate there is capacity to expand the existing recycled water system and increase existing rates of recycled water use. This would occur through implementation of recycled water projects listed in Table 6-6 of the UWMP, which would provide up to 988 AFY of additional water supply as recycled water. Recycled water can be used for non potable purposes including landscaping and irrigation, offsetting demands for potable water uses.

As discussed above, the proposed project would increase local water demands by approximately 207 AFY beyond the demands accounted for in the UWMP, which projects water supply shortages during single-dry and multiple-dry years. However, the supply projections shown above do not account for buildout of the City’s planned recycled water projects, which would provide approximately 988 AFY of recycled water that can be used to offset potable water demands. In addition, implementation of the City’s existing WSCP during dry year conditions reduces water demands through conservation to ensure supply reliability from existing sources including imported water and supplemental water purchased from the City of Vallejo.

Furthermore the City’s ZWF Policy requires the potable water demands of new development within the City’s service area to be offset on a one-to-one basis, ensuring no net increase of potable water demands. This may be accomplished by using water efficient fixtures, using recycled water for nonpotable uses when available, dual plumbing buildings, installing water wise landscaping and irrigation, and other appropriate measures (City of American Canyon 2023). Other methods for offsetting potable water use under the ZWF Policy include contributing to the City’s existing conservation programs; converting an existing public use of potable water to recycled water; contributing to projects that reduce potable water demand; increasing capacity to produce recycled water; expanding the reclaimed water system; or acquiring water supply from another source.

In addition, the American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 13.10 (New Water and Sewer Connections and Services) limits new industrial water users within the City’s water service area to a maximum of 650 gallons per acre per day and requires dual plumbing with purple pipe.10 For use greater than 650 gallons per acre per day, offset options include but are not limited to, retrofit of existing residences with low flow fixtures, purchase of otherwise developable land as permanent open space, or acquisition of other water supply resources as provided for by a water supply analysis that follows the ZWF methodology (City of American Canyon 2023).

The 2040 General Plan also includes the following proposed policies related to water supply:

Goal U-1: Water Reliability. Establish and maintain a secure water supply and treatment, distribution, and storage system to serve the land uses proposed under the general plan.  Policy U-1.1: Supplemental Surface Water. Support efforts to increase water supply from a variety of sources, such as participation in programs with other NBA users to obtain supplemental surface water through a water transfer from another area, investment in the Sites Reservoir, local rainwater capture, and other feasible sources.  Policy U-1.4: Urban Water Management Plan. Prepare a framework for long-term water planning consistent with the State Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act), by preparing and adopting an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) once every five years. 10 Purple pipe allows for use of recycled water for landscaping. 327
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-28
 Policy U-1.5: Adequate Supply Prior to Occupancy. Implement a Will Serve Process to ensure adequate water supply, distribution, storage, and treatment facilities is available to serve a project prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy.  Policy U-1.6: Water Service Priority. Consistent with State Law, in times of constrained water service expansion capacity, prioritize affordable housing developments as defined in California Government Code 65589.7 or any successor statute. The second priority is provided to water connections and services to residences and businesses located within the city corporate boundaries.

Goal U-2: Water Conservation. Establish policies that make the most efficient use of our water resources for a variety of public benefits, such as: improve water reliability, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and minimize environmental impacts from drawing water from the environment.  Policy U-2.1: Zero Water Footprint. Ensure new development offsets potable water demand by funding or constructing potable water conservation efforts elsewhere in the water delivery system.
 Policy U-2.3: Retrofit Existing Buildings. Promote existing buildings upgrades to support water conservation by encouraging owners of residential, commercial, and industrial properties to replace inefficient plumbing fixtures, install drought-tolerant and water-wise landscaping, and harvest rainwater for landscaping and other household uses.  Policy U-2.5: Recycled Water Use. Subject to State regulations and organizational capacity, consider new ways that recycled water can replace potable water.

As discussed above, the proposed project would increase local water demands by approximately 207 AFY beyond the demands accounted for in the 2020 UWMP, which projects water supply shortages during single-dry and multiple-dry years. However, the supply projections shown above do not account for buildout of the City’s planned recycled water projects or implementation of the City’s existing WSCP during dry year conditions to reduce dry-year water demands. Further, compliance with the existing ZWF Policy and proposed General Plan policies related to water supply further support reliable water supply availability for the proposed project. In addition to the aforementioned programs, the City is participating in the Sites Reservoir project, a potential future source that would provide an additional 4,000 AFY of supply to the City, which has been approved and funded and is proceeding to obtain required permits. Although not necessary to support development under the project, the successful completion of the Sites project would provide additional water security for the City. Therefore, potential impacts associated with water supply availability would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 328
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-29
Threshold 3: Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that is has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? IMPACT UTL-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT. THE TIMING, INTENSITY, AND LOCATION OF AN EXPANSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

IS UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME, BUT AN EXPANSION WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CEQA REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING BUILDING AND ZONING CODES. AS SUCH, IMPACTS RELATED TO EXPANSION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES AS A RESULT OF THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The amount of wastewater generated by the project was estimated based on the estimated water demand calculated in Impact UTL-2 and the principle that water demand is 120 percent of wastewater generation (due to evaporation and system losses, meaning that not all water that is used ends up going to the wastewater treatment plan). The total wastewater demand due to the project is estimated to be approximately 4.3 mgd.11 However, this is a conservative calculation that does not account for the reductions in wastewater demand from implementing the ZWF Policy. It is expected that the project’s demand on wastewater would be substantially less than 4.3 mgd.

Nonetheless, this number is used to provide a conservative analysis.

The WRF had an existing wastewater treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd in 2020 at average dry weather flow conditions. In 2020, the City treated 1,625 AF of wastewater, which is equivalent to 1.45 mgd (City of American Canyon 2015). In 2020 there was 1.05 mgd of remaining capacity for wastewater treatment. As such, there is not currently sufficient capacity in the WRF to accommodate the additional demand from the maximum buildout scenario in the 2040 General Plan.

Nonetheless, the Utilities Element of the 2040 General Plan contains the following proposed goals and associated proposed policies to ensure new development is connected to the existing sanitary sewer system and that wastewater service is adequate.

Goal U-3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity: Establish and maintain adequate planning, construction, maintenance, and funding for wastewater collection and treatment facilities to support land uses; upgrading existing deficient systems, and expanding, where necessary, in the City's service area.
 Policy U-3.1: Demand Requirements for Facilities. Through the Capital Improvement Plan process, ensure wastewater collection and treatment facilities are installed, maintained, and upgraded in a timely manner to meet usage requirements and maximize cost efficiency.  Policy U-3.2: Capacity Demand. Require all new development to evaluate sewer capacity demand during the discretionary review process.
 Policy U-3.3: Fiscal Obligations. Ensure wastewater infrastructure impact fees reflect the proportional increase in demand from new development.
 Policy U-3.4: Alternatives Sustainable Approaches. Consistent with best practices, evaluate environmentally and economically efficient wastewater treatment systems, such as the artificial marshland wastewater treatment system.
11 4.3 mgd = 5.24 mgd / 1.2
329
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-30
 Policy U-3.5: Wastewater Service Priority. Consistent with State Law, in times of constrained wastewater service expansion capacity, prioritize affordable housing developments as defined in California Government Code 65589.7 or any successor statute. The second priority is provided to sewer connections and services to residences and businesses located within the city corporate boundaries.

As shown through 2040 General Plan proposed Goal U-3 and its corresponding proposed policies, the City would maintain wastewater treatment infrastructure to accommodate additional growth from the 2040 General Plan. However, there are no new facilities proposed at this time. Generally, it is anticipated that construction of new facilities would result in similar physical impacts discussed throughout this EIR (i.e., impacts to biological resources, water quality and hydrology, air quality, etc.), but impacts could also be reduced depending on location and intensity. As such, it is not possible to identify the specific nature, extent, and significance of physical impacts on the environment that could result from the construction and operation of an expanded WRF without knowing the size and nature of the facility, or its location. Regardless, new facilities would require adherence to all applicable building and zoning codes, and additional CEQA review to analyze project and location specific impacts. As such, impacts related to wastewater facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

Threshold 4: Would the General Plan generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Threshold 5: Would the General Plan comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? IMPACT UTL-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE SOLID WASTE IN EXCESS OF STATE OR LOCAL

STANDARDS, WOULD NOT EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WOULD NOT IMPAIR THE ATTAINMENT OF SOLID WASTE REDUCTION GOALS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Implementation of the project would generate additional solid waste. Construction of future development would create construction debris, such as scrap lumber and flooring materials.

Operation of future development would create typical household wastes associated with residential, office, and commercial uses. Future industrial development would also generate solid waste.

As described in Section 4.13.1, Setting, the DRRTF is permitted to receive 1,440 tons of solid waste per day (County of Napa 2008). Between 2020 and 2021, the City of American Canyon disposed a total of approximately 17,128 tons (CalRecycle 2022d). Per capita waste disposal averaged averages

4.40 pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2022e). As described in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, the project is expected to generate 3,204 net new residential units and result in approximately 10,734 new residents by the year 2040. The total additional waste generation, based 330
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities and Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.13-31
on the number of residents, would be approximately 23.612 tons per day, which would represent approximately 1.6 percent of the permitted daily solid waste allowed at the DRRTF.13 While it is anticipated that the project would increase solid waste generation, it is expected that solid waste facilities would have enough capacity.

AB 939 requires the City to divert 50 percent of solid waste from landfills, and SB 1383 would require the City to reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent by 2025. New development would be required to comply with Section 8.20 of the American Canyon Municipal Code, which includes requirements for mandatory municipal solid waste, recycling, and composting material disposal reductions, as well as compliance with CALGreen requirements for diverting construction and demolition debris.

Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan includes proposed goals and policies to support the provision of adequate service, reduction, and diversion of waste from landfills, and expansion of recycling programs for residents and businesses. Although the DRRTF currently has sufficient landfill capacity for the growth facilitated by the project, the policies in the 2040 General Plan are consistent with American Canyon’s desire to promote sustainability and reduce the need for landfills. These proposed policies are provided in the Utilities Element of the 2040 General Plan and are listed below:

Goal U-7. Solid Waste Collection: Maximize source reduction, recycling, and composting in the solid waste disposal programs.
 Policy U-7.1: Waste Management Services. Continue waste management service contracts to provide quality and cost-effective solid waste removal throughout the city and require all residents and businesses to comply with solid waste collection and recycling service requirements.
 Policy U-7.2: Levels of Service. Conduct monitoring solid waste collection contractor operations to ensure franchise agreement service levels are maintained.  Policy U-7.3: Landfill Coordination. Coordinate with the Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority (NVWMA) concerning the City’s continuing use of the Potrero Hills Landfill.

Goal U-8. Solid Waste Source Reduction: Achieve maximum public participation in source reduction, recycling, and composting activities through outreach programs.  Policy U-8.1: Recycling Education and Information. Coordinate with Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority (NVWMA) and Recology to expand public information and education programs to complement source reduction, recycling, and composting efforts.  Policy U-8.2: Expansion of Recycling Programs. Expand recycling programs through the local waste hauler.
 Policy U-8.3: Promotion of Recycling. Promote the recycling of solid waste including but not limited to paper, metals, aluminum cans, green waste, cardboard, plastic and glass.  Policy U-8.4: Outreach to Schools. Coordinate efforts at the local elementary and intermediate school level to provide youth education programs.
 Policy U-8.5: Recycling Receptacles and Biodegradable/Recycled-Materials Products. Require the availability of recycling and composting receptacles and use biodegradable or recycled12 23.6 tons per day = (4.4 lbs. per person per day * 10,734 persons) / 2,000 lbs. per ton 13 1.6 percent = (23.6 tons per day / 1,440 tons per day) * 100 331
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.13-32
material products instead of single-use plastic products at all City facilities and City-sponsored events.
 Policy U-8.6: Zero Waste Community. Support American Canyon in implementing policies and programs to become a Zero Waste Community.
 Policy U-8.7: Food Waste Collection. Ensure food waste collection is available and convenient to residents and businesses.
 Policy U-8.8: Green Business Program. Encourage local businesses to participate in the Napa County Green Business Program to minimize waste generation and create recycling and composting programs to reduce waste.
 Policy U-8.9: Demolition and Construction Waste. Require all new development to comply with the current CALGreen requirements for construction and demolition waste diversion.

Proposed Goals U-7 and U-8, as well as their corresponding proposed policies would ensure that solid waste is disposed of in an environmentally sound manner, and that State solid waste diversion goals and County recycling and composting requirements are met. Overall, local infrastructure would have the capacity to accommodate solid waste generated by development facilitated by the project. With adherence to Section 8.20 of the American Canyon Municipal Code and the 2040 General Plan proposed policies, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 332
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-1

4.14 Wildfire
This section summarizes the wildfire risks in and near the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts related to wildfire risks due to the project.

4.14.1 Setting
a. Overview of Wildfire
Wildfires are a regular feature of the ecosystem in large parts of California and many of the State’s native species have evolved to cope with the natural fire cycle, although increasing development into wildfire-prone areas makes wildfires a hazard of concern. A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire in an area of combustible vegetation that is generally extensive in size. Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place outdoors in areas of grassland, woodlands, brush land, scrubland, peatland, and other wooded areas that act as a source of fuel, or combustible material. Buildings may become involved if a wildfire spreads to adjacent communities.

Wildland-urban interface fires are hazards because they threaten areas located near the border between urban and wildlands. The primary factors that increase an area’s susceptibility to wildfire include slope and topography, vegetation type and condition, and weather and atmospheric conditions. Factors such as narrow, winding roads and vegetation also can slow response to fire, increasing risk of spread. Wildfires that burn exclusively in natural areas generally pose little risk to lives or property, although the smoke from such fires may cause respiratory problems for people nearby. The fire season in the State of California is starting earlier and ending later each year, with climate change considered to be a key factor for this phenomenon (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CalFire] 2022a).
b. Wildfire Factors
Slope and Aspect
According to CalFire, sloping land increases susceptibility to wildfire because fire typically burns faster up steep slopes (CalFire 2018). Additionally, steep slopes may hinder firefighting efforts.

Following severe wildfires, sloping land is also more susceptible to landslide or flooding from increased runoff during substantial precipitation events. Aspect is the direction that a slope faces, and it determines how much radiated heat the slope will receive from the sun. Slopes facing south to southwest will receive the most solar radiation. As a result, such slopes are warmer and the vegetation drier than on slopes facing a northerly to northeasterly direction, increasing the potential for wildfire ignition and spread (CalFire 2018).

Generally, the urbanized area of the City is located west of Newell Drive/Flosden Road. Topography in this area of the City is nearly flat with a slight westward slope towards the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2022). The La Vigne neighborhood, American Canyon High School, and Canyon Estates neighborhood are located east of Newell Drive/Flosden Road, closer to the hillside areas just outside of the City. In this area the topography is slightly sloping upwards to the rolling hills east of the City.
333
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-2
Vegetation
Vegetation is “fuel” to a wildfire and it changes over time. The relationship between vegetation and wildfire is complex, but generally some vegetation is naturally fire resistant, while other types are very flammable. For example, cured grass is much more flammable than standing trees (CalFire 2018). Grass is considered an open fuel, in which oxygen has free access to promote the spread of fire. Additionally, weather and climate conditions, such as drought, can lead to increasing dry vegetation with low moisture content, increasing its flammability. In addition, wildfire behavior depends on the type of fuel present, such as ladder, surface, and aerial fuels. Ladder fuels provide a path for a surface fire to climb upward, into the crowns of trees. Surface fuels include grasses, logs, and stumps low to the ground. Aerial fuels include limbs, foliage, and branches not in contact with the ground (CalFire 2022b).

Naturally occurring (native and exotic non-native) vegetation cover within the City, consists of wetlands, and annual grasslands at the western edge of the City along the Napa-Sonoma Marshes Wildlife Area. This vegetation cover does not present a high risk of wildland fire fuel because of the wet conditions typical of marshes. Along the hillside area on the eastern edge of the city, the two dominant vegetation communities are Oak Woodlands and Annual/Native Grasslands. Both of these vegetation communities, as well as the other minor vegetation communities mapped within the hillside area are susceptible to wildfire.

Weather and Atmospheric Conditions
Wind, temperature, and relative humidity are the most influential weather elements in fire behavior and susceptibility (CalFire 2018). Fire moves faster under hot, dry, and windy conditions. Wind may also blow embers ahead of a fire, causing its spread. Drought conditions also lead to extended periods of excessively dry vegetation, increasing the fuel load and ignition potential.

According to the Western Regional Climate Center, average annual precipitation in American Canyon is 20.26 inches. Generally, in an average or typical year, most precipitation is received from October through April (Western Regional Climate Center 2016). May through September are the driest parts of the year and coincide with what has traditionally been considered the fire season in California. However, increasingly persistent drought and climatic changes in California have resulted in drier winters and fires during the autumn, winter, and spring months are become more common.

Power Lines
Above-ground power lines have the potential to contribute to wildfire risk, especially when they are near or traverse wilderness areas. In some instances, high winds can blow nearby trees and branches into powerlines, sparking fires. Wind can also snap wooden poles, causing live wires to fall onto nearby grass or other fuel, igniting it. While the California Public Utilities Commission estimates only about 10 percent of California’s wildfires are triggered by power lines, the frequency and severity of these wildfires has spurred the agency to make new requirements for power line safety practices.

Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E) transmission lines traverse the City, both underground and above ground. Of note are the high-power electrical transmission lines which run northeast by southwest through the City (California Energy Commission 2022).
334
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-3
c. Wildfire Hazards
Once a fire is started, the spread and behavior of a fire become a function of fuel characteristics, terrain, and weather conditions. Fires are typically classified by type and intensity. Fire types may include understory fires, crown fires, surface fires, and broadcast fires, among others. Fire intensity, or severity, is the heat energy released by a fire either during a smoldering or raging fire event (CalFire 2022b).

Wildfire activity is closely related to temperature and drought conditions, and in recent decades, increasing drought frequency and warming temperatures have resulted in increased fire activity and the largest, most destructive, and deadliest wildfires in the State’s history. Climate change will continue to produce conditions that facilitate a longer fire season, which, when coupled with human-caused changes in the seasonality of ignition sources, will produce more, longer, and bigger fires during more times of the year. According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Statewide Summary Report (OPR 2018), if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the frequency of extreme wildfires burning over 25,000 acres could increase by 50 percent by 2100, and the average area burned Statewide could increase by 77 percent by the end of the century.

CalFire has mapped areas of significant fire hazards in the state through its Fire and Resources Assessment Program. These maps place areas of the state into different Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) based on a hazard scoring system using subjective criteria for fuels, fire history, terrain influences, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather. Typically, these classifications include Non-Wildland, Non-Urban, Moderate, High and Very High. As part of this mapping system, land where CalFire is responsible for wildland fire protection and generally located in unincorporated areas is classified as a State Responsibility Area (SRA), which are managed by CalFire. Where local fire protection agencies are responsible for wildfire protection, the land is classified as a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) (CalFire 2020). CalFire responds to wildland fires from several fire stations, depending on their proximity and availability. The closest station to the Planning Area is the Napa County Fire Department at 1820 Monticello Road in Napa, California, approximately 10 miles north of the Planning Area.

CalFire maps three zones within SRA: 1) Moderate FHSZ; 2) High FHSZ; and 3) Very High FHSZ. Each of the zones influence recommended methods of building construction and property protection to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. Under state regulations, areas within very high fire hazard risk zones must comply with specific building and vegetation management requirements intended to reduce property damage and loss of life within these areas. Figure 4.14-1 shows the FHSZs in the General Plan Planning Area. Recent CalFire mapping displays adopted Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in the State Responsibility Area (SRA), effective April 1st 2024. It also displays recommended FHSZ in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) from 2007-2011. For that reason, Figure 4.14-1 identifies areas within the ACFPD Service Area that are within a LRA. Due to regulatory processes, there are lands that are no longer classified as SRA and have become classified as LRA yet had a FHSZ designation from the 2007 SRA FHSZ map adoption. These areas are shown on the map with hatched symbology.
335
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-4
Figure 4.14-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
336
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-5

4.14.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a state-level mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance. There are two different levels of state disaster plans: “Standard” and “Enhanced.” States that develop an approved Enhanced State Plan can increase the amount of funding available through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The Act also established new requirements for local mitigation plans.

National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was developed in August 2000, following a historic wildfire season. Its intent is to establish plans for active response to severe wildfires and their impacts to communities while ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity. The plan addresses firefighting, rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and accountability. b. State Regulations
California Board of Forestry
The Board of Forestry maintains fire safe road regulations, as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). This includes requirements for road width, surface treatments, grade, radius, turnarounds, turnouts, structures, driveways, and gate entrances. These regulations are intended to ensure safe access for emergency wildland fire equipment and civilian evacuation.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (Fire Code) is Chapter 9 of CCR Title 24. It establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally-recognized best practices to safeguard public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structure, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The Fire Code is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The Fire Code regulates the use, handling and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The Fire Code and the California Building Code (CBC) use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect property and life from fire hazards. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the Fire Code employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout California.

More specifically, the Fire Code is included in Title 24 of the CCR. Title 24, part 9, Chapter 7 addresses fire-resistance-rated construction; CBC (Part 2), Chapter 7A addresses materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure; Fire Code Chapter 8 addresses fire related 337
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-6
Interior finishes; Fire Code Chapter 9 addresses fire protection systems; and Fire Code Chapter 10 addresses fire related means of egress, including fire apparatus access road width requirements.

Fire Code Section 4906 also contains existing regulations for vegetation and fuel management to maintain clearances around structures. These requirements establish minimum standards to protect buildings located in all FHSZs within SRAs and Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. This Fire Code includes provisions for ignition-resistant construction standards for new buildings.

The City adopted the most recent 2019 California Fire Code under Ordinance No. 2019-03.

California Fire Plan
The Strategic Fire Plan for California is the State’s road map for reducing the risk of wildfire. The most recent version of the Plan was finalized in August 2018 and directs each CalFire Unit to prepare a locally specific Fire Management Plan (CalFire 2018). In compliance with the California Fire Plan, individual CalFire units are required to develop Fire Management Plans for their areas of responsibility. These documents assess the fire situation within each of the 21 CalFire units and six contract counties. The plans include stakeholder contributions and priorities, and identify strategic areas for pre-fire planning and fuel treatment as defined by the people who live and work with the local fire problem. The plans are required to be updated annually.

California Office of Emergency Services
The California Office of Emergency Services (OES) prepares the State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (SHMP). The SHMP identifies hazard risks, and includes a vulnerability analysis and a hazard mitigation strategy (OES 2018). The SHMP is federally required under the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 in order for the State to receive Federal funding. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires a State mitigation plan as a condition of disaster assistance (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2022).

State Emergency Plan
The foundation of California’s emergency planning and response is a statewide mutual aid system, which is designed to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other support is provided to jurisdictions whenever their own resources prove to be inadequate to cope with an emergency situation.

The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement (California Government Code Sections 8555–8561) requires signatories to the agreement to prepare operational plans to use within their jurisdiction, and outside their area. These operational plans include fire and non-fire emergencies related to natural, technological, and war contingencies. The State of California, all State agencies, all political subdivisions, and all fire districts signed this agreement in 1950.

Section 8568 of the California Government Code, the “California Emergency Services Act,” (Act) states that “the State Emergency Plan shall be in effect in each political subdivision of the state, and the governing body of each political subdivision shall take such action as may be necessary to carry out the provisions thereof.” The Act provides the basic authorities for conducting emergency operations following the proclamations of emergencies by the Governor or appropriate local authority, such as a City Manager. The provisions of the act are further reflected and expanded on by appropriate local emergency ordinances. The Act further describes the function and operations of government at all levels during extraordinary emergencies, including war. 338
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-7
All local emergency plans are extensions of the State of California Emergency Plan. The State Emergency Plan conforms to the requirements of California’s Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which is the system required by Government Code 8607(a) for managing emergencies involving multiple jurisdictions and agencies. The SEMS incorporates the functions and principles of the Incident Command System (ICS), the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, existing mutual aid systems, the operational area concept, and multi-agency or inter-agency coordination.

Local governments must use SEMS to be eligible for funding of their response-related personnel costs under state disaster assistance programs. The SEMS consists of five organizational levels that are activated as necessary, including: field response, local government, operational area, regional, and state. OES divides the state into several mutual aid regions. The City is located in Mutual Aid Region II, which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa, Marin, Solano, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey counties (OES 2018).

Government Code Sections 65302 and 65302.5, Senate Bill 1241 (Kehoe) of 2012
Senate Bill (SB) 1241 requires cities and counties to address fire risk in SRAs and Very High FHSZs in the safety element of their general plans. The bill also amended CEQA to direct amendments to the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G environmental checklist to include questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects located in or near lands classified as SRAs and Very High FHSZs. In adopting these Guidelines amendments, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recognized that generally, low-density, leapfrog development may create higher wildfire risks than high-density, infill development.1 Zoning around the project site is low density housing, allowing up to six dwelling units per acre.

California Public Utilities Commission General Order 166 General Order 166 Standard 1.E requires that investor-owned utilities develop a Fire Prevention Plan which describes measures that the electric utility will implement to mitigate the threat of power-line fires generally. Additionally, this standard requires that investor-owned utilities outline a plan to mitigate power line fires when wind conditions exceed the structural design standards of the line during a Red Flag Warning in a high fire threat area. Fire Prevention Plans created by investorowned utilities are required to identify specific parts of the utility’s service territory where the conditions described above may occur simultaneously. Standard 11 requires that utilities report annually to the California Public Utilities Commission regarding compliance with General Order 166.

In compliance with Standard 1.E of this General Order, PG&E adopted a Fire Prevention Plan dated October 31, 2018.
c. Regional and Local Regulations
Napa County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan In 2020, the Napa County prepared an updated Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) to guide County and City Officials and Special Districts Managers in protecting the people and property within the County from the effects of natural disasters and hazards events. The HMP provides an explanation of prevalent hazards within the County and how hazards may affect the County and 1 “Leapfrog development” describes the construction of new development at a distance from existing developed areas, with undeveloped land between the existing and new development.
339
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-8
participating cities and special districts differently based upon proximities to natural hazards. The HMP also identifies risks to vulnerable assets, both people and property. Most importantly, the mitigation strategy presented in the HMP responds to the identified vulnerabilities within each community and provides prescriptions or actions to achieve the greatest risk reduction based upon available resources.

The City of American Canyon (Resolution No. 2020-44) and the American Canyon Fire Protection District adopted the HMP on June 2, 2020 (Resolution No. 2020-08). The HMP includes an Annex that details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City. The Annex identifies that American Canyon is required to update building codes to meet the minimum standards to those required in the California Building Code last updated in 2019, which reduce risk from wildfire.

Chapter 16.02 of the American Canyon Municipal Code adopts the 2019 California Building Code.

Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit Strategic Fire Plan
The CalFire Strategic Fire Plan for the Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit, last updated in 2020, applies to Napa County as well as neighboring Sonoma and Lake counties. This plan documents an assessment of wildfire hazards in the Sonoma-Lake-Napa Unit and identifies strategic targets to minimize fire risks, such as fire prevention and vegetation management.

American Canyon Fire Protection District Strategic Plan The ACFPD Long-Range Master Plan (LRMP) guides the efficient future growth and development of the Fire District to provide the community of American Canyon with the highest possible level of service balanced with long term financial sustainability. Adopted in October 2022 (Resolution 2022- 26), the LRMP identifies recommendations to improve long-range planning and delivery of fire and emergency services to the community (ACFPD 2022a).

The LRMP recommendations relate to operations, procedures, and community involvement, to deliver desired levels of service at the most efficient cost. To maintain long-range service levels, the LRMP recommends construction of a new relocated Fire Station 211.

American Canyon Municipal Code
Chapter 8.08 of the American Canyon Municipal Code contains ordinances relating to fire regulations including fire protection district regulations and the authority of the designated fire chief to enforce the Uniform Fire Code within city limits.

Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires that all utilities be installed underground in accordance with the provisions of the American Canyon Municipal Code. It also requires that all underground utilities be installed before preparation of subgrade for paving or any other site improvements that may affect the orderly installation of the underground utilities.

Ordinance 2022-02
The ACFPD Board adopted the most recent 2022 California Fire Code under Ordinance No. 2022-02.

Section 4904 of the California Fire Code calls for a fire protection plan that addresses water supply, access, building ignition and fire-resistance factors, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management for any new residential building within a wildlandurban interface fire area. 340
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-9

4.14.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on wildfire if it would:

1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

5. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Methodology
The assessment of impacts related to wildfire hazards and risks were evaluated using FHSZ mapping for Napa County, aerial imagery, and topographic mapping. Additionally, weather patterns related to prevailing winds and precipitation trends were evaluated as they relate to the spread and magnitude of wildfire.

In addition, on October 10, 2022, the State’s Office of the Attorney General issued guidance for analyzing wildfire impacts in a document titled Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (State’s Office of the Attorney General 2022). This analysis in this section used the following guidance from State’s Office of the Attorney General in considering the potential impacts of the project.  Project Density: Project density influences how likely a fire is to start or spread, and how likely it is that the development and its occupants will be in danger when a fire starts.  Project Location: Project placement in the landscape relative to fire history, topography, and wind patterns also influences wildfire risk.
 Water Supply and Infrastructure: The analysis should consider the adequacy of water supplies and infrastructure to address firefighting within the project site.  Evacuation and Emergency Access: Local governments should consider placing developments close to existing road and evacuation infrastructure, and where appropriate, constructing additional roads to facilitate evacuations.
 Fire Hardening Structures: Home hardening has been shown to be an extremely effective measure for preventing structure loss during a wildfire. Local governments should require developers to upgrade building materials and use installation techniques to increase the development’s resistance to heat, flames, and embers beyond what is required in applicable building codes.
341
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-10
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact W-1 THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED POLICIES ADDRESS EMERGENCY ACCESS, RESPONSE, AND PREPAREDNESS. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT IMPAIR AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As shown in Figure 4.14-1, there are portions of the Planning Area where development could occur (i.e., City limits and SOI) that are mapped within an LRA with moderate and high fire risk. In addition, there are areas mapped within an SRA with moderate and high fire risk, adjacent to the eastern City limits. However, development would not occur within any areas mapped within an SRA or within a very high FHSZ. The nearest very high FHSZ is located approximately 5.7 miles northeast of the Planning Area.

Nonetheless, development facilitated by the project could introduce new residents or employees who would require emergency response evacuation in the case of a wildfire. The Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan includes the following proposed goals and policies to ensure safe and efficient evacuation and emergency response.

Goal S-1: Prepare and equip American Canyon to minimize loss of life, injury, property damage, and disruption of vital services from disasters and emergencies.  Policy S-1.7: Public Awareness. Increase public awareness of City and Fire District emergency response plans, evacuation routes and shelters, and ways to reduce risks at the home and office, focusing on the most vulnerable populations such as older adults and individuals with chronic health conditions. Offer informational materials in multiple languages.  Policy S-1.8: Emergency Access. Work with the American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD) and the Napa County Sheriff’s Department to identify and regularly evaluate emergency access routes to improve accessibility throughout the city in the event of a disaster.  Policy S-1.9: Essential Facilities. Work with service providers to maintain the reliability of essential facilities, such as communications towers, electrical substations, water services, and first-response buildings in the event of an emergency through promoting grid resilience and energy independence. Work to implement on-site power generation through solar photovoltaic systems and battery storage.
 Policy S-1.10: Communication. Evaluate the potential to utilize a comprehensive emergency communication system to ensure effective communication between City departments, outside organizations and agencies, and with the community before, during, and to accelerate recovery following a disaster.
 Policy S-1.11: City Employee Emergency Preparedness. Increase City employee capacity to respond to emergencies through the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) compliant training drills to identify hazards and assist in emergency preparedness, response and recover.  Policy S-1.12: Local Partnerships. Coordinate with citizen groups and organizations, such as the American Canyon Community Response team (CERT) to identify, prepare for, and respond to emergency assistance in the event of a natural disaster. 342
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-11
 Policy S-1.13: Emergency Evacuation Protocols for Single Access Neighborhoods. Update emergency evacuation protocols and relevant evacuation plans to address and support neighborhoods with fewer than two ingress/egress routes.  Policy S-1.14: Communication and Outreach for Single Access Neighborhoods. Establish and maintain communication and outreach protocols with the public that include tailored evacuation messaging to residents that live in identified neighborhoods with fewer than two ingress/egress routes. Outreach should include support for preventative home hardening and defensive space standards and conduct emergency preparedness and response trainings.  Policy S-1.15: Expand Access for Single Access Neighborhoods. Assess options for expanding Policy ingress/egress options for residents in the identified access-limited areas in coordination, as necessary, with Napa Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, adjacent cities, and Napa County.
 Policy S-1.16: Zone-Based Evacuation Plans. Establish specific “zone-based” evacuation plans and protocols that address the specific needs of residents in identified areas with fewer than two ingress/egress routes.
 Policy S-1.17: Critical Infrastructure Siting. Whenever feasible, locate the following critical facilities outside of flood, seismic, and high fire hazard zones: health care facilities, schools, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities.
 Policy S-1.18: Emergency Operations Plan. Update the City’s Emergency Operations Plan every five years and maintain consistency with the County’s Emergency Operations Plan.  Policy S-1.19: Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Updates. Continue to fully participate in, support, and implement the five-year updates of the Napa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
 Policy S-1.20: Funding for Critical Facilities. Direct the dedication of funds to upgrade and maintain City owned critical facilities, including the Emergency Operations Center, fire and police departments, and City Hall, to make them more resilient to the potential impacts of natural disasters.
 Policy S-2.4: Residential Evacuation Routes. Require that all new residential development have at least two emergency evacuation routes.
 Policy S-2.13: Emergency Roadways. Maintain roadways used for emergency access by emergency response vehicles as necessary and appropriate to ensure ongoing serviceability.

Furthermore, the Napa County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) provides a framework for Napa County to use in performing emergency functions before, during, and after an emergency event (County of Napa 2020). The EOP aims to protect and preserve life, property, and the environment in Napa County, as well as the City. The project would not conflict with this plan and would not impair evacuation, as described in detail below.

The City has identified evacuation procedures in the event of a natural disaster, including a wildfire.

During an emergency, individuals would receive notifications from emergency sirens, alarms, or local radio stations. In addition, the City has partnered with the Napa County Office of Emergency Services to provide residents with official evacuation order notifications supported by Zonehaven, a California-based company under contract with Napa County. The City identifies the following three different evacuation alerts that would be provided to residents and employees in the City:
343
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-12
 Evacuation Warning: This is a precautionary notice designed to give residents time to prepare for a possible evacuation.
 Evacuation Order: This is a notice where danger is imminent and a person should find their emergency supply kit and leave the area immediately.

The roadway that would primarily be used for evacuation in the event of a wildfire would be SR 29.

The City would review and approve development facilitated by the project to ensure that emergency access meets City standards. Development facilitated by the project, as well as all development in the city, must comply with road standards, and are reviewed by the ACFPD to ensure development would not interfere with evacuation routes or impede the effectiveness of evacuation plans. In addition, the 2040 General Plan identifies mobility improvements that would provide additional emergency access. Because the City would review development facilitated by the project to ensure that emergency access meets City standards, impacts related to impairing an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

Threshold 2: Would the General Plan, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Threshold 5: Would the proposed project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Impact W-2 THE PROJECT COULD EXPOSE PEOPLE AND STRUCTURES TO WILDFIRE RISK; HOWEVER, WILDFIRE RISKS WOULD BE REDUCED WITH MITIGATION AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Development could be in LRA lands with moderate and high fire risk. Wildfire risk in American Canyon is generally concentrated on the hillside area east of the City. This area is largely undeveloped and contains large tracts of vegetation cover that can act as fire fuel. This area is also adjacent to large areas of vegetation cover and open space outside of the City limits, which further increases the potential for wildfires. A total of 526 acres of land burned in 2019 during a wildfire known as the American Fire incident (CalFire 2019; ACFPD 2019). This fire was located east of the City limits.

Prevailing winds in American Canyon generally blow from the west during the summer months, which is typically fire season, moving west to east across the city (Western Regional Climate Center 2022). Therefore, the prevailing winds would move wildfire in the hillside area and the related smoke and air pollutants, eastward, away from the urbanized areas of the city. Additionally, fire tends to burn and spread uphill, and the hillside area generally slopes uphill toward the east, away from the developed areas of the city.

Construction of development facilitated by the project would use equipment with combustion engines, which are known to create fires. As such, there is a potential wildfire risk, especially during 344
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-13
dry months, that could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, Mitigation Measure WF-1 would be required to reduce wildfire risk from construction activities.

Development could be located in proximity to agricultural and undeveloped areas with flammable vegetation. As such, operation of development facilitated by the project could result in potentially significant wildfire impacts, including exposure of people to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or a significant risk from a wildfire. New structures would be constructed following the current fire and building codes and safety standards. Construction of development would be subject to the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, including ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers. In addition, American Canyon Municipal Code Section 16.02.130 requires the installation of fully automatic fire sprinkler systems for new buildings. The Board of Forestry, via California Code of Regulations Title 14, sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures and life by reducing wildfire hazards in areas designated as VHFHSZs. These codes and regulations would reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfire for new developments facilitated by the project in VHFHSZs. In addition, any electrical lines associated with development would be undergrounded, pursuant to Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code, as well as the following proposed policy in the 2040 General Plan.  Policy U-9.4: Overhead Utility Undergrounding. Develop a comprehensive strategy to underground existing overhead utilities.

In addition, the 2040 General Plan would also include the following proposed polices that would minimize potential wildfire risks through structural hardening, updating development standards, ensuring that there is adequate water supply, and encouraging the development of fire breaks:
 Policy S-2.7: Building and Fire Code Compliance. Require new development to meet or exceed structural hardening requirements in the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code.
 Policy S-2.8: Development Standards Update. Incorporate relevant new legislative requirements and best practices into the City's development standards.  Policy S-2.11: Fire Suppression. Coordinate with the Fire District to ensure adequate, water supply to suppress wildfire, as part of the next Napa County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update.
 Policy S-2.12: Peakload Water Supply. Support measures to provide adequate water availability throughout the city to meet future peak fire demand during times of peak domestic demands.  Policy S-2.14: Community Fire Breaks. Coordinate with the American Canyon Fire Protection District to encourage property owners to maintain fire breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones on their property.

Finally, Mitigation Measure WF-2 would include a requirement for the landscaping in development to be consistent with applicable Building and Fire Codes. 345
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-14
Mitigation Measures
WF-1 Wildfire Risk Reduction During Construction
For projects located in proximity to agricultural or undeveloped areas (including hillside areas) with flammable vegetation, 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, mowing, chain sawing, chipping, the use of any equipment with the potential to introduce sparks.

3. Fire extinguishers shall be required to be onsite during construction. Construction vehicles shall be equipped with at least one (1) functioning fire extinguisher and one (1) shovel or McLeod firefighting tool. Heavy machinery or equipment (e.g., tractors, grinders, tree chippers, excavators, bulldozers) shall be equipped with one (1) shovel, McLeod firefighting tool, or Pulaski; one (1) functioning fire extinguisher; and at least one 5-gallon backpack pump or larger capacity water (or CAFS) pump/delivery system. Fire extinguishers shall be maintained to function according to manufacturer specifications. Construction personnel shall receive training on the proper methods of using a fire extinguisher.

WF-2 Fire Resistant Vegetation and Landscaping
For projects located in proximity to agricultural or undeveloped areas (including hillside areas) with flammable vegetation, prior to issuance of a building permit for development located within or adjacent to a VHFHSZ, the applicant shall submit landscape plans prepared by a registered Landscape Architect that are consistent with applicable Building and Fire Codes.

Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures WF-1 and WF-2 the risk of loss of structures and the risk of injury or death due to wildfires would be reduced. These measures would make structures more fire resistant and less vulnerable to loss in the event of a wildfire. These mitigation measures would also reduce the potential for construction to inadvertently ignite a wildfire and require the use of fire-resistant native vegetation. Given the risk for wildfires in the Planning Area and that mitigation would be implemented to reduce the risk, impacts would be less than significant. 346
Environmental Impact Analysis
Wildfire
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.14-15
Threshold 3: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact W-3 THE PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES AND FUTURE MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS; HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH THE HMP AND PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN WOULD REDUCE IMPACTS TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, development facilitated by the project would require connections to existing utilities. The only utility that poses a potential wildfire risk are electrical lines; however, electrical lines associated with development would be undergrounded, pursuant to Section 18.40.120 of the American Canyon Municipal Code, as well as the following proposed policy in the 2040 General Plan.
 Policy U-9.4: Overhead Utility Undergrounding. Develop a comprehensive strategy to underground existing overhead utilities.

As such, the project would not exacerbate fire risk from the installation of electrical lines. In addition to utility connections, the 2040 General Plan also envisions future mobility improvements as discussed within Section 4.11, Transportation. Mobility improvements facilitated by the project, including improvements to roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities would primarily consist of improvements such as repaving roads and bicycle lanes, installing roundabouts, and repainting median strips. Such projects would provide egress in the case of a wildfire or other emergency and would be designed in such a way to allow for simultaneous egress and ingress during an evacuation which would not exacerbate a fire risk. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan includes the following proposed goals and policies to ensure safe and adequate preparation for wildfires:

Goal S-2: A City safe and adequately prepared for urban and wildfire emergencies.  Policy S-2.1: Fire Safe Site Design. Develop site design and ongoing maintenance standards for new development in the moderate and high fire hazard zones to mitigate wildfire risk.  Policy S-2.2: Utility Undergrounding. Develop a comprehensive plan to underground overhead utilities in new development projects and throughout the City.  Policy S-2.4: Residential Evacuation Routes. Require that all new residential development have at least two emergency evacuation routes.
 Policy S-2.7: Building and Fire Code Compliance. Require new development to meet or exceed hardening requirements in the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code.
 Policy S-2.8: Development Standards Update. Incorporate relevant new legislative requirements and best practices into the City's development standards.  Policy S-2.10: Fire Protection Plans. Coordinate with the American Canyon Fire Protection District to consider developing fire protection plan guidelines and standards for new construction projects.

For the reasons mentioned above, impacts related to the installation of infrastructure would be less than significant.
347
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.14-16
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

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

Threshold 4: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Impact W-4 THE PLANNING AREA IS RELATIVELY FLAT AND COMPLIANCE WITH PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND THE AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE WOULD ENSURE THAT RISKS FROM FLOODING OR LANDSLIDES DUE TO A WILDFIRE WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Topography in the city is relatively flat with hills to the east. Severe wildfires damage the forest or shrub canopy, the plants below, as well as the soil. In general, this can result in increased runoff after intense rainfall, which can put residences and other structures below a burned area at risk of localized floods and landslides. As discussed in Section 4.15, Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant, development facilitated by the project within flood hazard zones or areas at risk of landslides would adhere to the requirements of the American Canyon Municipal Code and the following 2040 General Plan Policies:

Goal S-4: A community adequately prepared for natural hazards related to landslides, geologic instability, and seismic activity.
 Policy S-4.1: Geologic Hazard Identification. Reference current local and California Geologic Survey seismic and geologic hazards map surveys.
 Policy S-4.3: Structure Protection. Develop inventories of at-risk public buildings and infrastructure and seek funding to bring existing City-owned structures into compliance with updated seismic safety standards.
 Policy S-4.7: Geotechnical Review. Continue to require preliminary investigations of tract sites by State-registered geotechnical engineers and certified engineering geologists (Chapter 70 County Building Code) and ensure regular inspection of grading operations.  Policy S-4.8: Landslide Activity. Restrict new development in areas of known landslide activity unless adequate mitigation is incorporated.

Furthermore, development would be required to develop a Stormwater Control Plan, which is discussed in detail in Section 4.15, Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant (subsection 4,15.5, Hydrology and Water Quality), and would further minimize adverse impacts of flooding following a wildfire. The city’s generally flat grade and drainage policies would prevent exposure of people or residences to downslope landslides and flooding. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.

Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. 348
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-1

4.15 Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
During evaluation of the project, certain impact areas included in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Appendix G checklist were found to have a less than significant impact or no impact. As allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, this section discusses why impacts to these environmental topics were determined to have a less than significant impact or no impact and therefore are not discussed in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as individual sections.

4.15.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources if it would:
1 Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use; or 2 Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract; or 3 Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)); or 4 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use; or 5 Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use.

Based on the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the current City limits are mapped as primarily as Urban and Built-Up land, with small pockets of Farmland of Local Importance and grazing land (DOC 2018). The current City limits do not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Farmland of Local Importance is not considered agricultural land and the conversion of Farmland of Local Importance would not trigger a substantial adverse impact (California Public Resources Code Division 13, Chapter 2.5, Section 21060.1). No land within the current City limits is zoned for agricultural use. The City does not contain forest land, timberland, or land zoned for timberland production (City of American Canyon 2015). In order to qualify for a Williamson Act contract in Napa County, a parcel must be zoned Agricultural Preserve or Agricultural Watershed, be 40 acres in size for non-prime agricultural land or 10 acres in size for prime agricultural land, and contain current agricultural use (County of Napa 2022a). Accordingly, there are no lands under Williamson Act contract within the current City limits.

There is land within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Limit Line zoned as Agricultural Watershed and under a Williamson Act contract (County of Napa 2022b; County of Napa 2018). In addition, Prime and Unique Farmland is present within the Urban Limit Line, east of Watson Lane (DOC 2018). Annexation of land within these areas would be consistent with the planned development anticipated in the Napa County General Plan because the Napa County General Plan Policy AG/LU-130 supports the City’s annexation of unincorporated land located with the City’s growth boundary (County of Napa 2009). The lands within the City’s SOI and proposed Urban Limit Line are within Napa County’s jurisdiction and would need to be incorporated into the City prior to 349
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-2
development occurring in these areas. The potential environmental effects from future development within the City’s SOI and proposed Urban Limit Line are speculative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15145, speculative impacts should not be discussed. Potential environmental effects associated with development on land within the City’s SOI and proposed Urban Limit Line would be evaluated and mitigated as necessary as part of the County, City, and Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission review of individual development applications. Accordingly, the project would not result in the conversion of Farmland, conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act contracts, result in the loss of forest land, or involve other changes which could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

4.15.2 Energy
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on energy if it would:
1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; 2 Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Since 2016, the City has been enrolled in the Marin Clean Energy (MCE) Light Green Program, MCE’s default energy plan that offers 60 percent renewable energy. Before switching to MCE, the City was enrolled in the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 29 percent renewable option. MCE is an alternative to PG&E for energy generation. All residents and local businesses are automatically enrolled in the Light Green Program and have the option to opt up to the Deep Green Program, which offers 100 percent renewable energy. In 2021, American Canyon City Council voted to supply the City's facilities with MCE Deep Green 100 percent renewable energy. Some electrical service in Planning Area is still provided by PG&E.

Construction activities associated with development facilitated by the project would require energy resources in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. It is reasonable to assume that manufacturers of concrete, steel, lumber, or other building materials would employ energy conservation practices to minimize their cost of doing business. It also is reasonable to assume that non-custom building materials, such as drywall and standard-shaped structural elements, would be manufactured regardless of the project and, if not used for the project, would be used elsewhere. Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with a variety of statewide, regional, and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans, including the following:
 Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum. Pursuant to AB 2076, the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Air Resources Board prepared and adopted a jointagency report in 2023: Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled. One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand.  California Renewable Portfolio Standard. California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to procure 33 percent total retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
350
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-3
 Energy Action Plan. In the October 2005, the CEC and California Public Utilities Commission updated their energy policy vision by adding some important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original Energy Action Plan (EAP), such as the emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues, and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change. The nine major action areas in the EAP include energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, electricity adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation fuels supply/demand/infrastructure, research/development/demonstration, and climate change.  AB 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plans. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase inState production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
 Bioenergy Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06. The Executive Order establishes the following targets to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050.
 California Code of Regulations Title 24 – Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards) and Part 11 (CALGreen). The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards move toward cutting energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of three stories and less.

The CALGreen Standards establish green building criteria for residential and nonresidential projects.

The 2022 Standards include the following: increasing the number of parking spaces that must be prewired for electric vehicle chargers in residential development; requiring all residential development to adhere to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; and requiring more appropriate sizing of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ducts.

Development in the Planning Area would need to comply with the energy efficiency and reduction policies within the 2040 General Plan, which would include the following proposed policies:
 Policy U-8.9: Demolition and Construction Waste. Require all new development to comply with the current CALGreen requirements for construction and demolition waste diversion.  Policy U-9.1: Reach Building Code. Reduce energy use in new development by considering a local amendment that requires a 15% energy efficient standard improvement over the California Building Code.
 Policy U-9.2: Electric Energy Systems. Coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to ensure that electrical energy systems do not adversely impact land uses and population in the City of American Canyon.
 Policy U-9.3: Resilient Grid. Cooperate with PG&E to obtain applicable City permit approvals that improve electric grid resilience to natural hazards (seismic events, flooding, wildfires, extreme wind events).
 Policy U-9.5: Electric Energy Systems. Coordinate with Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to ensure that electrical energy systems do not adversely impact land uses and population in the City of American Canyon.
351
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-4
 Policy U-9.6: Passive Solar Heating and Cooling. Consistent with the California Subdivision Map Act, require new subdivisions to examine the feasibility of incorporating site layouts that allow passive solar heating and cooling.
 Policy U-9.7: Residential Energy Efficiency. Seek grant funds that help low and moderateincome residents obtain low or no-cost loans to increase energy efficiency of their homes through weatherization, insulation, solar energy generation and energy battery backup storage; and assist utility providers with outreach on home energy efficiency rebates and programs for all residents, regardless of income.
 Policy ENV-10.6: Reach Building Code. Consider feasibility of adopting a “reach” local amendment to the California building code to require a 15% or greater energy efficiency than the State standard.
 Policy ENV-10.8: Building Electrification. Consider a Reach Building Code that would prohibit installation of natural gas in all new construction.
 Policy ENV-11.1: Energy Efficiency. Require developers employ energy-efficient site planning methods and building design, including building orientation, shading, landscaping, building reflectance, and passive solar heating and hot water systems.  Policy ENV-11.1: Renewable Energy Sources. Work with other agencies and utility companies to develop safe, economical, and renewable energy resources.  Policy ENV-11.2: Renewable Energy Program. Support installation of renewable energy and battery storage for homes and businesses.
 Policy ENV-11.3: Energy Retrofit Program. Develop an energy retrofit program and incentives for homeowners and building owners to encourage energy efficiency improvements such as fixture and appliance upgrades.
 Policy ENV-11.4: Energy Efficiency City Operations. Increase energy efficiency of City operations and evaluate the feasibility of installing renewable energy at city facilities.

Energy use would be reduced further by General Plan policies that encourage reductions in inefficient energy allocations related to transportation, which include:
 Policy MOB-1.7: Promote Walking and Bicycling. Promote walking and bicycling for transportation, recreation, and improvement of public health.  Policy MOB-1.11: Reduce the Need to Drive. Implement land use policies designed to create a pattern of activity that makes it easy to shop, play, visit friends, and conduct personal business without driving.
 Policy MOB-1.17: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate travel modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by city and non-residents traveling to American Canyon to work or shop.  Policy MOB-1.20: Bicycle Plan Funding. Include funding for the City's Bicycle Plan updates and bikeway improvements consistent with the Bicycle Plan in the City's transportation financing program and TIF, recognizing the multi-modal travel needs of the City.  Policy MOB-1.22: Non-motorized Circulation System. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between places.
 Policy MOB-1.23: Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations. Encourage the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers' ability to walk safely around, to, and from their 352
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-5
workplaces. Where possible, route pedestrians to grade separated crossings over State Route

29.  Policy MOB-1.24: Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be provided to complete a continuous bikeway system, consistent with state standards, as shown on the Bikeway Plan Map. In cases where existing right of way constraints limit development of Class II or Class IV facilities, Class Ill signage and demarcation may be permitted at the discretion of the City Engineer. Deviations from these standards and from the routing shown on the diagram shall be permitted with the approval of the City Engineer.
 Policy MOB-4.1: Transit Electrification. Support NVTA in its efforts to electrify the transit fleet.  Policy MOB-4.2: Municipal Fleet. Prepare a plan to systematically replace the City’s vehicle fleet to electric.
 Policy MOB-4.3: Effects of New Technologies. Monitor and evaluate the development of convenient new electric mobility technologies (e.g., scootershare and bikeshare).  Policy MOB-4.4: Expand Electric Charging Stations. Evaluate regulatory and incentivized processes and funding mechanisms to streamline new electric vehicle charging stations at the lowest possible cost.
 Policy MOB-6.1: VMT Thresholds. Establish vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation requirements for the purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City shall continue to maintain LOS standards for the purposes of planning and designing street improvements on Green Island Road, Devlin Road, and American Canyon Road.  Policy ENV-10.3: Gas Station Limits. Recognizing that the transportation sector is the largest source of GHG emissions in American Canyon and in California more broadly, prohibit construction of new fossil-fuel stations in American Canyon.  Policy ENV-10.4: Expand Zero Emission Vehicles. Consider feasible methods to foster widespread use of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) to improve air quality and help meet California's GHG reductions targets by expanding availability of non-fossil vehicle fuel infrastructure, such as public and private electric vehicle charging stations, and hydrogen facilities for fuel cell electric vehicles throughout American Canyon.  Policy ENV-10.5: Vehicle Miles Travelled Reduction. Reduce vehicle miles travelled by encouraging future land uses that feature a compact mixed-use urban form connected with pedestrian and bicycle trails.
 Policy ENV-10.7: Vehicle Idling. Reduce vehicle engine idling in American Canyon by educating the broader community (i.e.: businesses, commuters, residents) on the greenhouse gas impacts caused by engine idling and implementing feasible commercial vehicle regulations.  Policy ENV-12.4: EV Charging Station Requirements. Consider adopting voluntary measures from CalGreen Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 to implement stricter electric vehicle charging requirements for new development.
 Policy ENV-12.6: City Vehicle Fleet. Transition the municipal fleet to electric or alternative-fuel vehicles.
 Policy ENV-12.8: Commute Reduction. Support programs that reduce commuter vehicle trips.

The project would encourage the development of modern buildings, which would consume less energy in the forms of electricity than existing, older buildings in the Planning Area. The project would also support transportation systems that rely less heavily on internal combustion vehicles and 353
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-6
more on active transportation, transit, and electric vehicles, which would consume less energy in the form of petroleum. The development facilitated by the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Impacts would be less than significant.

4.15.3 Geology and Soils
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on geology and soils if it would:
1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potential result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 5 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 6 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
An analysis of impacts to paleontological resources and unique geologic features resulting from project implementation is contained in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources. The significance criterion related to paleontological resources is addressed in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources.

Earthquake Fault Rupture
American Canyon is in a seismically active region of northern California. Moderate to strong earthquakes can occur on numerous local faults. Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones are regulatory zones that surround the surface traces of active faults in California, created in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Department of Conservation [DOC] 2019). For the purposes of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, an active fault is defined as a fault that has ruptured in the past 11,000 years (DOC 2019).

The Planning Area is intersected by the West Napa Fault Zone, an identified Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2022). Development facilitated by the project could occur in areas with the potential for fault rupture and associated risk of loss, injury and death. However, development facilitated by the project would not involve mining operations that require deep excavations thousands of feet into the earth, or boring of large areas that could create unstable seismic 354
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-7
conditions or stresses in the Earth’s crust. In addition, the following 2040 General Plan proposed policies would reduce impacts by identifying and investigating sites prone to fault ruptures and reducing impacts of fault rupture by protecting new and expanded development, including infrastructure, within areas known to experience fault ruptures:
 Policy S-4.1: Geologic Hazard Identification. Reference current local and California Geologic Survey seismic and geologic hazards map surveys.
 Policy S-4.3: Structure Protection. Develop inventories of at-risk public buildings and infrastructure and seek funding to bring existing City-owned structures into compliance with updated seismic safety standards.
 Policy S-4.4: Infrastructure Protection. Support earthquake strengthening and provision of alternative or backup services, for at-risk infrastructure such as water, sewer, electricity, and natural gas pipelines and connections, for critical facilities especially in areas of high seismic or geologic high hazard or where weak segments are identified by existing or future studies. =  Policy S-4.5: Earthquake Protection. Enforce seismic design provisions all relevant building codes reduce the risk of damage associated with seismic activity in all new and expanded development and ensure adequate review and inspection.
 Policy S-4.6: Alquist-Priolo Act. Implement mandatory development restrictions and investigation requirements (by the state, under the Alquist-Priolo Act, or by the City) on the West Napa fault zone located within American Canyon and its Planning Area.  Policy S-4.7: Geotechnical Review. Continue to require preliminary investigations of tract sites by State-registered geotechnical engineers and certified engineering geologists (Chapter 70 County Building Code) and ensure regular inspection of grading operations.

As such, development facilitated by the project would not directly or indirectly cause or increase potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts would be less than significant.

Seismic Ground Shaking
The West Napa Fault Zone runs through the Planning Area and would be capable of producing strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Additionally, the Planning Area is in a seismically active region of northern California where several fault systems are considered to be active or potentially active. Development within the Planning Area may be subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along one of the faults designated as active in the vicinity of American Canyon. Nearby active faults include the Cuttings fault (approximately 1.7 miles west), Green Valley fault (approximately 6.2 miles east), Cordelia fault (approximately 6.7 miles northeast), Concord fault (11.5 miles southeast), Hayward fault (approximately 12.4 miles southwest), and the Rodgers Creek fault (approximately 10.4 miles west) (DOC 2022).

Development facilitated by the project would not exacerbate a risk to public safety or destruction of property than what is already present in the region. Residential development would be required to adhere to the standards of the California Building Code (CBC) which provides earthquake design requirements, including earthquake loading specifications for design and construction to resist effects of earthquake motions in accordance with the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 7-05. The CBC also regulates the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking. The impact to people, buildings, or structures from strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced by 355
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-8
mandatory conformance with applicable building codes, and accepted engineering practices. In addition, 2040 General Plan proposed Policies S-4.1, S.4-6, and S-4.7 would reduce impacts by identifying and investigating sites prone to seismic ground shaking. 2040 General Plan proposed policies S-4.3, S-4.4, and S-4.5 would reduce impacts of seismic ground shaking by protecting new and expanded development, including infrastructure, within areas known to experience seismic ground shaking. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: shallow groundwater; low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and strong ground motion.

Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures.

According to the DOC, the Planning Area has not been evaluated for seismically-induced liquefaction risk (DOC 2022). However, according to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), most of the Planning Area is within low susceptibility liquefaction zones; portions of the city south of American Canyon Road are within moderate susceptibility liquefaction zones; and a small portion of the city along American Canyon Road is classified as very high susceptibility (USGS 2006). Development facilitated by the project is required to adhere to the standards of the CBC, which includes mandatory site-specific geotechnical investigations for individual projects. Compliance with applicable building codes would reduce seismic ground shaking impacts with current engineering practices, and the project would not exacerbate liquefaction potential in the Planning Area. In addition, the following 2040 General Plan proposed policies would minimize impacts from liquefaction:
 Policy S-4.2: Liquefaction. Require special site-specific studies in areas potentially subject to liquefaction to determine engineering mitigations and development siting measures for new development.

Compliance with the CBC and the proposed policy in the 2040 General Plan would ensure that impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant.

Landslides
The geologic character of an area determines its potential for landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and the rock composition of a hillside all contribute to the potential for slope failure and landslide events. In order to fail, unstable slopes need to be disturbed; common triggering mechanisms of slope failure include undercutting slopes by erosion or grading, saturation of marginally stable slopes by rainfall or irrigation; and, shaking of marginally stable slopes during earthquakes. Due to the varied topography of the Planning Area, there is potential for landslides within the city and to the immediate east (City of American Canyon 1994).

Pursuant to the City of American Canyon Municipal Code Section 18.02.070, development facilitated by the project would be required to perform soils tests within thirty days prior to the issuance of a building permit. If future development under the project were to occur in a landslide area, it would be subject to further study and approval. In addition, the following 2040 General Plan proposed policies would minimize impacts from landslides:
 Policy S-4.8: Landslide Activity. Restrict new development in areas of known landslide activity unless adequate mitigation is incorporated.
356
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-9
Compliance with the City of American Canyon Municipal Code and the proposed policy in the 2040 General Plan would ensure that impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.

Erosion
Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil may occur when soils are disturbed but not secured or restored, such that wind or rain events mobilize disturbed soils, resulting in their transport offsite. Ground disturbing activities associated with development facilitated by the project would have the potential to result in the removal and erosion of topsoil during grading and excavation. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit, which would require development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines project-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants from construction into stormwater. Typical BMPs include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fences, erosion control blankets, and anti-tracking pads at site exits to prevent off-site transport of soil material.

For construction activities, the City of American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 14.28 requires implementation of stormwater pollution control requirements for construction activities.

Construction activities would also be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which are designed to ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading and construction to control erosion and storm water pollution.

Therefore, erosion from ground-disturbing activities associated with future development from the project would be controlled through implementation of the requirements and BMPs in existing regulations, including the Construction General Permit and City of American Canyon Municipal Code. Compliance with the regulations discussed above would reduce the risk of soil erosion from construction activities and impacts would be less than significant.

Geologic or Soil Instability and Expansive Soils
Impacts related to landslides and liquefaction are discussed above; therefore, this discussion focuses on impacts related to unstable or expansive soils because of lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Lateral spreading occurs because of liquefaction; accordingly, liquefaction-prone areas would also be susceptible to lateral spreading. Subsidence occurs at great depths below the surface when subsurface pressure is reduced by the withdrawal of fluids (e.g., groundwater, natural gas, or oil) resulting in sinking of the ground. Soils that volumetrically increase (swell) or expand when exposed to water and contract when dry (shrink) are considered expansive soils. A soil’s potential to shrink and swell depends on the amount and types of clay in the soil. Highly expansive soils can cause structural damage to foundations and roads without proper structural engineering and are generally less suitable or desirable for development than non-expansive soils.

Development facilitated by the project would not affect existing conditions (unless development is improperly constructed) related to unstable or expansive soils since the land use pattern emphasizes infill development. Implementation of 2040 General Plan proposed Policy S-4.7 would require a geotechnical investigation to ensure geologic stability prior to ground disturbance, which would reduce impacts of unstable soils. Future development would be required to comply with the CBC’s minimum standards for structural design and site development. The CBC provides standards for excavation, grading, and earthwork construction; fills and embankments; expansive soils; foundation investigations; and liquefaction potential and soils strength loss. Thus, CBC-required incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, 357
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-10
etc.) in the excavation and construction plans can achieve an acceptable degree of soil stability to address site-specific soil conditions. Adherence to these requirements would achieve accepted safety standards for unstable geologic units or soils. In addition, although reasonably foreseeable development under the project would potentially be subject to these hazards, it would not increase the potential for lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Septic Systems
The project would emphasize development within the Planning Area where existing infrastructure exists. New development under the project is not anticipated to include the use of septic systems.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

4.15.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; 4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; 6 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
7 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

An analysis of the risk of exposure to wildland fires resulting from project implementation is contained in Section 4.14, Wildfire. The significance criterion related to wildfire is addressed in Section 4.14, Wildfire.

Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Disposal
Future development facilitated by the project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, such as vehicle fuels and fluids, which could be released, should a spill or leak occur.

Contractors of individual development projects would be required to implement standard construction BMPs for the use or handling of such materials to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Any transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be carried out in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations regarding the handling of 358
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-11
potentially hazardous materials. These include the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. Hazardous materials transported on State highways, such as State Route 29, would be subject to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) requirements, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.14.040 requires all operations in industrial districts, which involve the storage, use, or transport of flammable or explosive materials or gases obtain adequate safety devices to prohibit hazard release and adequate firefighting equipment. Mandatory compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations relating to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation of future development facilitated by the project would minimize the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Upset and Accident Conditions
As described above in the Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Disposal section, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous material would be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, California Code of Regulations Title 22, and Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Additionally, the Napa County Office of Emergency Services has protocols to remedy the accidental release of hazardous materials, as set forth in the County of Napa Emergency Operations Plan (County of Napa 2016). These regulatory safeguards minimize exposure of the public and environment to a potential release of hazardous materials.

Future development facilitated by the project that requires demolition or redevelopment of existing structures, particularly old structures, has the potential to expose workers and the public to asbestos. The California Health and Safety Code Section 19827.5 requires local agencies not issue a demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has assessed the potential for a structure to contain asbestos and demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under federal regulations involving hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1 requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure levels do not exceed California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) standards. Similarly, California Code of Regulations Section 1529 sets requirements for asbestos exposure assessments and monitoring, methods of complying with exposure requirements, safety wear, communication of hazards, and medical examination of workers. The control of asbestos-containing material during demolition or renovation activities is regulated under the federal Clean Air Act which requires thorough inspection for asbestos where demolition will occur and specifies work practices to control emissions, such as removing all asbestos-containing materials, adequately wetting all regulated asbestos-containing materials, sealing the material in leak tight containers, and disposing of the asbestos-containing waste material as expediently as practicable (United States Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA] 2022). Furthermore, demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities would be regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) through adherence to Regulation 11 Rule 2 which sets standard procedures to prevent emissions from asbestos-containing materials (BAAQMD 1998). As such, the potential for release of asbestos would be minimized.
359
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-12
Future development facilitated by the project could involve the use, storage, disposal, or transportation of hazardous materials. Some potential commercial, residential, and visitor-serving uses do not generally involve the use, storage, disposal, or transportation of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Hazardous material use and storage would primarily consist of common household hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, and chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies. These materials would not be different from household hazardous materials currently in use throughout the Planning Area. Residents and workers are anticipated to use limited quantities of products that could contain hazardous materials routinely for periodic cleaning, repair, and maintenance, or for landscaping and pest control. The disposal of household hazardous materials would be conducted in compliance with applicable regulations, pursuant to American Canyon Municipal Code 14.16.400.

Future development facilitated by the project could include industrial uses which could sell, use, store, transport, or release substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Businesses that handle certain chemicals over threshold quantities are required to abide by the Napa County Division of Environmental Health programs, such as preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The HMBP consists of basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials, and emergency response and training plans (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA] 2022). Hazardous materials must be reported in a HMBP if they are handled in quantities equal or greater than 55 gallons of a liquid, 200 standard cubic feet of a compressed gas, or 500 pounds of a solid (CalEPA 2022). Mandatory reporting in HMBPs would reduce potential hazards to workers and the general public near industrial development from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Overall, applicable federal, State, and local regulations would minimize the potential for future development facilitated by the project to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Schools
Future development facilitated by the project could include facilities which transport, use, handle, or dispose of hazardous materials. There are three elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school that serve American Canyon (Napa Valley Unified School District 2022). As described under the Hazardous Materials Transport, Use, and Disposal discussion, any transport of hazardous materials would be required to comply with applicable regulations for the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Future development facilitated by the project, which would be reasonably anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or would handle a hazardous substance within 0.25-mile of an existing school would be required to notify the affected school district, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.4. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the potential for a school to be exposed to hazardous materials.

The project would involve land use changes that could result in the construction of up to 25 residential units near Napa Junction Elementary School and up to 150 residential units near American Canyon High School. Housing is not a land use typically associated with the use, transportation, storage, or generation of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Operation of new housing development in accordance with the proposed land use changes may result in an incremental release in the use of common household hazardous materials such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, but these materials are not anticipated to be used in substantial quantities 360
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-13
such that their use poses a hazard to students at Napa Junction Elementary School or American Canyon High School. Furthermore, the construction of residences would occur in accordance with applicable regulations for the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and would be subject to City-review, which would minimize the potential for temporary construction-related impacts regarding hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed land use changes would not result in a hazard to school facilities.

Regarding future schools that may be developed to accommodate forecasted population increases in American Canyon, provisions of the California Education Code Section 17213 would apply. Section 17213 requires the City to ensure the chosen site for a proposed school is not built on current or hazardous waste disposal sites, is not on a hazardous substance release site identified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and does not contain pipelines that carry hazardous substances. Assessment of any contamination is conducted in coordination with the DTSC’s Brownfields Restoration and School Evaluation Branch which is responsible for assessing, investigating, and cleaning up proposed school sites (DTSC 2022a). The DTSC ensures that selected sites are free of hazardous materials, or if the sites were previously contaminated, have been remediated to a level that protects future students and staff who will occupy a new school.

Therefore, the project would not result in the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials substances or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. This impact would be less than significant.

Hazardous Materials Sites
The DTSC’s EnviroStor database and the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) GeoTracker database were reviewed to determine the locations of potentially hazardous materials sites in the Planning Area. The results of this search are provided in Table 4.15-1 below.

Table 4.15-1 Identified Hazardous Materials Sites in American Canyon Site Name Address Site Type Status
Beacon #3710 (Former) and
Tesoro # 67050, Case #2
3438 Hwy 29 LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed
Arco 3462 Hwy 29 LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Caltrans Route 29 Post Mile

1.13 (At Napa Valley Casino)
3466 Broadway Street LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Doshier Property 5365 Hwy 29 LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Evan Athan Enterprises 4381 Hwy 29 LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Golden State Lumber Inc 150 Napa Junction Road LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Golden State Lumber Inc 150 Napa Junction Road - South LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Independent Stave Company 4391 Hwy 29 LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Jaeger Vineyards 658 Napa Junction Road LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Medeiros Property 289 Napa Junction Road LUST Cleanup Site Completed - Case Closed Sunshine Auto Salvage 1578 Green Island Road Cleanup Program Site Completed - Case Closed American Canyon High School 3000 Newell Drive School Cleanup Certified/Operation & Maintenance
Canyon Crossings Napa Junction Road Voluntary Cleanup Active LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Source: DTSC 2022b; SWRCB 2022
361
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-14
Future development facilitated by the project could occur on sites with underground storage tanks (USTs). Tank removal activities could pose both health and safety risks from tank contents or vapors to workers, tank handling personnel, and the public. Potential risks, if any, posed by USTs could be minimized by managing the tank according to existing standards contained in California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (UST Program), as enforced and monitored by the Environmental Programs Division. The extent to which groundwater may be affected by an UST or other potential contamination source depends on the type of contaminant, the amount released, the duration of the release, distance from source, and depth to groundwater. If contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, future developers would be required to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, depending on the nature of any identified contamination.

Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan would include the following proposed policy and Implementation Program to minimize impacts related to hazardous materials.  Policy S-5.6: Hazardous Material Review. Review new development sites for potential presence of hazardous materials.
 Implementation Program TT: Environmental Site Assessment. If determined by the City to be necessary, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in accordance with ASTM International methodologies shall be completed for a development proposal prior to project approval. If the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determines hazardous materials may be present, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment may be required. 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 prepare a Soil Management Plan for impacted soils prior to the start of construction.

Future development facilitated by the project would be required to identify hazardous materials sites in accordance with proposed Policy S-5.6 and Implementation Program TT and remove such hazardous materials in accordance with applicable State and local regulations. As a result, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being located on a hazardous materials site. This impact would be less than significant.

Airport Land Use Hazards
The Napa County Airport is located approximately 0.4 mile north of American Canyon. Development within the Napa County Airport’s sphere of influence is governed by the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) (Napa County Airport Land Use Commission [ALUC] 1991). Future development facilitated by the project could occur within the noise contours delineated in the ALUCP. In accordance with California Public Utilities Code 21676, ALUCs must review general plans for consistency with the ALUCP.

The ALUC would review the 2040 General Plan for consistency with the Noise Compatibility Guidelines provided in the ALUCP, which indicates light industrial and commercial noise exposure is normally or clearly acceptable at under 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and marginally acceptable at under 75 dBA CNEL. Within the ALUCP’s sphere of influence zones, identified as Zone D in the ALUCP, a 35-foot height restriction for development is implemented which ensures safety hazards from building heights are minimized. A permit to exceed the height limit may be obtained after approval from the ALUC. However, specific future development that may affect navigable airspace would still be subject to Federal Aviation Administration review, pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 77.5, 77.7, and 77.9. 362
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-15
In addition to review by the ALUC, the 2040 General Plan proposed policies would minimize loss of life, injury, and property damage resulting from aircraft operations. Specifically, 2040 General Plan proposed policies include the following:
 Policy S-6.1: Airport Land Use Consistency. Review all applications for new development, expansion of existing uses, and re-use within Napa County Airport Compatibility Zones “A” through “E” for compliance with the appropriate use and development conditions.  Policy S-6.2: Adverse Airport Impact Mitigation. Work with the Napa County Airport Authority to ensure that onsite ground activities of the Airport do not adversely impact (e.g., noise, vibration, air emissions, or other pollution) the City of American Canyon.  Policy S-6.3: Airport Traffic Impacts. Work with the Napa County Airport Authority to ensure that airport vehicular access does not adversely impact the City of American Canyon.

Compliance with the ALUCP, review by the ALUC, and implementation of 2040 General Plan proposed policies would ensure the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Impairment of Emergency Response Plans
Construction activities associated with future development facilitated by the project could interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans because of temporary construction activities within rights-of-way, temporary construction barricades, or other obstructions that could impede emergency access. Any temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access on State highway systems would be subject to the standards set forth in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Manual) (Caltrans 2021). The Manual requires the creation and approval of temporary traffic control plans to be used for facilitating road users through a work zone (Caltrans 2021). Adherence to the Manual requirements for construction activities would minimize potential impacts associated with the impairment or physical interference of an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation procedures for State highways. Construction that would occur within a public easement or right-of-way would be required to obtain an encroachment permit. In order to obtain an encroachment permit, traffic control plans would need to be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department for review and approval (City of American Canyon 2015). These regulations would ensure construction activities associated with future development would not impair emergency evacuation or emergency response plans.

Increased future development could result in additional traffic. However, 2040 General Plan proposed policies would support safe evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. Proposed policies include the following:
 Policy MOB-3.1: Parallel North-South Roadway. Prioritize construction of roadways that provide alternate vehicle access parallel to Highway 29 through American Canyon and coordinate continuation of parallel routes outside the City with Regional Agencies.  Policy MOB-3.2: Evacuation Routes. Identify important roadways that would serve as evacuation routes in the event of an emergency.
 Policy MOB-3.3: Natural Hazard Awareness Week. Coordinate with the American Canyon Fire Protection District to conduct outreach to the community on emergency evacuation routes in our community.
363
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-16
 Policy MOB-3.4: Evacuation Route Obstacles. Evaluate potential physical conditions that could impede an evaluation route. Examples include overhead utility poles, dead/ dying trees, aging infrastructure.

Furthermore, development facilitated by the project must comply with road standards and would be reviewed by the American Canyon Fire Protection District to ensure development would not interfere with evacuation routes or impede the effectiveness of evacuation plans. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would not introduce new features or policies that would preclude implementation of or alter these plans or procedures. Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. This impact would be less than significant.

4.15.5 Hydrology and Water Quality
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality if it would:
1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. 3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows.
4 In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. 5 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements Future development facilitated by the project and future mobility improvements (i.e., improvements to roadways, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities) could result in construction activities which may contribute to soil erosion and degraded water quality. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land are subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires the development of a SWPPP developed by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP includes project-specific BMPs to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants from construction into stormwater. Typical BMPs include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fences, erosion control blankets, and anti-tracking pads at site exits to prevent off-site transport of soil materials. Chapter

14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires any construction activities in the City to 364
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-17
implement appropriate BMPs to prevent the discharge of sediment. The American Canyon Municipal Code Section 14.28.080 requires implementation of erosion and sediment control BMPs to further reduce discharge of sediment and other particulate matter into the City’s water systems.

In addition, future development facilitated by the project would be subject to the following 2040 General Plan proposed policy:
 Policy U-4.1: Storm Drainage Maintenance. Maintain existing public storm drains and flood control facilities and construct upgraded and expanded storm drain and flood control facilities, where necessary, to protect existing and accommodate new permitted development.

Compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, SWPPP, and City regulations would ensure BMPs are implemented during new construction to minimize potential impacts to water quality. Impacts would be less than significant during construction of future development and mobility improvements.

Operation of future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the provisions of California’s Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Storm Water Permit. In addition, American Canyon Municipal Code Section 14.28.082 requires implementation of a Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) for all new development and redevelopment projects subject to post-construction stormwater control measure requirements. The SCP requires implementation of site design measures and treatment facilities meeting the criteria established by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), including minimization of impervious surfaces, retainment or detainment of stormwater, slow runoff rates, and a reduction in pollutants in post-development runoff (BASMAA 2019). If future development facilitated by the project were to be categorized under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, it would be subject to the Industrial General Permit, which requires development of a site-specific operational SWPPP.

Implementation of the operational SWPPP would reduce the risk of water degradation on site and off site from soil erosion and other pollutants related to project operation because an operational SWPPP requires the design, installation, and maintenance of post-construction stormwater controls.

The operational SWPPP identifies the site-specific sources of pollutants and describes the best management practices implemented at the facility to prevent dry weather runoff and to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges. In addition, future development facilitated by the project would be subject to the following 2040 General Plan proposed policy:
 Policy U-4.8: Low Impact Development. Require new developments to install green infrastructure consistent with the best management practices of the State and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, including but not limited to pervious pavement, infiltration basins, raingardens, green roofs, rainwater harvesting systems, and other types of low impact development (LID).

Implementation of permit requirements and 2040 General Plan proposed policies would minimize impacts related to water quality and ensure development facilitated by the project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Groundwater Supplies and Recharge
American Canyon underlies the Napa Sonoma Lowlands Subbasin which is classified as a Very Low Priority basin by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (DWR 2022). Development facilitated by the project would be served with potable water from the City, which does not utilize 365
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-18
local groundwater for municipal purposes (City of American Canyon 2016). Accordingly, development facilitated by the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.

Future development facilitated by the project could introduce new impervious surfaces through the construction of paved areas; however, implementation of the SCP requires introduction of lowimpact development site design measures, which would assist in groundwater recharge. These measures include, but are not limited to limiting impervious surfaces, routing runoff to bioretention facilities for groundwater storage, or requiring the use of pervious pavements (BASMAA 2019).

Future development facilitated by the project would implement design standards pursuant to BASMAA standards and as a result, minimize the potential for substantial prevention of groundwater recharge. Furthermore, 2040 General Plan would implement proposed Policy U-4.8, as well as the following proposed policy that would promote groundwater recharge:
 Policy U-4.2: Maximize Pervious Surfaces. Consistent with engineering standards, minimize storm water runoff from new development with pervious surface materials (grass, ground cover, and other).

The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. This impact would be less than significant.

Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns
Future mobility improvements facilitated by the project, including improvements to roadways, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities would primarily consist of repaving roads, adding bicycle lanes, installing roundabouts, and repainting median strips. Such projects would not involve the addition of substantial impervious surfaces or alternation of the course of a stream or river.

However, future development facilitated by the project could alter the existing drainage patterns on individual project sites by adding impervious surfaces. Chapter 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires any construction activities in the City to implement appropriate BMPs to prevent the discharge of sediment. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is required for any project that is:
 Subject to a grading permit;
 Subject to a building permit that has the potential for significant erosion and/or significant nonstormwater discharges of sediment and/or construction site waste;  Any other project as required by the authorized enforcement official considering factors such as whether the project involves hillside soil disturbance, rainy season construction, construction near a watercourse, or any other condition or construction site activity that could lead to a nonstormwater discharge to a storm drain.

The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is required to include a description of soil disturbing activity, site-specific construction-phase BMPs, rationale for selecting BMPs, list of applicable permits, proof the applicant has obtained applicable permits, and project information consistent with the most recent version of the Napa Countywide Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Model Template checklist. For projects subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit, a SWPPP may be submitted in lieu of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The SWPPP includes project-specific BMPs to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants from construction into stormwater. As stated in the Flood, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones discussion, American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 8.16 requires flood control measures to be 366
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-19
implemented during construction for projects in flood hazard areas, including development to be elevated above the base flood elevation. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan would include proposed PolicyU-4.1 and the following proposed policy for storm and flood control:
 Policy S-3.1: Regulatory Compliance. Coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies to ensure the City’s flood control regulations comply with federal, State, and local standards.

Runoff during operation of the development facilitated by the project would be regulated under the Phase II MS4 Storm Water Permit, implemented by the American Canyon Municipal Code 14.28.

American Canyon Municipal Code Section 14.28.082 requires an SCP. The SCP requires implementation of site design measures and treatment facilities meeting the criteria established by BASMAA, including minimization of impervious surfaces, retainment or detainment of stormwater, slow runoff rates, and a reduction in pollutants in post-development runoff (BASMAA 2019). In addition, the 2040 General Plan would implement proposed Policy U-4.8, which would require green infrastructure. Compliance with existing City regulations and 2040 General Plan proposed policies would ensure development facilitated by the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area such that substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; flooding on- or off-site; exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provision of additional sources of polluted runoff; or impediment or redirection of flood flows would occur. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Flood, Tsunami, or Seiche Zones
The nearest body of water subject to seiche is Lake Frey, located approximately 6.9 miles northeast of the northern border of the City limits. Given the proximity to Lake Frey, American Canyon is not at risk of seiche. American Canyon contains flood hazard zones designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which traverse east to west along American Canyon Creek and at the western border of the City limits near the Napa River (FEMA 2022). In addition, the southwestern portion of Planning Area is in a Tsunami Hazard Area as mapped by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) (DOC 2022).

Future mobility improvements facilitated by the project, including improvements to roadways, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities would not create substantial pollutant risk due to inundation. The amount of pollution washed off a roadway in a flood would typically be the same as pollution washed off in a heavy rain, as most pollutants on roads, bicycle and pedestrian facilities consist of motor oil, metals from brake pads, and trash. While it is possible floodwaters could rise high enough to overcome drainage ditches, bioswales, and similar pollution-capturing systems alongside roadways, the 2040 General Plan would implement proposed Policies S-3.1 and U-4.1, which require storm drains be maintained and improved where necessary. As a result, inundation risk associated with mobility improvements facilitated by the project would be minimal.

Future development facilitated by the project in flood hazard zones or tsunami hazard areas could risk pollutant release due to inundation. However, American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 8.16 sets floodplain management regulations that implement requirements for flood hazard reduction in flood hazard zones. Section 8.16.160 requires all new construction and substantial improvements in all areas of special flood hazards to be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement resulting from flood waters. All new construction and substantial improvements are required to utilize flood resistant materials as specified in FEMA Technical Bulletin 2-93, and both residential and nonresidential construction are required to be elevated above the base flood elevation. All development within a flood hazard zone is required to receive a certification by a 367
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-20
registered professional engineer or architect which states the City’s floodplain requirements have been satisfied. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan would include the following proposed policies for flood control:
 Policy S-3.2: FEMA Coordination. Coordinate with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to ensure that Federal Insurance Rate Maps correctly depict flood hazards in the City.  Policy S-3.5: Private Preventive Maintenance. Require property owners keep natural drainage courses on their sites free of obstructions such as structures, dams, and debris, which may adversely affect flooding on the site or downstream properties.

Future development facilitated by the project within flood hazard zones or tsunami hazard areas would adhere to the requirements of the American Canyon Municipal Code and the 2040 General Plan. With adherence to applicable regulations, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Conflicts with a Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
American Canyon underlies the Napa Sonoma Lowlands Subbasin which is classified as a Very Low Priority basin by the DWR (DWR 2022). The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local agencies to form groundwater sustainability agencies to manage groundwater resources in high and medium priority basins. Accordingly, the Napa Sonoma Lowlands Subbasin is not subject to a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

The City is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan), which functions as a master water quality control planning document. The Basin Plan includes programs of implementation to achieve water quality objectives (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2019). As previously discussed, future development facilitated by the project and future mobility improvements would implement State and local regulatory requirements, including the provisions of the Construction General Permit, the Industrial General Permit, and Chapter 14.28 of the American Canyon Municipal Code. Furthermore, 2040 General Plan proposed Policy U-4.8 requires new development to install green infrastructure consistent with BMPs of the State and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. 2040 General Plan proposed Policy U-4.8 would ensure future development facilitated by the project, including future mobility improvements, implement design features which promote the water quality goals of the Basin Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. This impact would be less than significant.

4.15.6 Mineral Resources
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on mineral resources if it would:
1 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state;
2 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. 368
Environmental Impact Analysis
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.15-21
There are no areas within the Planning Area that contain known mineral resources (DOC 1983).

Project implementation would not preclude mineral extraction or would result in development in areas with mineral resources. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resources that would be of value to the region or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impacts would occur. 369
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update

4.15-22
This page intentionally left blank.
370
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Required Discussions
This section discusses other issues for which the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires, in addition to the specific issue areas discussed in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. These additional issues include the project’s potential to induce growth, create significant and irreversible impacts on the environment, and significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented.

5.1 Growth Inducement
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d) requires a discussion of a project’s potential to foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth.

Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment. However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location of growth, it can result in significant adverse environmental effects. A project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project-induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental issue areas.

5.1.1 Population and Economic Growth
This environmental impact report (EIR) identifies a maximum buildout for the project, which is a conservative assumption developed for this analysis. Overall, maximum growth is dependent on multiple factors, including local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. The following conservative estimate of population growth is based on the project’s maximum buildout scenario, which would accommodate approximately 3,204 additional housing units and 10,734 additional residents. The City has planned for the addition of new residences to the City through several plans which have undergone environmental review, including the Broadway District Specific Plan and Watson Ranch Specific Plan. Under the maximum buildout scenario, the project could result in an increase of approximately 5.7 million square feet of non-residential development that would generate permanent employment opportunities in American Canyon for residents. Though implementation of new and updated policies in the 2040 General Plan, the City would reduce significant physical effects on the environment resulting from population and economic growth. For example, as described in Section 4.10, Public Services and Recreation and Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the implementation of proposed policies in the 2040 General Plan would ensure that there are sufficient public services and utilities to meet the demand associated with population and economic growth. As such, the impacts from population and economic growth would be less than significant.

In addition, the project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction of future residential and nonresidential projects. As construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, construction of future development projects would not be considered growth-inducing. Therefore, the project would not induce uncontrolled population or economic growth and associated environmental impacts.
371
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
5-2

5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth
Development facilitated by the project would require new utility connections, including connections to water, hydrants, sewers, electricity, telecommunications, or other utilities like stormwater facilities. However, these connections would generally occur within individual footprints or rightsof-way that were previously disturbed, minimizing the impact of development on existing infrastructure and services. Development would use existing facilities and major infrastructure extensions would not occur in or be designed to serve areas beyond the sites analyzed in this EIR.

The project would result in some land use designation changes; however, these changes primarily resolve inconsistencies between existing land uses and land use designations in the General Plan. As such, the project would generally preserve the existing land use pattern in American Canyon. The project does not facilitate development within the sphere-of-influence (SOI) or urban limit line. Any future proposals to develop within the SOI or urban limit line would be subject to annexation to the City of American Canyon in compliance with procedures identified by the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission, as well as additional environmental documentation.

In addition, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the 2040 General Plan includes mobility improvements, including roadway extensions. These roadway extensions would serve approved or pending development. For example, the Newell Drive Extension would serve, in part, the future development associated with the Watson Ranch Specific Plan.

For the reasons identified above, the project would not result in significant growth inducement due to the removal of an obstacle to growth.

5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the project, should the project be implemented. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, environmental accidents, and irreversible impacts associated with the project.

The project would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products and potentially natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of future development. As described in Section 4.15, Effects Found to Be Less Than Significant, development facilitated by the project would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated buildings, and the Green Building Standards Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. Furthermore, the project would implement several policies which would require efficient energy use and promote renewable energy programs. Consequently, development facilitated by the project would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable and renewable resources would be less than significant. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the project.

Growth facilitated by the project would require an irreversible commitment of fire protection, law enforcement, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. As discussed in Section 4.10, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, 372
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3
potential impacts to public services and utilities and service systems would be less than significant following implementation of 2040 General Plan proposed policies, as well as future project-specific environmental review that would be required for any future facilities constructed in accordance with the project.

Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.15, Effects Found to Be Less Than Significant, regulatory requirements, including those from the Napa County Division of Environmental Health would minimize potential accidents related to the spills of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not lead to significant irreversible environmental changes due to environmental accidents.

The anticipated increase in vehicle trips associated with the project would incrementally contribute to local traffic, air quality emissions, and noise. As described in Section 4.11, Transportation, VMTrelated impacts would be less than significant because the project would facilitate reduced work commute distances. As described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 would ensure the project would not result in people being exposed to substantial irreversible exposure to toxic air contaminants. However, as described in Section 4.7, Noise, the project would result in substantial increases in noise due to vehicle traffic. Although Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce noise through implementation of roadway vehicle noise reduction measures, implementation of the project would result in an irreversible increase in noise due to vehicle traffic.

The project would cause an irreversible increase in greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, although implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-2 and GHG-3 would ensure development facilitated by the project after 2024 would be consistent with the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, individual projects that may occur prior to 2024 would not be guaranteed to be consistent with State emissions goals, nor are exact emissions reductions known at the time of adoption of the 2040 General Plan. As a result, the project would cause a substantial irreversible increase in greenhouse gas emissions which may be inconsistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District greenhouse gas emissions thresholds and the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, until the adoption and implementation of greenhouse gas emissions thresholds and a Climate Action Plan.

5.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires a discussion of the significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. These significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis and summarized below. The project would have the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
 Impact GHG-1: Development facilitated by the project would make progress towards achieving state goals but would not necessarily meet State 2030 or 2045 goals. Mitigation Measures GHG2 and GHG-3 would require implementation of CEQA thresholds and a Climate Action Plan (CAP); however, development facilitated by the project would not meet the 2030 or 2045 goals until the CAP is updated and adopted. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.  Impact NOI-1: Construction of individual projects facilitated by the project would temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Development facilitated by the project would also introduce new noise sources and contribute to increases in operational noise. Construction and operational traffic noise could exceed standards. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
373
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
5-4
 Impact TRA-2: The 2040 General Plan includes policies which would reduce VMT. However, because there is no specific mitigation to reduce VMT per resident and the General Plan policies cannot realistically enforce mitigation programs or policies that might reduce VMT below the threshold, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 374
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6, this environmental impact report (EIR) examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the 2040 General Plan will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development, represent the community’s view of its future, and contain the goals and policies upon with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. The 2040 General Plan will provide a contemporary plan that will guide American Canyon though the next 20 years. The primary objective of this project is to update the existing American Canyon General Plan in order for it to be compliant with State law.

The 2040 General Plan would implement the vision of the existing General Plan. The City identifies the following three fundamental roles of the City:

The City should be home for a residential population, internally accommodating a sufficient range of uses to support the needs of residents (including a mix of housing types, commercial services, entertainment, employment, recreation, education, health, religious, cultural facilities, transportation services, and open space). At the present time, many of these uses are located outside the City, which necessitates extensive travel by residents to access these services.

The City should be a center of employment and commerce for regional, as well as local residents. This will provide an opportunity to capitalize upon (1) the cluster of uses which have developed in the Green Island Industrial Park; (2) the proximity of the City to the Napa County Airport and Southern Pacific railroad, and (3) the relationship of the City to the agricultural and vineyard industries of Napa County.

The City can capture visitors to the Napa Valley by providing uses which capitalize on the unique environmental setting of the foothills, river valleys, and agriculture. Environmental educational facilities, such as wetlands interpretative centers, overnight camping and recreational vehicle facilities, river recreational facilities such as boating, golf courses, and hotel/motels and restaurants are representative of the range of uses which may be considered.

In addition, the City identifies the following ten visions and principles to guide development:

Existing residential neighborhoods should be preserved. Neighborhoods that deteriorate or decline should be improved or revitalized.

A variety of housing types should be provided to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents. Multi-family units should be dispersed to prevent an overcrowding of density in isolated areas and improve the character of development.

New residential neighborhoods should incorporate a mixture of uses, services, and pedestrian amenities and corridors to reduce the use of the automobile.

Adequate open space and recreational amenities should be incorporated in new residential subdivisions to ensure that the needs of the residents are adequately served. 375
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-2
A "town center" should be established in proximity to the closed basalt plant which functions as the symbolic center of American Canyon. A wide diversity of uses characterized by a high level of activity should be accommodated, including government, retail, office, service, entertainment, housing, and open space. The center should be developed as a pedestrianoriented village that is physically linked by pedestrian and bicycle trails and other elements to surrounding neighborhoods and districts.

Additional villages need to be established to accommodate the basic commercial uses necessary to support existing and future residents ( grocery stores, household supplies, clothing, and similar uses). These would be located at two primary sites: the intersection of American Canyon Road and Highway 29 and adjacent to the Town Center on Highway 29.

Highway 29 should be reconfigured in a more effective land use pattern. The clustering of commercial uses would establish a critical mass of development that would improve the quality and economic viability of the area. The current pattern of dispersal substantially diminishes these areas.

Opportunities should be provided for the expansion of the existing industrial development at Green Island Industrial Park and in the vicinity of the Napa Airport and Southern Pacific Railroad.

Areas adjacent to the Napa River should afford the opportunity for the establishment of a wetlands interpretative and conference center, nature observation, hiking, camping, and water recreational ( boating) uses.

Oat Hill offers the opportunity for the development of a restaurant or hotel that would take advantage of views of the Napa River and San Francisco Bay.

This analysis presents two alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts identified in this EIR. These Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options that would help decision-makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:

Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Watson Ranch Natural Alternative
Alternative 3: Limited Growth
Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the proposed project and each of the alternatives considered. Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.1 through 6.3.
376
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3
Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives
Proposed
Project
Alternative
1:

No Project
Alternative 2: Watson
Ranch Natural Alternative
Alternative 3:

Limited
Growth
Total Allowable Dwelling Units Under1
Alternative
3,204 3,204 3,975 2,971
Change in Total Maximum Dwelling
Units Compared to Proposed Project
N/A -175 +596 -408
Total Additional Residents Under
Alternative1
10,734 10,990 12,790 10,190
Change in Population Potential
Compared to Proposed Project (Number
of Residents)
N/A -600 +2,056 -1,400
Total Additional Non-Residential Square
Footage Under Alternative2
5,704,000 5,704,000 5,704,000 5,639,000
Change in Total Additional NonResidential Square Footage Compared to Proposed Project
N/A N/A N/A -65,000
Updated Policies in General Plan Yes No Yes Yes
1 The estimates for additional dwelling units, residences, and non-residential square footage are a conservative estimate based on the maximum buildout scenario. Overall, maximum growth will be dependent on multiple factors, including local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. These numbers are not meant to be a predictor of future growth. 2 Non-residential square footage in Alternative 2 was assumed to be the same as the existing General Plan and only residential densities were changed.

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative

6.1.1 Description
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) require that the alternatives discussion include an analysis of a No Project Alternative. Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative refers to the analysis of existing conditions and what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The No Project Alternative typically will proceed along one of two lines: (1) when a project is a revision of an existing regulatory plan or policy, the No Project Alternative will be continuation of the existing plan or policy; or (2) if a project is a development project on identifiable property, the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. In this case, the No Project Alternative represents the continuation of existing zoning and General Plan designations within the City.

Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, buildout for the No Project Alternative would allow for 3,204 housing units and approximately 5.7 million square feet of additional non-residential land uses. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan policies.
377
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-4
The No Project Alternative would not accomplish the primary objective of the project, which is to update the existing American Canyon General Plan in order for it to be compliant with State law. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not include the updated 2040 General Plan policies and programs pertaining to community development, preservation of natural resources, sustainability, and improvement of American Canyon’s circulation network.

6.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Development under the No Project Alternative would continue the land use pattern that currently exists in American Canyon. Impacts to aesthetics would be similar to the proposed project.

Development under the No Project Alternative could affect aesthetics compared to existing conditions due to buildout and would be required to comply with the same American Canyon Municipal Code regulations as the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project includes Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, which would require measures to minimize lighting impacts during construction and operation of projects. Both these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to light and glare to less than significant. However, the No Project Alternative would not include these mitigation measures and could result in a significant impact on light and glare.

Therefore, the severity of the impact on aesthetics for the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.
b. Air Quality
Like the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not preclude planned transit or bike pathways and would not disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and meet federal and State air quality standards. The No Project Alternative would be consistent with applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures, although not to the extent as the proposed project, as the No Project Alternative would not include 2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce criteria pollutant emissions such as proposed Policy ENV-8.2, which would reduce construction pollutants as well as proposed Goal MOB-1 and its corresponding policies which would reduce transportation emissions:
 Policy ENV-11.2: Construction Management Plans. Require new development and redevelopment projects to prepare and implement a construction management plan that incorporates Best Available Control Measures and all best management practices in accordance with the Air District standards to reduce criteria pollutants.

Goal MOB-1: Provide safe and convenient access throughout the community with a citywide network of complete streets that meet the needs of all users and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Impacts regarding conflict with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant, albeit greater than the proposed project.

Buildout under the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations would involve a similar amount of construction emissions as compared to the proposed project. . Like the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) current recommended basic control measures.

The No Project Alternative would have similar overall construction-related impacts to air quality. 378
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-5
As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the greatest source of criteria pollutants in American Canyon is from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway traffic. The No Project Alternative would result in similar VMT impacts as compared to the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not include proposed 2040 General Plan proposed policies MOB-1.17 and MOB-5.1, which both support VMT reduction.
 Policy MOB-1.17: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate travel modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by city and non-residents traveling to American Canyon to work or shop.  Policy MOB-6.1: VMT Thresholds. Establish vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation requirements for the purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City shall continue to maintain LOS standards for the purposes of planning and designing street improvements on Green Island Road, Devlin Road, and American Canyon Road.

These policies would ultimately reduce VMT per capita. Overall, operational air quality impacts for the No Project Alternative would also be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

The No Project Alternative would result in similar amounts of toxic air contaminants (TAC) near sensitive receptors when compared to the proposed project. However, as described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the proposed project includes 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to promote clean air quality, protect public health and safety, and mitigate adverse air quality impacts, such as proposed policies ENV-11.1 and ENV-11.3.  Policy ENV-11.1: Regional Air Quality Efforts. Support and coordinate with BAAQMD and State and Federal planning efforts aimed at reducing air pollution and management of major pollutants affecting American Canyon and the region, including the Clean Air Plan.  Policy ENV-11.3: Separate Sensitive Land Uses. Separate sources of air pollution from sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes.

The No Project Alternative would not implement these policies. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to prepare a construction health risk assessment. The No Project Alternative would have similar overall construction-related TAC impacts to air quality as compared to the proposed project.

Like the proposed project, construction activities under the No Project Alternative would generate odors, which would be temporary and limited to the constructed period. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would have a less than significant with mitigation impact regarding creation of objectionable odors.

Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts to air quality as the proposed project but would not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater to the impacts from the proposed project. c. Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, potential habitat suitable for special-status species occurs in streams, grasslands, riparian woodland, and forests within the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative may still potentially impact special-status species or their habitat, including 379
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-6
riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Furthermore, in contrast to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan goals and policies, such as proposed Policy ENV-1.2 and Policy ENV-1.3 which are designed to preserve and protect biological resources in American Canyon.
 Policy ENV-1.2: Sensitive Habitat Assessment and Impact Mitigation. Require new development and redevelopment located within sensitive habitats, including coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, oak savannah, vernal pools, and riparian habitats to provide a detailed assessment of the potential for impacts on these resources, and include measures to reduce any identifiable impacts.
 Policy ENV-1.3: Habitat Conservation. Support habitat conservation efforts to set aside and preserve suitable habitats, with priority given to habitats for rare and endangered species in American Canyon in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.

Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project; however, the No Project Alternative would also not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater than to the impacts from the proposed project.
d. Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would have the potential to impact historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon through development of individual projects.. In contrast to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan goals and policies designed to preserve and protect historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon such as proposed Goal ENV-5 and its corresponding policies.

Goal ENV-4: Protect cultural and tribal resources.
 Policy ENV-4.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.  Policy ENV-4.2: Development. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.  Policy ENV-4.3: Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol. In the event any Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground disturbing activity, the “Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation” shall be implemented as included as Appendix A to the Housing Element.

Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project; however, the No Project Alternative would not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this 380
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-7
analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater than the impacts from the proposed project.
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project Alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. Temporary construction-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from grading and construction of new housing and non-residential development, as well as long-term impacts resulting from building operation (such as energy use, maintenance, and traffic) would be similar to the proposed project. .

However, the No Project Alternative would not include Mitigation Measures GHG-2 or GHG-3 which would require the adoption of a GHG threshold and Climate Action Plan (CAP) to meet the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG emissions goals.

American Canyon’s existing General Plan does not outline how the City would meet State-mandated goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the California Executive Order B55-18 goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and would not include a qualified GHG reduction plan to guide progress towards State goals. Consequently, impacts related to generation of GHG emissions and consistency with State GHG reduction plans under the No Project Alternative would be potentially significant. Under the No Project Alternative, the CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance and updated Climate Action Plan would not be implemented. As such, the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts on GHG emissions compared to the proposed project, because CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance and an updated Climate Action Plan would not be implemented.
f. Land Use and Planning
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no changes to land use designations, zoning, or policies in the General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Like the proposed project, future development under existing zoning would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, including Plan Bay Area 2050, as discussed in Impact LU-2 in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning.. Overall, impacts regarding land use and planning would be less than significant, like the proposed project. g. Noise
Buildout under the No Project Alternative would result in the same amount of development as the proposed project. Therefore, similar levels of construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from the No Project Alternative, compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction noise under the No Project Alternative could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to implement construction noise reduction measures. However, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the proposed project. Adherence to American Canyon Municipal Code noise limits for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under the No Project Alternative is less than significant. However, the No Project Alternative would not include 381
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-8
2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce operational noise impacts such as proposed Policies S-8.1, S-8.3, and S-8.12 which include requirements for considering noise in land use compatibility and site design.
 Policy S-8.1: Land Use Compatibility. Use the land use-noise compatibility matrix in Table S-1 to guide the siting of future land uses.
 Policy S-8.2: Sensitive Facilities. Ensure appropriate noise mitigation is incorporated into the design of noise- sensitive facilities.
 Policy S-8.3: Site Design. Minimize noise impacts to adjacent noise-sensitive land uses in site planning and project design.

Stationary source noise impacts due to the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project because the proposed policies and programs listed above would not be implemented.

Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise. The No Project Alternative would result in an increase in VMT compared to existing conditions and it is anticipated that a significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact would occur.

Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to prepare a construction vibration control plan. Operation of future development under the No Project Alternative would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise would be similar to the impacts of the proposed project.

Residents and businesses facilitated by the No Project Alternative would not be served by the Napa County Airport. Thus, development facilitated under this alternative would not result in significantly increased airport or airstrip activity. Continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Napa County Airport. Impacts would be less than significant, like the proposed project.

Overall, the No Project Alternative would not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater than to the impacts from the proposed project. h. Paleontological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, portions of the city are underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Under the No Project Alternative, ground disturbance could still result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to minimize impacts on paleontological resources. The No Project Alternative would involvesimilar impacts to paleontological resources as compared to the proposed project. i. Population and Housing
Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, implementation of the No Project Alternative would accommodate the same amount of housing units and residents as the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would result in similar population growth and would not induce substantial 382
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-9
unplanned population growth. The displacement of people or housing units under the No Project Alternative would be minimal, as development in American Canyon would continue in accordance with the existing General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. When compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would have equal impacts to population and housing. j. Public Services and Recreation
Development allowed by existing land use and zoning regulations would occur under the No Project Alternative, which would result in an increase to emergency calls in the area, as well as an increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services.

Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, the No Project Alternative would add approximately 11,590 which is the same as the proposed project. Thus, impacts to public services and recreation would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. k. Transportation
The No Project Alternative would result in development that follows the existing land use and zoning regulations. Goals and policies within the existing General Plan would apply under this alternative. Given the compliance with existing General Plan goals and policies that pertain to provision of “complete streets,” increased connectivity, adequate emergency access, and safety design, the No Project Alternative would have a less than significant impact regarding conflict with circulation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies. The No Project Alternative would also have a less than significant impact regarding substantially increased transportation hazards and inadequate emergency access. Nonetheless, the proposed project prioritizes the provisions of “complete streets” to a greater extent than the No Project Alternative since the proposed project includes proposed Goal MOB-1 and its corresponding policies, which would provide a citywide network of complete streets. As such, the No Project Alternative would have greater impacts related to consistency with plans and safety, compared to the project.

In addition, the No Project Alternative would result in similar buildout as compared to the proposed project. As described in Section 4.11, Transportation, American Canyon currently has fewer jobs than employed residents. As such, the No Project Alternative would result in similar per capita VMT compared to the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not include proposed 2040 General Plan policies MOB-1.17 and MOB-6.1 that support VMT reduction, which would ultimately reduce VMT per capita.

Overall, because the No Project Alternative would not include the proposed policies in the 2040 General Plan, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be slightly greater compared to the proposed project.
l. Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, impacts on tribal cultural resource (TCR) are highly dependent on the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed activity, including level of ground disturbance. Under the No Project Alternative, existing land use designations and zoning would continue to define the type of development that occurs throughout American Canyon. Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative may involve excavation, which could potentially impact previously unidentified TCRs. The No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan policies designed to preserve and protect TCRs, which were developed in part through consultation with Native American Tribes, such as proposed Goal ENV-4 and Policy ENV-4.3, which requires the implementation of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation 383
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-10
Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Overall, because these policies would not be included in the No Project Alternative, impacts, the severity of the impact on TCRs for the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.
m. Utilities and Service Systems
Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative would create additional demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication, and stormwater drainage facilities.

Any utility expansion within City limits would be subject to existing General Plan policies, which are intended to reduce potential impacts of utility expansion. Although the No Project Alternative would not include 2040 General Plan proposed policies that require implementation of low impact development, energy conservation, and energy efficiency strategies, there are existing regulations that would require similar measures. Impacts involving utility expansion under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the City’s Public Works Department would have adequate water supply to service the City’s anticipated growth under the proposed project. Considering that development under the No Project Alternative would be the same as the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would also be accommodated by the City’s existing water system. Although development under the No Project Alternative would increase water demand, the City would continue to have sufficient water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts to water supply would be less than significant.

Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Like the proposed project, the timing, intensity, and location of an expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is unknown at this time. Like the proposed project, wastewater expansion for the No Project Alternative would require additional CEQA review, would be advanced when the wastewater expansion is advanced, and impacts would be less then significant.

Considering the No Project Alternative would add the same number of residents as the proposed project(assuming a maximum buildout scenario), demand for wastewater and overall wastewater impacts of the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project.

Implementation of the No Project Alternative would generate solid waste from construction and operation of development (including typical residential, commercial, and office solid waste). As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the Devlin Road Recycling & Transfer Facility (DRRTF) would have adequate capacity to serve the population growth under the proposed project.

Considering the No Project Alternative would result in the same number of residents as the proposed project (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), the DRRTF would also accommodate population growth under this alternative. Like the proposed project, impacts involving solid waste under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant. n. Wildfire
Under the No Project Alternative, development could still occur within or near fire risks in an LRA. In addition, under the No Project Alternative, development could still occur near fire risks in an SRA, which are located east of the city limits. Although the No Project Alternative would not include 2040 General Plan proposed policies S-2.7, S-2.8, and S-2.14, which include measures to reduce the risk of wildfire on persons and property, it would still be subject to the same regulations as described for the proposed project, including the American Canyon City Code. 384
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-11
 Policy S-2.7: Building and Fire Code Compliance. Require new development to meet or exceed structural hardening requirements in the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code.
 Policy S-2.8: Development Standards Update. Incorporate relevant new legislative requirements and best practices into the City's development standards.  Policy S-2.14: Community Fire Breaks. Coordinate with the American Canyon Fire Protection District to encourage property owners to maintain fire breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones on their property.

Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to reduce construction and design wildfire risk. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have a similar impact on wildfire than the proposed project.

6.2 Alternative 2: Watson Ranch Natural Alternative

6.2.1 Description
Alternative 2 would assume maximum density on the Watson Ranch property which would result in an additional 596 dwelling units. Alternative 2 assumes that the General Plan would be updated like for the proposed project, (including the updated policies that make the General Plan consistent with State law). . Overall Alternative 2 assumes increased residential densities (3, units total) when compared to the proposed project (3,975 total units). In addition, because Alternative 2 would maintain the same designations as the General Plans for non-residential spaces, the buildout of nonresidential space would be the same as the proposed project. Buildout under Alternative 2, assuming a maximum buildout scenario, would allow for 3,975 housing units and approximately 5,704,000 square feet of additional non-residential land uses. Alternative 2 would meet the objectives of the proposed project as it would increase residential buildout while accommodating the same amount of non-residential buildout as the proposed project.

6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Development under Alternative 2 would continue the land use pattern that currently exists in American Canyon. Impacts to scenic vistas under this alternative would be increased when compared to the proposed project, as this alternative would involve more development.

Development under Alternative 2 could affect aesthetics and would be required to comply with the same American Canyon City Code regulations as the proposed project. Impacts to aesthetics, including light and glare would be increased when compared to the proposed project, as Alternative 2 would entail more overall residential development.
b. Air Quality
Like the proposed project, buildout under Alternative 2 would not preclude planned transit or bike pathways and would not disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce VMT and meet federal and State air quality standards. Alternative 2 would be consistent with applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. Impacts regarding conflict with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.
385
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-12
Buildout from Alternative 2 would accommodate approximately 596 additional housing units than under the proposed project. Construction of these additional units could result in increased shortterm emissions. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, which would reduce construction impacts to air quality. Like the proposed project, air quality impacts from construction of Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation; however, Alternative 2 would have more overall construction-related impacts to air quality due to the increased buildout.

As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the greatest source of criteria pollutants in American Canyon is from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway traffic. Considering 596 additional residential units would be constructed in American Canyon under this alternative, the long-term on-site emissions from vehicle use would be increased when compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, updates to the 2040 General Plan, including the new proposed policies to be consistent with State law would reduce operational impacts to air quality. These policies would ultimately reduce VMT per capita. Overall, like the proposed project, operational air quality impacts for Alternative 2 would be less than significant.

Overall, Alternative 2 would result in more development than the proposed project and would result in higher TAC near sensitive receptors when compared to the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would include the 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to promote clean air quality, protect public health and safety, and mitigate adverse air quality impacts.

Alternative 2 would implement these policies and would also require Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Like the proposed project, construction activities under Alternative 2 would generate odors, which would be temporary and limited to the constructed period. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-4 which would further reduce operational odor impacts. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact regarding creation of objectionable odors.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
c. Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, potential habitat suitable for special-status species occurs in streams, grasslands, riparian woodland, and forests within the Planning Area. Alternative 2 would result in overall increased development when compared to the proposed project.

Development under Alternative 2 may potentially impact special-status species or their habitat, including riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Like the proposed project, Mitigation Measures BIO1 (Biological Resources Screening and Assessment), BIO-2 (Special-status Plant Species Surveys), BIO-3 (Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation), BIO-4 (Habitat Restoration Plan), BIO-5 (Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys ), BIO-6 (Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization), BIO-7 (Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification), BIO-8 (Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal), and BIO-9 (Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures)), would be implemented for Alternative 2 and would help reduce associated biological resource impacts. Overall, impacts to biological resources under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, like the proposed project. Impacts from Alternative 2 would be slightly increased compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
386
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-13
d. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 2, more residential development would occur compared to the proposed project.

Individual projects would have the potential to impact historic and archaeological resources.

Alternative 2 would have potentially significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources.

Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include Mitigation Measures CUL-1 (Historic Built Environment) and CUL-2 (Archaeological Resources Assessment), which require project applicants to investigate the potential to disturb historic or archaeological resources. Additionally, Alternative 2 would include Mitigation Measures CR-3 (Unanticipated Discoveries) and CR-4 (Human Remains) which would require applicants to pause work and investigate subsurface discoveries. Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to preserve and protect historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon. Impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased as compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would result in more development, as well as more temporary construction-related GHG emissions (from grading and construction of new development) and long-term GHG emissions resulting (from building operations such as energy use, maintenance, and traffic), compared to the proposed project.

Under existing conditions, American Canyon’s General Plan does not outline how the City would meet State-mandated goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2, which would require the City to implement a CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance; and Mitigation Measure GHG-3, which would require the City to update American Canyon’s Climate Action Plan to meet State goals of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure development under Alternative 2 would be consistent with State emissions goals; however, individual projects that occur prior to adoption of the Climate Action Plan may not be consistent.

Overall GHG emissions impacts under Alternative 2 would be increased when compared to the proposed project, and such impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. f. Land Use and Planning
Under the Alternative 2, there would be no changes to land use designations, zoning, or policies in the General Plan. Alternative 2 would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Like the proposed project, future development under existing zoning would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, including Plan Bay Area 2050, as discussed in Impact LU-2 in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning. Alternative 2 would provide 596 more housing units than the proposed project. Overall, impacts regarding land use and planning would be less than significant, like the proposed project. g. Noise
Buildout under the Alternative 2 would result in increased development compared to the proposed project. Therefore, more construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from the Alternative 2, compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction noise under Alternative 2 could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise387 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-14
sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Conduct Construction Noise Analysis), which would reduce construction noise. However, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the proposed project. Adherence to American Canyon Municipal Code noise limits for HVAC units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under Alternative 2 is less than significant.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in increased buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures) which would reduce operational traffic noise. Alternative 2 would result in an increase in noise compared to existing conditions and a significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact would occur.

Development facilitated under Alternative 2 could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 (Construction Vibration Control Plan) would require implementation of measures to reduce vibration impacts during construction. Operation of future development under Alternative 2 would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, like the proposed project, impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Residents and businesses facilitated by Alternative 2 would not be served by the Napa County Airport. Thus, development facilitated under this alternative would not result in significantly increased airport or airstrip activity. Continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Napa County Airport. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce noise from the Napa County Airport through disclosure, attenuation, and studies. Impacts would be the same under this alternative as the proposed project.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased, compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
h. Paleontological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, portions of the city are underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Alternative 2 would increase development by approximately 596 residential units on one site with high paleontological sensitivity [Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) (Qpf)] based on the mapping provided in Figure 4.8-1 in Section

4.8, Paleontological Resources. Under Alternative 2, ground disturbance elsewhere could still result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure PAL-1 (Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist) which would reduce effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2 would involve more overall development than the proposed project, and thus would be more likely to impact paleontological resources.
388
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-15
i. Population and Housing
Under Alternative 2, existing General Plan land use designations would continue to define American Canyon’s development pattern. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, implementation of Alternative 2 would accommodate approximately 2,056 additional residents and 596 additional housing units than would be accommodated by implementation of the proposed project (refer to Table 6-1). Thus, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in more population growth, however, this alternative would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

Displacement impacts for Alternative 2 would be the same as the impacts for the proposed project.

Overall, when compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have similar, but slightly increased impacts to population and housing.
j. Public Services and Recreation
Increased development would occur under Alternative 2, which could result in an increase to emergency calls in the area, as well as an increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, Alternative 2 would add approximately 12,790 new residents to American Canyon, which is 2,056 more residents than the proposed project’s 10,734 new residents. Thus, the increased demand for public services under Alternative 2 would be more than the proposed project’s increase in demand. Impacts to public services and recreation would be increased as compared to the proposed project. k. Transportation
For the same reasons as the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact regarding conflict with circulation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies; substantially increased transportation hazards; and inadequate emergency access. In addition, the Alternative 2 would result in an increase in residential growth by 596 units. This increase would likely result in increased per capita VMT because Watson Ranch is on the edge of the city center and adding additional units here would result in the need for more residents to make trips into the city center.

Additionally, American Canyon currently has fewer jobs than employed residents, therefore it is likely additional residents will need to make trips outside the city for employment opportunities compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased compared to the proposed project and the impacts from Alternative 2 could be significant. l. Tribal Cultural Resources
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 2 may involve excavation, which could potentially impact previously unidentified TCRs. Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed Goal ENV-5 and its corresponding policies, which protect cultural and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of these policies would reduce potential impacts to TCRs from development facilitated by this alternative by requiring avoidance and monitoring in areas identified as sensitive for TCRs (Policy ENV-5.3). Alternative 2 would include the same mitigation as the proposed project’ therefore, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation. Overall because Alternative 2 would result in more development than the proposed project, the severity of impacts would be slightly increased as compared to the proposed project. 389
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-16
m. Utilities and Service Systems
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 2 would create additional demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication, and stormwater drainage facilities. Any utility expansion would be subject to 2040 General Plan proposed policies and mitigation measures identified throughout the Alternative 2 analysis, which would reduce potential impacts from utility expansion. Thus, impacts involving utility expansion under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the City would have adequate water supply to service the City’s anticipated growth under the proposed project. Considering that development under Alternative 2 would result in 2,056 additional residents (assuming a maximum buildout scenario) than the proposed project, growth under Alternative 2 would not be accommodated by the City’s existing water system. Development under Alternative 2 would increase water demand, and the City would not have sufficient water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts to water supply would be significant and unavoidable.

Development facilitated under Alternative 2 would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Like the proposed project, the timing, intensity, and location of an expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is unknown at this time. Like the proposed project, any expansion of wastewater facilities would require additional CEQA review and would be advanced when the wastewater expansion is advanced. Considering Alternative 2 would add 2,056 additional residents to American Canyon (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), demand for wastewater and overall wastewater impacts would be increased under Alternative 2 than for the proposed project.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would generate solid waste from construction and operation of development (including typical residential, commercial, and office solid waste). As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the American Canyon Transfer Station would have adequate capacity to serve the population growth under the proposed project. While Alternative 2 would result in 2,056 additional residents, the DRRTF could still accommodate the increased population growth under this alternative. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would include the proposed goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan. Impacts involving solid waste would be slightly more than the proposed project.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased, compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
n. Wildfire
Under Alternative 2, development could still occur within or near fire risks in an LRA. In addition, under Alternative 2, development could still occur near fire risks in an SRA, which are located east of the city limits. Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies that include measures to reduce the risk of wildfire. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would include Mitigation Measures WF-1 (Wildfire Risk Reduction During Construction) and WF-2 (Fire Resistant Vegetation and Landscaping) which would reduce the impacts of wildfires to a less than significant level.

Additionally, like proposed project, Alternative 2 would still be subject to the same regulations as described for the proposed project, including the American Canyon City Code. Overall, impacts of Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would be less than significant with mitigation. 390
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-17

6.3 Alternative 3: Limited Growth

6.3.1 Description
The Limited Growth Alternative (Alternative 3) was developed to identify an alternative that would reduce potential construction impacts and operational impacts from a reduced buildout. Alternative 3 assumes that the General Plan would be updated to include the updated policies that make the General Plan consistent with State law. However, under Alternative 3, buildout would be limited to pipeline projects (i.e., project already identified by the City to be constructed in the future) and other projects that have already been approved or for which General Plan amendments have already been approved (e.g., Watson Ranch Specific Plan, Broadway District Specific Plan). As such, buildout would be reduced in the following ways:
 Residential buildout would be reduced by 408 dwelling units compared to the proposed project because (1) the land use designations for the two NVUSD would remain as Recreation and Public and would not be changed to Residential Medium, reducing the number of residential units by 175 units and (2) the buildout identified in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study would be reduced by 233 residential units.
 Non-residential area would be reduced by 65,000 square feet based on the buildout identified in the City’s TIF Nexus Study.

Overall Alternative 3 assumes decreased residential densities (2,971 units total) when compared to the proposed project (3,379 total units), as well as decreased non-residential area (5,639,000 square feet) when compared to the proposed project (5,704,000 square feet).

Overall, Alternative 3 would require the City to limit growth to those projects that have already been approved by the City or identified as planned projects. While Alternative 3 would meet the objective of updating the General Plan so that it’s consistent with State law, this alternative would not help meet the vision of American Canyon to the same extent as the proposed project.

Alternative 3 would reduce the residential and non-residential buildout; therefore, compared to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce the ability for the City to meet its vision of accommodating a residential population with a range of uses; creating a center of employment and commerce; and capturing visitors to the Napa Valley. Overall, Alternative 3 would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.

6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Development under Alternative 3 would continue the land use pattern that currently exists in American Canyon. Alternative 3 would reduce the residential and non-residential buildout compared to the proposed project. Impacts to scenic vistas under this alternative would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, as this alternative would involve less overall development.

Impacts to aesthetics, including light and glare would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, as Alternative 3 would entail less overall development. Nonetheless, development under Alternative 3 could affect aesthetics and would be required to comply with the same American Canyon City Code regulations as the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include the updates to the 2040 General Plan, including the new policies to be consistent with State law.

Therefore, because Alternative 3 would involve less overall development and include the updates to 391
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-18
the 2040 General Plan, the severity of the impact for Alternative 3 would be less than for the proposed project.
b. Air Quality
Like the proposed project, buildout under Alternative 3 would not preclude planned transit or bike pathways and would not disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce VMT and meet federal and State air quality standards. Alternative 3 would be consistent with applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. Impacts regarding conflict with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.

Buildout from Alternative 3 would accommodate approximately 408 fewer housing units and a reduction of approximately 65,000 square feet of non-residential area than under the proposed project. Short-term emissions that would occur from construction of the 408 housing units and nonresidential area would be reduced by Alternative 3. Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, which would further reduce construction impacts to air quality. Alternative 3 would have fewer overall construction-related impacts to air quality. Like the proposed project, air quality impacts from construction of Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation; however, Alternative 3 would have fewer overall construction-related impacts to air quality due to the reduced buildout.

As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the greatest source of criteria pollutants in American Canyon is from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway traffic. Considering 408 fewer residential units and a reduction of 65,000 square feet of non-residential area would be constructed in American Canyon under this alternative, the long-term on-site emissions from vehicle use would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. An overall reduction in VMT would result in less operational emissions associated with mobile sources. Like the proposed project, updates to the 2040 General Plan, including the new proposed policies to be consistent with State law would further reduce operational impacts to air quality. These policies would ultimately reduce VMT per capita. Overall, like the proposed project, operational air quality impacts for Alternative 3 would be less than significant.

Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less development than the proposed project and would result in lower TACs near sensitive receptors when compared to the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include the 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to promote clean air quality, protect public health and safety, and mitigate adverse air quality impacts.

Alternative 3 would implement these policies and would also require Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Like the proposed project, construction activities under Alternative 3 would generate odors, which would be temporary and limited to the constructed period. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-4 which would further reduce operational odor impacts. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have a less than significant impact regarding creation of objectionable odors.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced, compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout.
c. Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, potential habitat suitable for special-status species occurs in streams, grasslands, riparian woodland, and forests within the Planning Area. Alternative 3 392
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-19
would result in overall reduced development when compared to the proposed project; however, development under Alternative 3 may potentially impact special-status species or their habitat, including riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Like the proposed project, Mitigation Measures BIO1 (Biological Resources Screening and Assessment), BIO-2 (Special-status Plant Species Surveys), BIO-3 (Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation), BIO-4 (Habitat Restoration Plan), BIO-5 (Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys ), BIO-6 (Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization), BIO-7 (Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification), BIO-8 (Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal), and BIO-9 (Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures), would be implemented for Alternative 3 and would help reduce associated biological resource impacts.. Overall, impacts to biological resources under Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, like the proposed project. Impacts from Alternative 3 would be less compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout. d. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 3, less residential and non-residential development would occur compared to the proposed project; however, individual projects would have the potential to impact historic and archaeological resources. Alternative 3 would have reduced, but still potentially significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include Mitigation Measures CUL-1 (Historic Built Environment) and CUL-2 (Archaeological Resources Assessment), which require project applicants to investigate the potential to disturb historic or archaeological resources. Additionally, Alternative 3 would include Mitigation Measures CR-3 (Unanticipated Discoveries) and CR-4 (Human Remains), which would require applicants to pause work and investigate subsurface discoveries. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to preserve and protect historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon. Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be less, compared to the proposed project, due to the reduction in residential and non-residential area buildout.
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would result in less development, as well as less temporary construction-related GHG emissions (from grading and construction of new development) and long-term GHG emissions resulting (from building operations such as energy use, maintenance, and traffic), compared to the proposed project.

Under existing conditions, American Canyon’s General Plan does not outline how the City would meet State-mandated goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2, which would require the City to implement a CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance; and Mitigation Measure GHG-3, which would require the City to update American Canyon’s Climate Action Plan to meet State goals of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure development under Alternative 3 would be consistent with State emissions goals; however, individual projects that occur prior to adoption of the Climate Action Plan may not be consistent.

Overall, buildout under Alternative 3 would be less than the proposed project, which would result in a reduction of GHG emissions. However, while overall GHG emissions impacts under Alternative 2 393
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-20
would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, such impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, for the same reasons as the proposed project. f. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 3, there would be no changes to land use designations or zoning in the existing General Plan. Alternative 3 would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Like the proposed project, future development under existing zoning would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, including Plan Bay Area 2050, as discussed in Impact LU-2 in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning. Alternative 3 would provide 408 fewer housing units and a reduction of approximately 65,000 square feet of non-residential area in comparison to the proposed project. Overall, impacts regarding land use and planning would be less than significant, like the proposed project.
g. Noise
Buildout under Alternative 3 would result in reduced development compared to the proposed project. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from Alternative 3, compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction noise under Alternative 3 could temporarily increase noise levels. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Conduct Construction Noise Analysis), which would reduce construction noise. However, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the proposed project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the proposed project. Adherence to American Canyon Municipal Code noise limits for HVAC units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under Alternative 3 is less than significant.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less buildout than the proposed project, which would reduce the amount of new vehicle trips that would generate roadway traffic noise.

Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures), which would reduce operational traffic noise. Although Alternative 3 would result in reduced overall operational noise compared to the proposed project, there would still be an increase in noise compared to existing conditions and a significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact would occur.

Development facilitated under Alternative 3 could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 (Construction Vibration Control Plan) would require implementation of measures to reduce vibration impacts during construction. Operation of future development under Alternative 3 would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, like the proposed project, impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Residents and businesses facilitated by Alternative 3 would not be served by the Napa County Airport. Thus, development facilitated under this alternative would not result in significantly increased airport or airstrip activity. Continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Napa County Airport. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce noise 394
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-21
from the Napa County Airport through disclosure, attenuation, and studies. Impacts would be the same under this alternative as the proposed project.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced, compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout.
h. Paleontological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, portions of the city are underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Alternative 3 would reduce development by approximately 408 fewer residential units and 65,000 square feet of non-residential area on two sites located on geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity [Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) (Qpf)] and undetermined paleontological sensitivity [Great Valley Complex, sandstone and shale (Ku)], based on the mapping provided in Figure 4.8-1 in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources. Under Alternative 3, ground disturbance elsewhere could still result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure PAL-1 (Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist) which would reduce effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 3 would involve less overall development than the proposed project, and thus would be less likely to impact paleontological resources.
i. Population and Housing
Under Alternative 3, existing General Plan land use designations would continue to define American Canyon’s development pattern. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, implementation of Alternative 3 would accommodate approximately 1,400 fewer residents and 408 fewer housing units than would be accommodated by implementation of the proposed project (refer to Table 6-1).

Thus, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in less population growth, and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. Displacement impacts for Alternative 3 would be the same as the impacts for the proposed project. Overall, when compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts to population and housing. j. Public Services and Recreation
Development allowed by existing land use and zoning regulations would occur under Alternative 3, which could result in an increase to emergency calls in the area, as well as an increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, Alternative 3 would add approximately 10,190 new residents to American Canyon, which is 1,400 fewer residents than the proposed project’s 11,590 new residents.

Thus, the increased demand for public services under Alternative 3 would be less than the proposed project’s increase in demand. Impacts to public services and recreation would be less than the proposed project (both Alternative 3 and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact).
k. Transportation
For the same reasons as the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have a less than significant impact regarding conflict with circulation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies; substantially increased transportation hazards; and inadequate emergency access. In addition, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in residential growth by 408 units and 65,000 square feet of nonresidential area. As described in Section 4.11, Transportation, American Canyon currently has fewer 395
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-22
jobs than employed residents. Alternative 3 would reduce the number of jobs compared to the proposed project, due to the reduction in non-residential area. Alternative 3 would also reduce the amount of residential units compared to the proposed project. Overall, due to the amount of jobs that would be offered under Alternative 3, the per capita VMT impacts for Alternative 3 are expected to be similar to the impacts of the proposed project. Like the proposed project, VMT impacts would be less than significant.
l. Tribal Cultural Resources
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 3 may involve excavation, which could potentially impact previously unidentified TCRs. Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed Goal ENV-4 and its corresponding policies, which protect cultural and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of these policies would reduce potential impacts to TCRs from development facilitated by this alternative by requiring avoidance and monitoring in areas identified as sensitive for TCRs (Policy ENV-4.3). Alternative 3 would include the same mitigation as the proposed project’ therefore, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation. Overall because Alternative 3 would result in less development than the proposed project, the severity of impacts would be less than the proposed project.
m. Utilities and Service Systems
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 3 would create additional demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication, and stormwater drainage facilities. Any utility expansion would be subject to 2040 General Plan proposed policies and mitigation measures identified throughout the Alternative 3 analysis, which would reduce potential impacts from utility expansion. Thus, impacts involving utility expansion under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the City would have adequate water supply to service the City’s anticipated growth under the proposed project. Considering that development under Alternative 3 would result in 1,400 fewer residents (assuming a maximum buildout scenario) than the proposed project, growth under Alternative 3 would also be accommodated by the City’s existing water system. Although development under Alternative 3 would slightly increase water demand, the City would continue to have sufficient water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts to water supply would be less than significant.

Development facilitated under Alternative 3 would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Like the proposed project, the timing, intensity, and location of an expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is unknown at this time. Like the proposed project, any expansion of wastewater facilities would require additional CEQA review and would be advanced when the wastewater expansion is advanced. Considering Alternative 3 would add 1,400 fewer residents to American Canyon (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), demand for wastewater and overall wastewater impacts would be less under Alternative 3 than for the proposed project.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would generate solid waste from construction and operation of development (including typical residential, commercial, and office solid waste). As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the American Canyon Transfer Station would have adequate capacity to serve the population growth under the proposed project. Considering Alternative 3 would result in 1,400 fewer people than the proposed project (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), the DRRTF would also accommodate population growth under this alternative. 396
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-23
Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include the proposed goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan.

Impacts involving solid waste would be slightly less than the proposed project.

Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced, compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout.
n. Wildfire
Under Alternative 3, development could still occur within or near fire risks in an LRA. In addition, under Alternative 3, development could still occur near fire risks in an SRA, which are located east of the city limits. However, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction of 408 residential units and 65,000 square feet of non-residential area, which would reduce the risk of development occurring near an LRA or SRA. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies that include measures to reduce the risk of wildfire. Alternative 3 would also include Mitigation Measures WF-1 (Wildfire Risk Reduction During Construction) and WF-2 (Fire Resistant Vegetation and Landscaping), which would reduce the impacts of wildfires to a less than significant level.

Additionally, like proposed project, Alternative 3 would be subject to the same regulations as described for the proposed project, including the American Canyon City Code. Overall, impacts of Alternative 3, like the proposed project, would be less than significant with mitigation.

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
The following summarizes those alternatives considered, but ultimately rejected for inclusion in the analysis as they would not meet most of the project objectives, would not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project, or were determined to be infeasible.

In its efforts to identify alternatives that would reduce impacts on the environment, the City considered alternatives that would reduce impacts due to a reduced buildout. As such, the City considered an alternative that would limit buildout and growth altogether, such that no additional buildout would be allowed in the City. While this alternative would in theory reduce environmental impacts, it was rejected because it was infeasible. The City has already approved projects such as the Broadway District Specific Plan and the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, which provide a substantial amount of the buildout in the City. It would be infeasible for the City to stop buildout on these already approved projects. In addition, this alternative would not meet most of the project objectives because it would not help implement the vision for American Canyon. If there were no growth, this alternative would not accommodate a residential population with a range of uses; create a center of employment and commerce; or capture visitors to the Napa Valley. For these reasons, this alternative has been considered bur rejected.

6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives to the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an alternative that reduces some of the project’s environmental impacts, regardless of the financial costs associated.

Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative may not be that which best meets the goals or needs of the proposed project. Table 6-2 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or equal to the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied.
397
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-24
Overall, none of the alternatives identified in this analysis changed the impact conclusions that were identified for the proposed project. However, some of the alternatives did reduce the severity of the impact; thus, this analysis considers the severity of the impact to identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative because the No Project Alternative would not include the updated proposed goals, policies, and programs in the 2040 General Plan.

Alternative 2 would not be the environmentally superior alternative because it would increase the severity of most of the proposed project impacts. This is because Alternative 2 would increase residential buildout and would result in 596 additional units compared to the proposed project.

Based on the analysis of alternatives in this section, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative as it lessens the severity of most impacts of the proposed project. Because Alternative 3 would reduce overall buildout by 408 units residential units and 65,000 square feet of nonresidential area compared to the proposed project, the overall impacts from construction would also be reduced due to the reduction in construction. For example, potential impacts on air quality construction emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, temporary noise, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources would be reduced due to less area being affected (i.e., excavated, graded, etc.) and due to less use of construction equipment. In addition, operationally there would be reduced aesthetic impacts because there would be fewer buildings; less air quality emissions because there would be less overall VMT; less operational noise because there would be less traffic and fewer HVAC units; and less demand for public services, recreation, and utilities.

Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives, as it would include updated to the General Plan so that it is consistent with State Law. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, Alternative 3 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative; however, the proposed project would offer benefits that would not be achieved by Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would require the City to limit growth to those projects that have already been approved by the City or identified as planned projects. Alternative 3 would reduce the residential and non-residential buildout; therefore, compared to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce the ability for the City to meet its vision of accommodating a residential population with a range of uses; creating a center of employment and commerce; and capturing visitors to the Napa Valley. Therefore, while Alternative 3 would be the environmentally superior alternative, it would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.

Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative 2:

Reduced Buildout
Alternative 3:

Limited Growth
Aesthetics LTSM + + +
Air Quality LTSM + + +
Biological Resources LTSM + + +
Cultural Resources LTSM + + +
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU + + +
Land Use and Planning LTS = = =
Noise SU + + +
Paleontological Resources LTSM = + +
Population and Housing LTS = + +
Public Services and Recreation LTS = + +
398
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-25
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:

No Project
Alternative 2:

Reduced Buildout
Alternative 3:

Limited Growth
Transportation LTS -+ + =
Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM + + +
Utilities and Service Systems LTS = + +
Wildfire LTSM = = =
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; LTSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed project
399
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-26
This page intentionally left blank.
400
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References

7.1 Bibliography
Project Description
City of American Canyon. 2015. Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study. February 3. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6293/6371235424 44630000 (accessed December 2022).
______. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan. Final October 2018. https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=60611&repo=r-f53bdda4. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2020. Broadway District Specific Plan. September 1, 2020. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=65287&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed December 2022).
______. 2021. Oat Hill Multi-Family Residential Project Notice of Determination. September 22, 2021. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/267455-2/attachment/FfXTDdZnsVG3kJZC04Fl1xJiJTxyDdIy5N_dJQoyNLU6q0G2PYt7BrOJZg22BgUHKBptU3NdU2-i0FC0 (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. City of American Canyon Buildout Forecasts. ______. 2022b. Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project Notice of Preparation. September 7, 2022. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281435-1/attachment/-
J8qslGhsY4Bngt9fHpJYOnPORRUA64wkrrQ6IhIDxc_bnO9jSDLE3nAqhsANgFCFzuaQdWv-vXxSCW0 (accessed December 2022).

Environmental Setting
City of American Canyon. 2022. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281435-1/attachment/-
J8qslGhsY4Bngt9fHpJYOnPORRUA64wkrrQ6IhIDxc_bnO9jSDLE3nAqhsANgFCFzuaQdWv-vXxSCW0 (accessed January 2023).

Weatherbase. 2022. American Canyon, California.
https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=85241&cityname=AmericanCanyon-California-United-States-of-America (accessed August 2022).

Aesthetics
American Canyon, City of. 1994a. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. November 3, 1994.
https://lf.Cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed November 2022).
401
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-2
______. 1994b. The City of American Canyon General Plan Land Use Element. November 3, 1994. https://lf.Cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed November 2022).
______. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2018. https://www.Cityofamericancanyon.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=17096 (accessed November 2022).

California Department of Finance. 2022. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5-population-andhousing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed November 2022).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2008. Scenic Highway Guidelines. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/scenic-hwy-guidelines04-12-2012.pdf (accessed November 2022). ______. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed November2022).
______.2022. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architectureand-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed November 2022).

Air Quality
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October _2021.pdf (accessed December 2022).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. December. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/permit-modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Last Updated January 5, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-andattainment-status (accessed December 2022). ______. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed December 2022). ______. 2017c. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed December 2022).

California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2011. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/dieselhealth.htm (accessed December 2022). ______. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf (accessed December 2022).
402
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-3
______. 2019a. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed December 2022).
______. 2019b. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overviewdiesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. “Top 4 summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed December 2022).

California Department of Conservation, 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August.

GHD. 2022. Transportation Volumes for Model Scenarios. Watson Lane Project.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/noticeadoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0. (accessed December 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. “NAAQS Table.” https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (accessed December 2022). ______. 2020. “Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants.” https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozonepollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022b. “Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoorair-pollution#Effects (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. “Basic Information about NO2.” https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basicinformation-about-no2#Effects (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022d. “Sulfur Dioxide Basics.” https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxidebasics#effects (accessed December 2022).

Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. April 2019.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline (accessed December 2022).
403
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-4
______. 2022. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS (accessed November 28, 2022).

Napa, County of. 2007. 4.5 Biological Resources. February 2007. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/7957/45-Biological-ResourcesGeneral-Plan-DEIR-PDF (accessed December 2022). ______. 2019. Vegetation Public. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/napacounty::vegetationpublic/explore?location=38.162522%2C-122.244415%2C15.15 (accessed December 2022).

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2022. Protected Resources App. https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7514c71 5b8594944a6e468dd25aaacc9 (accessed December 2022).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper.
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed November 2022).

Cultural Resources
Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Burns, G.R., S.C. Talcott, K. Demps, J.L. Edmonds, J.M. Lambert, A. Tremayne, and J.W. Eerkens. 2012. Isotopic Evidence for Changing Residence Patterns Through the Middle to Late Holocene in Central California. Society for California Archaeology Proceedings 26:164-171.

Byrd, Brian, Adrian Whitaker, Patricia Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Rosenthal, Todd Jaffke, Philip Kaijankoski, Jack Meyer, Randall Milliken, and Eric Wohlgemuth. 2017. San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4. Report on file with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

California Missions Foundation. n.d. “History of Mission San Rafael Arcangel”. Accessed August 2022 at http://californiamissionsfoundation.org/mission-san-rafael/ California Office of Historic Preservation. 2006. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 2006.
______. 1995. Instruction for Recording Historical Resources. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf
City of Vallejo. 2018. “History”. https://www.cityofvallejo.net/about_vallejo/history. Accessed August 2022.

City of Sonoma. n.d. “General Vallejo”. https://www.sonomacity.org/general-vallejo/. Accessed August 2022.

Cook, S.F. 1957. The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.

Anthropological Records Vol. 16, No. 4. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
404
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-5
D’Oro, Stella. 2009. Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.

FirstCarbon Solutions. 2016. City of American Canyon ‐ Napa Airport Corporate Center Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of American Canyon. July 1, 2016. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=9881, accessed August 2022.

Gase, Thomas. 2019. “Mare Island once a thriving community for military, naval shipyard workers”, Vallejo Times Herald. 9 November. Accessed January 29, 2020 at https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2019/11/09/mare-island-once-a-thriving-communityfor-military-naval-shipyard-workers/ Gifford, Edward W. 1916. Composition of California Shellmounds. American Archaeology and Ethnology 12(1):1-29.

Hylkema, Mark G. 2002. Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233–262. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Lentz, Kari. 2012. Flaked and Groundstone Technology at CA-ALA-554: Mortar Bowls and Stockton Points. SCA Proceedings 26:192-211.

Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby. 2002. Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.263-281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.

Luby, Edward M. and Mark F. Gruber. 1999. The Dead Must be Fed: Symbolic Meanings of the Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Area. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):95-105.

Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.

Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A.

Fredrickson. 2007. Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.

Klar, pp. 99-124. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

National Park Service (NPS). 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelinesarcheology-historic-preservation.pdf, accessed August 2022.

NETR Online. 2021. Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed August 2022.

Presidio Trust. 2020. “History Experiences”. https://www.presidio.gov/activities/history-of-thepresidio Accessed August 2022.

Ragir, Sonia. 1972. The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.

Rolle, Andrew. 2003. California: A History. Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 405
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-6
Simons, Dwight and Tim Carpenter. 2009. Fish Remains from CA-MRN-44/H, Angel Island, Marin County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21:69-81.

Shumway, Burgess McK. 2007. California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County.

Michael Burgess and Mary Wickizer Burgess, eds. Rockville, Maryland: Borgo Publishing Press.

Vallejo Chamber of Commerce. 2020. “History of Vallejo”. http://www.vallejochamber.com/aboutvallejo. Accessed August 2022.

Vallejo Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2019. “About Vallejo”. http://www.visitvallejo.com/aboutvallejo/history. Accessed August 2022.

Von Der Porten, Peter, Katherine Dixon, and Alex DeGeorgey. 2014. Seriation of Clam Shell Disk Beads in Central California. SCA Proceedings 28:267-281.

Vellanoweth, Rene L., Amira F. Ainis, Jon M. Erlandson, and Lisa D. Thomas-Barnett. 2014. An Olivella Grooved Rectangle Bead Cluster from San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology , 2014, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 229-246.

Electronic document available at http://www.jstor.com/stable/45154987, Accessed August 2022.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
American Canyon, City of. 2012. City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan.

December 2012.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5024/6371235410 56170000 (accessed December 2022).

California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2021. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.”
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000_2019_ghg_inventory_ trends_20220516.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. “2022 Scoping Plan Documents.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022b. “Regional Plan Targets.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainablecommunities-program/regional-plan-targets (accessed December 2022).

California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptationlibrary/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf (accessed December 2022).

California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climatechange/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed December 2022). 406
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-7
California Energy Commission. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. August 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf (accessed December 2022).

California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed December 2022).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
______. 2021. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg3/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf (accessed December 2022).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2022. “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet – Sea Level.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (accessed December 2022).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed December 2022).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. “Global Climate Report for Annual 2019.” State of the Climate. January 2020. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813 (accessed December 2022).

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. August. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Parmesan_2006.p df (accessed December 2022).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUMCCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed December 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” Last updated: May 18, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhousegases (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022b. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019.” February 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks1990-2019 (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” April 25, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section202a (accessed December 2022).

World Meteorological Organization. 2013. WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2013. https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7862 (accessed December 2022). 407
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-8
Land Use and Planning
ALUC (Napa County Airport Land Use Commission). 1991. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Adopted April 22, 1991. Revised December 15, 1999.
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF (accessed December 2022).

American Canyon, City of. 1994a. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. November 3, 1994.
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed May 2022).
______. 1994b. The City of American Canyon General Plan. November 3, 1994. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed May 2022).
______. 2015. City of American Canyon Zoning Map. September 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/168/63712350084 5870000 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2020. Land Use Element American Canyon General Plan Existing Conditions StoryMap Series. August 20, 2020.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/25c8ec4f9c09494a9767468e3dcbfe1f?item=4. (accessed February 2023).
______. 2022. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project.
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281435-1/attachment/-
J8qslGhsY4Bngt9fHpJYOnPORRUA64wkrrQ6IhIDxc_bnO9jSDLE3nAqhsANgFCFzuaQdWv-vXxSCW0 (accessed January 2023).

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Play Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/finalplan2050 (accessed April 2022).

Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/davis-noise-study-12yr-report-may2011-a11y.pdf (accessed February 2023).
______.2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13- 069.25.2) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf (accessed December 2022).

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2008. Napa County Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Assessment Napa, Napa County, California. January.
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1981/Airport-Master-PlanEnvironmental-Assessment-NEPA-PDF (accessed February 2023). 408
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-9
Federal Rail Administration (FRA). 2022. Crossing Inventory Lookup. https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/crossing-and-inventory-data/crossing-inventorylookup (accessed February 2023).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

November. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed December 2022).

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2007. San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan.

September. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/BARegionalRailReport-ExSum.pdf (accessed February 2023).

Napa County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 1991. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF?bidId= (accessed December 2022).

Napa, County of. 2007. Napa County Airport Master Plan. March. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1985/Napa-County-Airport-MasterPlan-PDF (accessed February 2023).

Paleontological Resources
California Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 – California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf.

Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb. 2002. Geologic map and map database of northeastern San Francisco Bay region, California. [map.] United States Geological Survey. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2403, scale 1:100,000.

Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172.

Paleobiology Database (PBDB). 2022. The Paleobiology Database, http://paleobiodb.org/ (accessed November 2022).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2022. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 2022).

Population and Housing
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2019. Plan Bay Area 2040 forecasts. [tabular dataset].

San Francisco, CA. May 1, 2019. https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra (accessed December 2022). ______. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Pattern.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/FinalBlueprintRelease_December2020_Gr owthPattern_Jan2021Update.pdf (accessed December 2022). 409
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-10
______. 2022. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023- 2031. March 2022. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022- 04/Final_RHNA_Methodology_Report_2023-2031_March2022_Update.pdf (accessed April 2022).

California Department of Finance. 2000. Historical City, County, and State Population Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-revised-historical-city-countyand-state-population-estimates-1991-2000-with-1990-and-2000-census-counts/ (accessed December 2022)
______. 2010a. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 4/1/2010. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed December 2022).
______. 2010b. E-8 County/State Population and Housing Estimates, 4/1/2010.https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e8-2000- 2010/(accessed December 2022).
______. 2020a. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2011-2020 with 2010 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2011-2020-with-2010-census-benchmarknew/(accessed December 2022). ______. 2020b. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2020. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed December 2022)
______. 2022a. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2021-2022 with 2020 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2022-with-2020-census-benchmark/ (accessed December 2022)
______. 2022b. Table E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed December 2022).

City of American Canyon. 2022. 30 Interesting Facts About American Canyon. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/30th-anniversary/30interesting-factsabout-americancanyon#:~:text=American%20Canyon%20was%20incorporated%20on,school%20with%20in credible%20sports%20facilities (accessed August 2022).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Subject Definitions. October 8, 2021. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html#household (accessed April 2022).

Public Services and Recreation
American Canyon, City of. 2022a. District Information.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district/districtinformation (accessed April 2022). 410
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-11
______. 2022b. Fire Apparatus. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/publicsafety/fire-district/fire-apparatus (accessed May 2022). ______. 2022c. Wetlands & Napa River Bay Trail.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/parks-trails-open-space/wetlands (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022d. Newell Open Space Preserve.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/parks-trails-open-space/newell-openspace (accessed April 2022). ______. 2015. Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. December 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17356 (accessed April 2022).
______. 1994. Public Services and Facilities Element.
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/PDF10/02c30c3d-64e0-490b-9bf7- af470795c5f8/46463 (accessed January 2023).

American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). 2022a. Annual Report 2021. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district (accessed May 2022).
______. 2022b. Long-Range Master Plan. September 2022. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1622974/American_Canyon_FPD_ Master_Plan__FINAL_REPORT_.pdf (accessed January 2023). ______2015. American Canyon Fire Protection District 2015-2020 Strategic Plan. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9429/6371236845 12600000 (accessed July 2022)
American Canyon Police Department (ACPD). 2022. 2021 Annual Report. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/police (accessed April 2022).

Bay Area Open Space Council. 2014. We’re getting there—almost 1.4 million acres and counting! February 26.
https://conservationcorridor.org/cpb/Bay_Area_Open_Space_Council_2014.pdf (accessed January 2023).

California Department of Education. 2022. DataQuest.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=2866266&agglevel=distr ict&year=2017-18&ro=y (accessed April 2022).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed November 2022).

Napa, County of. 2022a. Contract Cities. https://www.countyofnapa.org/1471/ContractCities#:~:text=Service%20Support%20American%20Canyon%20has%20a%20minimum%20o f,Office%20Patrol%20deputies%20will%20respond%20for%20mutual%20aid. (accessed January 2023).
411
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-12
______. 2022b. American Canyon Library. https://www.countyofnapa.org/library/americancanyon/ (accessed April 2022).

Napa Valley Unified School District. 2022. Developer Fees. https://nvusdca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1515572431566&vdid=i32a1r8qa2 wo (accessed November 2022).

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2022a. Search for Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_list.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Scho olPageNum=1 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022b. American Canyon High School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664012535 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022c. American Canyon Middle School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664007575 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022d. Canyon Oaks Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664010976 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022e. Donaldson Way Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664004017 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022f. Napa Junction Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664004023 (accessed April 2022).

Transportation
GHD. 2024. American Canyon Travel Demand Model, July 2024.

Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in CEQA. April 2018. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
Tribal Cultural Resources
Elliott, Evan. 2011. “Bringing the Hill Patwin into the North Coast Ranges Cultural Region.” SCA Proceedings 25: 1–10.

Johnson, Patti. 1978 . Patwin. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, Robert F.

Heizer, editor, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber, Alfred. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications Inc., New York.

McKern, Will. C. 1922. “Functional Families of the Patwin.” American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(7): 235–258.
412
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-13
Utilities and Service Systems
American Canyon, City of. 2012. Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5024/6371235410 56170000#:~:text=Ultimately%2C%20the%20EECAP%20provides%20the,reliability%20and% 20sea%20level%20rise. (accessed April 2022)
______. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17856/637123637 363600000. (accessed November 2022).
______. 2016a. Sewer Master Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9733/6371236386 34130000 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2016b. Potable Water Master Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17957/637123637 178300000 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2016c. Recycled Water Master Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9735/6371236375 60170000 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2019. Broadway District Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report - Table 3.13-3. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9733/6371236386 34130000 (accessed December 2022).
______. 2023. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Final Draft. https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=77716&repo=r-f53bdda4. (accessed June 2024).
______. 2024. Recycled Water. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/maintenanceand-utilities/recycled-water. (accessed June 2024).

The California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO). 2022. Introduction to SB 610 and SB 221.
https://calafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/CALAFCO_U/Introduction%20to%20SB%20 610%20and%20SB%20221.pdf (accessed April 2022)
______. 2008. Amended Countywide Non-Disposal Facility Element for The County of Napa. https://services.countyofnapa.org/AgendaNet/DownloadDocument.aspx?type=BOS&doctyp e=ATTACHMENT&id=10840 (Accessed April 2022)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2022a. What we do. https://water.ca.gov/ (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022b. Urban Water Management Plans. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Management-Plans (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022c. SB X7-7. https://water.ca.gov/programs/water-use-and-efficiency/sb-x7-7 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022d. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bpdashboard/final/ (accessed November 2022). 413
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-14
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).2022. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. January 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf (accessed April 2022)
______2018. Regulations Related to Recycled Water.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawboo k/RWregulations_20181001.pdf (accessed April 2022)
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1194?siteID=3591 (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022b. About CalRecycle https://calrecycle.ca.gov/aboutus/ (accessed April 2022) ______. 2022c. Mandatory Commercial Recycling. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/ (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022d. Jurisdiction Disposal Tonnage Trend.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022e. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports (accessed November 2022).

California Legislative Information. 1989. AB-939 Solid waste management, source reduction, recycling, composting, and market development.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=198919900AB939 (accessed April 2022)
______ 2008. SB-1016 Diversion: compliance: per capita disposal rate.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080SB1016 (accessed April 2022)
______ 2020. SB-1388 State Water Resources Control Board: powers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1388 (accessed April 2022)
Napa, County of. 2008. Amended Countywide Non-Disposal Facility Element. file:///C:/Users/adavetas/Downloads/205499.pdf (accessed November 2022). ______. 2015. American Canyon Single Use Plastic Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance. https://services.countyofnapa.org/AgendaNet/DownloadDocument.aspx?type=BOS&doctyp e=ATTACHMENT&id=37073 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022a. What Groundwater Basins are Located In Napa County? https://www.countyofnapa.org/Faq.aspx?QID=856 (accessed April 2022) ______. 2022b. Stormwater. https://www.countyofnapa.org/1351/Stormwater-Program (accessed April 2022)
414
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a. Summary of the Clean Water Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-wateract#:~:text=The%20Clean%20Water%20Act%20(CWA,quality%20standards%20for%20surfa ce%20waters. (accessed April 2022)
______2022b. Clean Water Act, Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-402-national-pollutant-dischargeelimination-system (accessed April 2022) ______2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/ca2-sanfrancisco-basin.pdf (accessed April 2022)
______2022c. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/regulations#cfr (accessed April 2022) Wildfire
American Canyon, City of. 2022a. Long-Range Master Plan. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/19513/638084122 376770000. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. City of American Canyon Fire Apparatus.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district/fireapparatus. (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. Evacuation Procedures. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/publicsafety/emergency-preparedness/evacuation-procedures (accessed November 2022).

American Canyon Fire Protection District (AFPCD). 2019. Annual Report. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48911&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon&cr=1 (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022. 2021 Fire District Annual Report.
https://issuu.com/cityofamericancanyon/docs/2021_acfpd_annual_report_- _final_web?e=36519011/91429500. (accessed December 2022).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2018. 2018 California Strategic Fire Plan for California. August 22, 2018. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategicfire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf (accessed December 2022). ______. 2019. American Fire Incident. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2019/10/6/american-fire/ (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022a. 2022 Fire Season Outlook. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022/ (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. Fire and Fuels Treatment. https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/resourcemanagement/resource-protection-improvement/wildfire-resilience/forest-stewardship/fireand-fuels-treatment/ (accessed December 2022).

California Energy Commission. 2022. California Electric Transmission Lines. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc84fee_0/explore?location =37.202012%2C-118.629288%2C7.00 (accessed December 2022). 415
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-16
California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4- 2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed December 2022).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. Disaster Mitigation ACT of 2000. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigationplanning/regulationsguidance#:~:text=The%20Disaster%20Mitigation%20Act%20of,of%20non%2Demergency%2 0disaster%20assistance. (accessed December 2022)
Green Valley Fire Safe Council. 2022. About Us. https://gvfsc.org/about-us/. (accessed December 2022).

Napa, County of. 2020. Napa County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. December 2020. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020 (accessed December 2022).

State’s Office of the Attorney General. 2022. Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. October

10. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-guidance-localgovernments-mitigate-wildfire-risk (accessed December 2022).

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. TopoView. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.00/-100.00 (accessed December 2022).

Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Dutton’s Landing, California Monthly Climate Record. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2580 (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022. Climate of California. https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php (accessed December 2022).

Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
American Canyon, City of. 2015. City of American Canyon Zoning Map. September 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/168/63712350084 5870000 (accessed December 2022).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed December 2022).

Napa, County of. 2022a. Williamson Act & Agricultural Preserve Contracts. https://www.countyofnapa.org/1893/Williamson-Act-Agricultural-PreserveCon#:~:text=The%20California%20Land%20Conservation%20Act%20of%201965%20is,purpo se%20of%20restricting%20specific%20parcels%20to%20agricultural%20use. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. Napa County Online Public Map.
https://gis.countyofnapa.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0bbafe490c58430d a719ff851c78b7fa (accessed December 2022).
______ 2018. Napa Co. Agricultural Contracts. May 24, 2018. https://gis.napa.ca.gov/giscatalog/viewXML.asp?Name=planning.gis.ag_contracts_public& meta_style=fgdc (accessed October 2022).
416
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-17
______. 2009. Agricultural Preservation and Land Use. June 23, 2009. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3331/Agricultural-Preservationand-Land-Use-Element-PDF (accessed December 2022).

Geology and Soils
American Canyon, City of. 1994. American Canyon General Plan: Geology Element.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed November 2022).

United States Geological Survey. 2006. Liquefaction Hazard Maps. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/liquefaction/sfbay/ (accessed January 2023).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
American Canyon, City of. 2015. Encroachment Permit Application Instructions. July 23, 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/18367 (accessed November 2022).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1998. Regulation 11 Hazardous Pollutants Rule 2 Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. October 7, 1998. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-11-rule-2-asbestos-demolitionrenovation-andmanufacturing/documents/rg1102.pdf?la=en&rev=bac2a923da314dc893aa7e5bd61366b7 (accessed November 2022).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. March 30, 2021. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-rev6.pdf (accessed November 2022).

California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2022a. Evaluating & Cleaning-Up School Sites. https://dtsc.ca.gov/evaluating-cleaning-up-school-sites/ (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022b. EnviroStor.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=American+Canyon (accessed November 2022).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2022. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. https://calepa.ca.gov/hazardous-materials-business-plan-program/ (accessed November 2022).

County of Napa. 2016. Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). September 2016. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=52412&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon&cr=1 (accessed November 2022).

Napa County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. April 22, 1991. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF?bidId= (accessed November 2022). 417
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-18
Napa Valley Unified School District. 2022. School Registration. https://www.nvusd.org/schoolregistration (accessed November 2022).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=American+Cany on (accessed November 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2022. Overview of the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/overview-asbestos-national-emission-standards-hazardousair-pollutants-neshap (accessed November 2022).

Hydrology and Water Quality
American Canyon, City of. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon.

June 14, 2016.
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/5211026847/1568037_AmCanyo n_UWMP_Final_June2016.pdf (accessed November 2022).

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). 2019. BASMAA PostConstruction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. January 2019. https://basmaa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/basmaa_post_construction_manual_2019.pdf (accessed November 2022).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. California Tsunami Maps and Data. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed November 2022).

California Department of Water (DWR). 2022. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed November 2022).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=American%20Canyon#searchresultsanc hor (accessed November 2022).

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan.

November 5, 2019.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html#:~:text=The%20Wa ter%20Quality%20Control%20Plan%20for%20the%20San,programs%20of%20implementati on%20to%20achieve%20water%20quality%20objectives. (accessed November 2022).

Mineral Resources
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1983. Mineral Land Classification Map Aggregate Resources Only Napa County. March 1, 1983.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/#datalist (accessed December 2022).

Other CEQA Related Discussions
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). April 7, 2016. 418
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-19
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. American Community Survey (ACS) and Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS), 5-Year Estimates. Persons Per household, 2014-2018. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/venturacountycalifornia/HSD310218#HSD31 0218 (accessed November 2020).

7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of American Canyon, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Matt Maddox, Principal
Darcy Kremin, Director
Gianna Meschi, Project Manager
Hannah Bireschi, Assistant Project Manager
Leo Mena, Senior Environmental Planner
Jesse Voremberg, Environmental Planner
Ethan Knox, Environmental Planner
Matthew Gonzalez, Senior Archaeologist
Samantha Kehr, Biologist
Andrew McGrath, Paleontologist
Jen DiCenzo, Paleontological Program Manager
Josh Carman, Director – Noise, Air Quality & GHG
Jesse McCandless, Noise Environmental Planner
Hayley Rundle, Noise Environmental Planner
419
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-20
This page intentionally left blank.
420
421

CITY OF
flfTlERiCfin
canyon

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Date: July 5, 2022
To: Reviewing Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Subject:

The City of American Canyon (City) is preparing an update to the City's General Plan. The City has determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be necessary to evaluate environmental impacts of the General Plan Update pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In compliance with CEQA, the City will be the Lead Agency and will prepare the Program EIR. The City is requesting comments and guidance on the scope and content of the Program EIR from responsible and trustee agencies, interested public agencies, organizations, and the general public (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082).

This Notice of Preparation (NOP) provides a summary of the General Plan Update;includes the City's preliminary identification of the potential environmental issues to be analyzed in the EIR;and provides information on how to comment on the scope of the EIR.

Notice of Preparation Public Review Period:July 5, 2022 to August 4, 2022 The City requests your careful review and consideration of this notice, and it invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies, persons, and organizations regarding the preparation of the Program E(R.

Comments and responses to this notice must be in writing and submitted to the Lead Agency Contact through August 4, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. If applicable, please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization. If your agency is a responsible agency as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, your agency may use the environmental documents prepared by the City when considering permits or approvals for action regarding the proposed project.

Lead Agency Contact:

Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
City of American Canyon Community Development Department 4381Broadway Street,Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
bcoopertScitvofamericancanvon.org
422
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Written Comments:Please submit written comments within 30 days of the date of this notice to any of the below by 4:00 p.m. on August 4, 2022:

Email: [email protected]
Regular Mail: Nicolle Jones, Community Development Department, City of American Canyon, 4381 Broadway Street,Suite 201, American Canyon, California 94503
Public Scoping Meeting:The City will hold a virtual scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for agency staff and interested members of the public to submit written and oral comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting will be held on July 28, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. To attend the scoping meeting, go to https://zoom.us/ioin.

Webinar ID: 884 4514 1942
Passcode: 038881
Dial:(408) 638 0968
The scoping presentation will be available to view after July 28, 2022 on https://www.citvofamericancanvon.org/government/citv-hall/citv-clerk/meetings-agendas.

Project Background: The City must undertake a technical update to its General Plan to ensure the General Plan is internally consistent and maintains a balance of land uses;maintains and supports quality-of-life, community satisfaction, and safety for all residents; and meets new State requirements. A Regional Location map is included as Figure 1.

Project Location: The General Plan Update will encompass the City of American Canyon city limits, the Sphere of Influence, Urban Limit Line, and historic water service area (Figure 2).

Proposed Project:The American Canyon General Plan update will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development. The General Plan represents the community's view of its future and contains the goals and polices upon which the City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. To provide a contemporary plan that will guide the community through the next 20 years, the General Plan update will reflect recent development decisions and changes in State law. Major components of the comprehensive technical General Plan Update include:

Land Use Element.This element will resolve inconsistencies between existing and General Plan land uses, expand the Urban Limit Line to include the "Hess/Laird Property," and accommodate land use amendments for certain properties owned by the Napa Valley Unified School District. Proposed land use amendments are depicted in Figure 3. The proposed Urban Limit Line is shown in Figure 4.

Circulation Element. This element will incorporate Vehicle Miles Travelled policies consistent with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743); update street standards for all modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit consistent with the California Complete Streets Act;include two new Industrial Collector roadways: 1) a new "West Side Connector" roadway segment and 2) a Newell Drive roadway segment between Paoli Loop and S. Kelly Drive and delete former planned connection between Commerce Court and Eucalyptus Drive. See Figure 5.

Community Services Element. This element will focus on goals and policies related to public services, including police,fire, and emergency services.