REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
City Hall - Council Chambers
4381 Broadway St., Suite 201, American Canyon
April 15, 2025
6:30 PM
Tonight's mee&ng is a limited public forum. American Canyon promotes respec/ul and responsible behavior among its mee&ng par&cipants, whether they are present in person or remotely. Using offensive language or remarks that promote, foster, or perpetuate discrimina&on based on race, creed, color, age, religion, gender marital status, status regarding public assistance, na&onal origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orienta&on/gender iden&fica&on, as well as any other category protected by federal, state or local laws will not be tolerated. In the case of an occurrence, the speaker will be immediately disconnected from the microphone.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
City Council and other public mee"ngs will be conducted in person. This mee"ng is also available via Zoom, is broadcast live to residents on Napa Valley TV, on our website and on YouTube.
Zoom Link: Click here. Webinar ID: 849 9699 3806; Passcode: 12345. Phone in to Zoom: 408-638- 0968
Oral comments, during the mee&ng: Oral comments can be made in person during Open and Closed Session or through Zoom in Open Session only. On Zoom use the "raise your hand" tool during any public comment period. To avoid confusion, hands raised outside of Public Comment periods will be lowered.
Wri:en comments: Submit wri4en comments by the eComments link, located on the Mee"ngs & Agendas page of our website. eComments are available to council members in real "me. To allow for Council review of comments, eComments will close at 3:00 pm on the day of the meeting.
The above iden"fied measures exceed all legal requirements for par"cipa"on in public comment, including those imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act. For more informa"on, please call the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 647-4369 or email [email protected].
AGENDA MATERIALS: City Council agenda materials are published 72 hours prior to the mee"ng and are available to the public via the City’s website at www.americancanyon.gov.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: The City Council will provide materials in appropriate alterna"ve formats to comply with the Americans with Disabili"es Act. Please send a wri4en request to City Clerk at 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503 or by email to [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number and brief descrip"on of the requested materials, as well as your preferred alterna"ve format or auxiliary aid, at least three calendar days before the meeting.
Mayor: Pierre Washington
Vice Mayor: Mark Joseph
Councilmembers: Brando Cruz, Melissa Lamattina, David Oro CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 15, 2025
1 5:00 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION
The mayor will call the meeng to order and conduct roll call. Council will immediately convene into Closed Session aer hearing any public comment on Closed Session items. At 6:30 p.m. the Council will reconvene into Open Session and then resume Closed Session at the end of the meeting to address outstanding items, if necessary.
CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
ROLL CALL - CLOSED SESSION
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
This me is reserved for members of the public to address the City Council on Closed Session Items only. Comments must be made in person and are limited to 3 minutes. Comments for items on the Open Session agenda will be taken when the item is called in Open Session. Comments for Items not on the Closed Session or Open Session agenda will be heard during the Open Session Public Comment period.
MEETING RECESS - COUNCIL TO CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION
5:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – An&cipated Li&ga&on. Authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2). Three (3) Matters.
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Exis&ng Li&ga&on. Authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1):
a. City of American Canyon v. City of Vallejo, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2022-00327471).
b. City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon et al . (Third District Court of Appeal Case No. C102070; formerly Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 23WM000055). c. City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon et al . (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 24WM000078).
d. City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon et al. (Marin County Superior Court Case No. CV0003752).
6:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION - REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER - COUNCIL TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL - OPEN SESSION
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION/CONFIRMATION OF REPORTABLE ACTION
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
3. Proclamation - Years of Service for Jen Kansanback
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 15, 2025
2 4. Proclamation - Sexual Assault Awareness Month April 2025
PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON CLOSED SESSION OR OPEN SESSION AGENDA This me is reserved for members of the public to address the City Council on items that are not on the Closed Session or Open Session agenda and are within the subject ma(er jurisdicon of the City Council. Comments are limited to 3 minutes. Comments for items on the Open Session agenda will be taken when the item is called in Open Session.The City Council is prohibited by law from taking any acon on ma(ers discussed that are not on the agenda, and no adverse conclusions should be drawn if the City Council does not respond to public comment at this time.
AGENDA CHANGES
The Mayor and Council may change the order of the Agenda or request discussion of a Consent Item. A member of the Public may request discussion of a Consent Item by making that request during Public Comment.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5. Minutes of April 1, 2025
Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the Regular City Council mee"ng of April 1, 2025.
6. Napa County Animal Shelter Contract Extension
Recommendation: Adopt a resolu"on authorizing an extension of the term of the Professional Services Agreement with Napa County for Animal Shelter Services through June 30, 2026.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There are no Public Hearing items.
BUSINESS
7. The Wall That Heals
Recommendation: Adopt a Minute Order appoin"ng two City Council Members to an ad hoc subcommi4ee to assist in planning The Wall That Heals event and report back to the City Council on event logistics and community engagement.
8. Fil-Am Dual Citizenship Outreach Event Fee Waiver
Recommendation: Adopt a Minute Order approving the waiver of the facility rental fee for the use of a city facility by the Philippine Consulate General’s Office.
9. General Plan Comprehensive Update, Environmental Impact Report, and Zoning Code Amendment Workshop
Recommendation: Receive the General Plan Comprehensive Update and provide comments.
10. FY 2025-26 Strategic Work Plan
Recommendation: Adopt a Minute Order approving the FY 2025-26 Strategic Work Plan
MANAGEMENT AND STAFF ORAL REPORTS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 15, 2025
3 11. Parks and Recreation Department Update
Recommendation: Receive and file a presenta"on on the Parks and Recrea"on Department Update from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024.
MAYOR/COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
The Mayor and Council may comment on ma(ers of public concern and announce ma(ers of public interest; no collective council action will be taken.
12. Council Committee Report - Mayor Pierre Washington
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. Future Agenda Items of Note
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATION
I, Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk for the City of American Canyon, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda of the City Council was posted in compliance with the Brown Act prior to the meeting date. ______________________________________
Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 15, 2025
4 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
PROCLAMATION
HONORING JENNIFER KANSANBACK FOR 18 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE WHEREAS, Jennifer Kansanback answered the call to serve our nation by enlisting in the United States Navy in December 1994, and continuing to serve in the United States Naval Reserve until an honorable discharge in 2004; and
WHEREAS, Jennifer served Marin County and the City of Napa before beginning her service to the City of American Canyon on November 20, 2006, as an Administrative Clerk II in the Public Works Department.
She was promoted to Administrative Assistant on February 3, 2014, to Management Analyst I on December 5, 2015, and to Management Analyst II on September 9, 2017; and WHEREAS, Jennifer served three different departments including Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and the City Manager’s Office, where she served as the City’s Communications Manager; and WHEREAS, Jennifer’s dedication to the community, which began when she moved to American Canyon in 1989, was demonstrated in both her public service and her participation in numerous local organizations and community events; and
WHEREAS, Jennifer’s bond with the American Canyon community was reinforced repeatedly as her family purchased their first home locally in 2008 through the City’s down-payment assistance program, she was appointed as a Public Information Officer (PIO) by then-Fire Chief Keith Caldwell, and she earned her Bachelor's Degree from California State University Chico in 2015 with the support of the City's Tuition Reimbursement Program; and
WHEREAS, Jennifer played important roles in innumerable programs,such as conversion of City landscape areas to drought tolerant plants, drip irrigation and recycled water; installation of picnic shelters; Coastal Clean Up Day; and implementation of outreach tools like Community Alert Network, American Canyon Connect, See Click Fix, the Community Alert Network, Laserfiche, the City’s website, and social media; and WHEREAS, as the City’s Communications Manager, Jennifer has been a driving force behind modernizing the City’s outreach technology and expanding the variety and quality of communications tools to effectively connect the community; and
WHEREAS, Jennifer and her husband Jerod, a retired Marin County Sheriff’s deputy, raised their children, Jerod and Jenna, in American Canyon to attend local schools, and work in Public Works and Parks and Recreation departments before continuing their family's legacy of service in the armed forces.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Mayor Pierre Washington, on behalf of the City of American Canyon, do hereby recognize, honor and thank Jennifer Kansanback upon her retirement for her loyal and generous public service to the City for the past 18 years.
Dated: April 15, 2025 ____________________________________________ Pierre Washington, Mayor
5 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
PROCLAMATION
Sexual Assault Awareness Month - April 2025
WHEREAS, NEWS, Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse Services is commemorating 43 years of service to survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse in Napa County, and having opened as the county’s Rape Crisis Center in 2010 to provide safety to those experiencing sexual abuse; and WHEREAS, in 2001 the National Sexual Violence Resource Center launched the first Sexual Assault Awareness Month campaign and in 2009 the Obama Administration officially recognized April as National Sexual Assault Awareness Month, enshrining our Country’s commitment to promoting education of sexual violence, promoting consent, ending victim-blaming, and showing support for victims and survivors; and WHEREAS, Sexual Assault Awareness Month is about promoting safety, respect and equality, and standing up and speaking out against harmful cultural norms and attitudes that allow sexual violence to persist.
This year’s national campaign of “Together We Act, United We Change” emphasizes the importance of communities working together to prevent sexual abuse, assault, and harassment.; and WHEREAS, rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment harm our community. Statistics from the U.S.
Center of Disease Control shows that over half of women and almost 1 in 3 men have experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes; and, that 1 in 4 women and about 1 in 26 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. Sexual violence disproportionately affects women, minors, and racial and ethnic minority groups who experience a higher incidence of sexual violence; and WHEREAS, by observing April as Sexual Assault Awareness Month we show that our community is committed to supporting survivors and working toward the prevention of sexual violence across generations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Pierre Washington, Mayor of the City of American Canyon, on behalf of the City Council, join NEWS, advocates, and communities across the country in taking action to prevent sexual violence. I do hereby proclaim April 2025 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, in American Canyon, and I ask the entire community to join in their effort, not only in April, but all year long, to be part of the effort to end sexual violence.
Dated: April 15, 2025
____________________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
6 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ACTION MINUTES
April 1, 2025
4:00 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - CLOSED SESSION
Present: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Councilmember David Oro, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Absent: None
Excused: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Mayor Washington opened public comments. Written comments: none. Oral comments: none.
The public comment period was closed.
MEETING RECESS - COUNCIL TO CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION
4:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation. Authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2). Three (3) Matters.
2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation. Authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1):
a) City of American Canyon v. City of Vallejo, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34- 2022-00327471).
b) City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon et al. (Third District Court of Appeal Case No.
C102070; formerly Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 23WM000055). c) City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon et al. (Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 24WM000078).
d) City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon et al. (Marin County Superior Court Case No.
CV0003752).
7 3. Matters Relating to Public Employment - Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e) and 54957(b). Position: City Attorney
4. Matters Relating to Public Employment - Public Employee Performance Evaluation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.5(e) and 54957(b). Position: City Manager 6:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION - REGULAR MEETING
CALL TO ORDER - COUNCIL TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The City Council meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
5. Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Daisy Co-op Troop #31566 The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, led by Daisy Troop Co-op Troop #31566.
ROLL CALL - OPEN SESSION
Present: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Councilmember David Oro, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington
Absent: None
Excused: None
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION/CONFIRMATION OF REPORTABLE ACTION A report on Closed Session and confirmation of reportable action was given by City Attorney William Ross.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
6. Proclamation - April 22, 2025, as Earth Day
Mayor Washington announced the Earth Day proclamation. It was received by ACCPF Teen Wild volunteers Quinn Hilton, Tate Hilton and Amanda Long.
7. Presentation - Community Benefits Program
Council received a Community Benefits Program presentation from Business Representative, District 1 Alicia Mijares of Sheet Metal Worker's Local Union No. 104.
8. Presentation - AC Community Cats
Council received a Community Cats presentation from Director of Development Gina Griggs of Community Cats.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON CLOSED SESSION OR OPEN SESSION AGENDA Mayor Washington opened public comments. Written comments: none. Oral comments: William Baker was called to speak; Russell Charpentier was called to speak; Clarence Mamaril was called 8 to speak; Sebastian Pridmore was called to speak; Sienna Salstus was called to speak; Janelle Sellick was called to speak. The public comment period was closed.
AGENDA CHANGES
There were no changes to the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Action: Motion to adopt CONSENT CALENDAR made by Councilmember David Oro, seconded by Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, and CARRIED by roll call vote.
Ayes: Councilmember Brando Cruz, Councilmember Melissa Lamattina, Councilmember David Oro, Vice Mayor Mark Joseph, Mayor Pierre Washington Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None
Excused: None
9. Minutes of March 18, 2025
Action: Approved the Regular City Council minutes from the meeting of March 18, 2025.
10. Minutes of March 21, 2025
Action: Approved the minutes of the Special City Council Workshop of March 21, 2025.
11. Report Upon Return from Closed Session
Action: Approved the Report Upon Return from Closed Session for the City Council meeting of March 18, 2025.
12. Juneteenth Independence Day Special Event
Action: Adopted Resolution 2025-20 approving a donation of $10,000 to the American Canyon Arts Foundation for the 2025 Juneteenth Independence Day Special Event.
13. Information Technology Contract
Action: Adopted Resolution 2025-21 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract extension (Agreement 2025-45) with Definitive Networks, Inc for the lease, warranty, maintenance and support services of information technology equipment, software licensing and telephone systems and equipment.
There were no public hearing items.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no Public Hearing items.
9 BUSINESS
14. Statement of Support for Marginalized Communities
The Statement of Support was read by Mayor Washington and signed by all councilmembers.
15. Capital Improvement Project Update on Park Projects Council received a Capital Improvement Project Update on Park Projects staff report and presentation from Public Works Director Erica Ahman Smithies. Mayor Washington opened public comments. Written comments: none. Oral comments: Fran Lemos was called to speak; Gina Griggs was called to speak; Scott Myer was called to speak. The public comment period was closed.
MANAGEMENT AND STAFF ORAL REPORTS
16. Q4 FY24/25 Capital Project Schedule Update
Council received oral updates from Public Works Director Erica Ahman Smithies. Mayor Washington opened public comments. Written comments: none. Oral comments: Fran Lemos was called to speak; Gina Griggs was called to speak. The public comment period was closed.
MAYOR/COUNCIL COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
The mayor and council members provided oral reports and announced items of community interest.
17. Council Committee Report - Commissioner Brando Cruz
18. Council Committee Report - Councilmember David Oro
19. Council Committee Report - Mayor Pierre Washington
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
20. Future Agenda Items of Note
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
CERTIFICATION
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________
Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk
10 APRIL 1, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
View
presentations,
agenda
packets and
meeting
details:
City Council
Community Update
Proclamation
City Actions
Staff recognitions
The Wall that Heals
General Plan Update
Workshop
and more!
Next time...
JoinourApril15
meetingtolearn
moreabout:
Adopted a Statement of Support for
marginalized communities
Received an update and provided feedback on
the status of FY 2024-25 funded park projects
Received an update on the Q4 FY 2024-25
Capital Project schedule
Earth Day: Proclamation received
by Quinn Hilton, Tate Hilton and
Amanda Long from American
Canyon Community & Parks
Foundation Teen Wild
Presentations
Received a presentation
from the American
Canyon Community Cats
Received a presentation
on the Community
Benefits Program
11 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 15, 2025
STAFF REPORT
CONSENT
ITEM NUMBER: 6.
TITLE
Napa County Animal Shelter Contract Extension
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolu(on authorizing an extension of the term of the Professional Services Agreement with Napa County for Animal Shelter Services through June 30, 2026.
CONTACT
Juan Gomez, Interim Assistant City Manager
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
Napa County currently operates the Napa County Animal Shelter and Adop(on Center. The Shelter provides for the sanitary and humane treatment and care of animals. On October 13, 2009, the City entered into Agreement No. 7298/2009-108 with Napa County establishing a direct alloca(on funding mechanism whereby the City and other jurisdic(ons (Napa, Napa County, and Yountville) pay for costs associated with accep(ng and providing care, shelter, and other services for those animals brought to the Animal Shelter.
In July 2019, the City and County terminated Agreement No. 7298/2009-108 and redefined the terms and conditions of services under a new Agreement No. 200021B/2091-97 (Attachment 2). The 2019 Agreement had a three-year term (July 1, 2019, un(l June 30, 2022) and provided for automatic renewals for an additional three-year term (July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2025).
In January 2025, Napa County hired Matrix Solu(ons to complete an analysis of cost alloca(on alterna(ves. It was an(cipated that the study would be completed by April in order to determine any new cost alloca(on, however, more (me is needed to accurately and thoroughly come up with a new alloca(on. Napa County and partner agencies agree that a one-year extension incorpora(ng a 3% CPI for FY2025/26.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services." 12 FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost for services for FY 2025/26 is $399,660 represen(ng a 3% CPI increase over FY2024/25. The source of funds is the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Recommended Ac(on will result in the con(nued funding of an exis(ng facility. No physical changes are envisioned as part of the new Agreement and as a result the Recommended Ac(on is not a project as defined in Sec(on 15378(b)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution - Animal Shelter
2. Amendment #1 - Napa Co. Animal Shelter
13 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT #1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH NAPA COUNTY IN AN
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $399,660 FOR ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES FOR FY2025/26
WHEREAS, the City of American Canyon entered into an agreement with Napa County on October 3, 2009, to provide animal shelter services; and
WHEREAS, the agreement was for a three-year term, with automatic renewals for an additional threeyears and the agreement expires June 30, 2025; and WHEREAS, Napa County operates an animal shelter to accept, provide care, shelter and other services for those animals brought to the shelter by American Canyon residents; and WHEREAS, funding for amendment #1 will be incorporated in the upcoming FY 2025/26 General Fund budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon authorizes the City Manager to enter into amendment #1 with Napa County for an amount not to exceed $399,660 for animal shelter services through June 30, 2026.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 15st day of April 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney 14 Napa County Agreement No. 200021B – Amend 1 1 PL No. 128945 AMENDMENT NO. 1
OF
NAPA COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 200021B
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 OF NAPA COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. 200021B, is made and entered into as of this ____day of _______, 2025, by and between NAPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “COUNTY”, and the City of American Canyon, a municipal corporation of te State of California herein referred to as “CITY.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, by Napa County Agreement No. 200021B, entered into as of June 4, 2019 (hereafter referred to as “Agreement”), County agreed to provide care, shelter, and other services for animals brought to the Animal Shelter from CITY; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and CITY now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement while negotiating terms of successive agreement for similar services.
TERMS
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is amended as follows:
1. Paragraph 1, “Term of Agreement” is hereby amended to read in full as follows:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2019 and shall expire on June 30, 2026, unless terminated earlier in accordance with Paragraph 8 (Termination for Cause), 9 (Other Termination), 20(a) (Covenant of No Undisclosed Conflict, or upon execution of a successor agreement by the parties for similar services; except that the obligations of the parties under Paragraph 6 (Insurance) and 7 (Indemnification) shall continue in full force and effect after said expiration or early termination in relation to acts or ommissions occurring prior to such dates during the term of the Agreement.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
15 Napa County Agreement No. 200021B – Amend 1 2 PL No. 128945
2. Except as provided in 1, the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed by the parties hereto as of the date first above written.
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON NAPA COUNTY, a political subdivision of he State of California
By:
JASON B. HOLLEY, City Manager By
ANNE COTTRELL, Chair, Board of
Supervisors
By:
TARESA GEILFUSS, City Clerk “COUNTY”
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
WILLIAM D. ROSS, City Attorney
“CITY”
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Office of County Counsel
By: Jason M. Dooley
Chief Deputy County Counsel
Date: March 21, 2025
APPROVED BY THE NAPA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Date:
Processed By:
Deputy Clerk of the Board
ATTEST: NEHA HOSKINS
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By:
16 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 15, 2025
STAFF REPORT
BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 7.
TITLE
The Wall That Heals
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Minute Order appoin(ng two City Council Members to an ad hoc subcommi/ee to assist in planning The Wall That Heals event and report back to the City Council on event logis(cs and community engagement.
CONTACT
Alexandra Ikeda, Parks and Recreation Director
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
In 1982, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF) dedicated the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. In 1996, VVMF, a nonprofit organiza(on, unveiled The Wall That Heals, a replica of the memorial, bearing the names of more than 58,000 men and women who made the ul(mate sacrifice in Vietnam and honors the millions of Americans who served during the Vietnam War. Since its inception, The Wall That Heals has been displayed in nearly 800 communities, reaching millions of people, and is known to be a healing legacy.
Each year, VVMF selects host loca(ons that can provide a welcoming, quiet atmosphere with ample space to accommodate The Wall That Heals and the Educa(on Center. In August 2024, City staff applied to VVMF to bring The Wall That Heals to American Canyon. Out of 145 applica(ons, American Canyon was selected as part of the 2025 tour - the only Northern California loca(on. The exhibit will be displayed at Community Park II, arriving in American Canyon on Tuesday, October 14th, and will be open to the public 24 hours a day star(ng on October 16th un(l it closes on Sunday, October 19th at 2:00 pm.
Hos(ng The Wall That Heals requires a dedicated "The Wall That Heals Planning Commi/ee" responsible for key event components, including a Logis(cs and U(li(es Coordinator, Volunteer Lead, Marke(ng and Outreach Coordinator, Educa(on and Tour Lead, Escort Captain, and In Memory Coordinator. City staff will take the lead in overseeing the event and iden(fying the Planning Commi/ee. Given the high-profile, regional significance of this event, City staff recommends the appointment of a City Council ad hoc subcommi/ee to lead the Planning Commi/ee and to par(cipate in the planning process, ensuring effec(ve coordina(on, 17 communication with the Council, and community engagement.
The ad hoc subcommi/ee will begin on April 16, 2025, and conclude on October 20, 2025, following the successful completion of the event.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Community and Sense of Place: "Build on the strength of our local community to develop a clear 'sense of place' and establish our unique identity."
FISCAL IMPACT
Hos(ng The Wall That Heals requires funding for both the site fee and event logis(cs. A $12,000 appropria(on for the site fee was added at mid-year and is currently covered in the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Budget from Account 100-70-790-42190. An addi(onal $27,000 has been requested in Fiscal Year 2025/26 Budget to cover event logis(cs, including rental equipment such as portable restrooms and generators, supplies for ceremonies, and community engagement and marke(ng efforts from Accounts 100-70-790-43115 and 100-70-790-42440.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agreement 2025-17: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund
18 The Wall That Heals
2025
AGREEMENT
This agreement ("Agreement") is entered into as of the date that the last party executes this Agreement in the space indicated below by and between the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc., a non-profit District of Columbia corporation ("VVMF") and the City of American Canyon ("Host"), a California Municipal Corporation. VVMF and the Host are referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the ''Parties."
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, VVM.F is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia; and
B. WHEREAS, VVMF has the right to display a scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial located in the District of Columbia, including the mobile Education Center and associated display elements, commonly referred to by VVMF as The Wall That Heals ("TWTH") in various locations throughout the world; and C. WHEREAS, the Host desires to temporarily display TWTH at American Canyon, CA (the "Display Site") for the period commencing on Tuesday, October 14th and concluding on Sunday, October 19, 2025. The event will occur and be open to the public starting on Thursday, October 16, 2025, and end on Sunday, October 19, 2025 (the ''Display Period"); and
D. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth the terms and conditions under which VVMF will provide TWTH for display at the Display Site during the Display Period (the "Event").
E. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements set forth herein, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
I. Obligations ofVVMF
A. Display. At its sole cost, VVMF shall provide and arrange for the transport ofTWTH and its accompanying displays to and from the Display Site. The exhibit includes a ¾-scale replica of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, a replica of the [n Memory Memorial, the mobile Education Center, two (2) copies of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Directory of Names, and educational materials and resources to be used while at the Display Site.
B. Representatives. VVMF shall provide at least one {l) representative to accompany TWTII ("the VVMF Representative(s)"). The VVMF Representative(s) will direct and instruct volunteers provided by the Host pursuant to Section ILE in the set-up, display, maintenance, and take- down ofTWTH and will be responsible for the means and methods used for such set-up, display, maintenance, and take-down. In addition, the VVMF Representative(s) will provide a general instructive overview ofTWTH to be used by the volunteers in answering CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON AGREEMENT NO. 2025-17
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 15, 2025
STAFF REPORT
BUSINESS
ITEM NUMBER: 8.
TITLE
Fil-Am Dual Citizenship Outreach Event Fee Waiver
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Minute Order approving the waiver of the facility rental fee for the use of a city facility by the Philippine Consulate General’s Office.
CONTACT
Jason Holley, City Manager
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The Fil-Am of American Canyon, a local nonprofit organiza6on dedicated to serving the FilipinoAmerican community, has requested the use of a City mee6ng room on July 15, 2025, to host an outreach event in collabora6on with the Philippine Consulate General’s Office. The purpose of this event is to assist qualified individuals in applying for dual ci6zenship under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003).
The outreach will be facilitated by representa6ves from the office of Consul General Neil Ferrer, who will travel to American Canyon to provide direct support and processing services for Filipino Americans interested in regaining Philippine citizenship.
The event is expected to serve a significant number of residents and community members in and around American Canyon. Given the nature of the event as a public service and community outreach program, the Fil-Am of American Canyon has requested that the city waive the standard rental fee for the use of the facility.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Economic Development and Vitality: "AAract and expand diverse business and employment opportunities."
FISCAL IMPACT
The waiver will result in the loss of one day’s rental revenue, es6mated at $1,000. However, the 28 public benefit of the event aligns with the City’s commitment to suppor6ng civic engagement and community-based services, especially those benefiting underserved populations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is not a project under CEQA and is therefore not subject to environmental review.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
29 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 15, 2025
STAFF REPORT
WORKSHOP
ITEM NUMBER: 9.
TITLE
General Plan Comprehensive Update, Environmental Impact Report, and Zoning Code Amendment Workshop
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the General Plan Comprehensive Update and provide comments.
CONTACT
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The General Plan is a crucial document guiding the City towards a vision of a Healthy, Equitable, Resilient, and Economically Vibrant community through 2040 and beyond. Established by the California Supreme Court as the primary statement of local planning, it serves as the "cons7tu7on for all future development," se8ng broad goals, policies, and ac7ons for government decisions. Our General Plan was adopted in 1994 with amendments as recent as 2023, but its 7me to update the entire General Plan to today's vision and current State Laws.
The General Plan Update was ini7ated in December 2019 with Min7er Harnish as project manager, later joined by Rincon Associates. All the components of the General Plan, called "Elements" have been refreshed and brought into conformance with each other along with updates to State General Plan Law.
Normally, a Comprehensive General Plan comes with significant land use changes. However, the City completed significant General Plan amendments during the update. Examples include: Housing Element, Oat Hill Residen7al, Paoli/Watson Lane, Watson Ranch Update, Citywide Bicycle Master Plan, West Side Roadway connector, and others. What's leB includes minor land use changes such as: redesigna7ng creeks from Residen7al to Open Space; schools and parks from Residen7al to Public. The zoning map parallels the General Plan land use map with the same changes to maintain consistency.
Public review of the General Plan began in September 2024. The City received feedback from the Napa County Bicycle Coali7on. Most of their proposed changes were accepted but there were some 30 operational standards that require Council consideration outside the General Plan context.
On December 4, 2024, the Napa County Airport Commission (ALUC)adopted a new Napa Airport Land Use Compa7bility Plan (ALUCP). The plan updated aircraB noise contours which allowed a new Zone D1 and D2. Zone D1 and D2 offers new opportuni7es for housing and other uses along the City's northern boundary and within the Hess/Laird General Plan study area and newly-added Green Island Vineyard Sphere of Influence.
By law, the General Plan must conform to the ALUCP. The General Plan accomplishes this by incorpora7ng the ALUCP in its en7rety, adding airport compa7bility policies, and a new zoning chapter for Airport Compa7bility. The General Plan, ALUCP conformance, and Zoning code changes requires review by the ALUC. Staff submiIed an applica7on to ALUC on April 9, 2025. ALUC review should be completed before final Council action on the General Plan update.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines poten7al environmental effects of the General Plan and related ac7vi7es. The General Plan EIR is a Program EIR which will help streamline development review throughout the City. The EIR, which is an informa7onal document that provides methods to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts found only two significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. These include: 1) Construc7on Noise; and 2) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The EIR includes measures to reduce, but cannot eliminate significant construc7on noise impacts. VMT impacts are reduced by implemen7ng smart growth policies, such as adding mul7family housing near retail, services and transit, as well as an improved bicycle and pedestrian network will reduce automobile use for everyday travel around town. However, the EIR shows that residen7al VMT will not be reduced enough to meet our adopted standard. These two significant and unavoidable impacts require the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The General Plan Update consists of three Council ac7ons: 1) a Resolu7on to cer7fy the EIR; 2) a Resolu7on to approve the General Plan Update; and 3) First Reading of Zoning Code Amendments.
On March 27, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the EIR, General Plan, and Zoning Code amendments. The OSATS and Parks & Community Services Commissions provided comments on the General Plan on April 2 and April 10 respectively.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
What is a General Plan:
The General Plan guides the City toward a shared community vision of a Healthy, Equitable, Resilient, and Economically Vibrant community through the Year 2040 and beyond. Since 1990, the California Supreme Court firmly established that the General Plan is the pre-eminent statement of local planning that governs future growth and development. Referring to it as "the cons7tu7on for all future development," the General Plan is inherently broad-based because it lays out overarching goals, policies, and actions that guide all government actions.
Our current General Plan was adopted soon aBer incorpora7on on November 3, 1994. Over the 31 years, the General Plan has been amended many 7mes - as recently as November 2023. However, inconsistencies among the Elements emerge, and some policies have become outdated. The proposed Comprehensive General Plan Update addresses current local and regional condi7ons, as well as changes in State law that may not have been in effect when the General Plan was originally adopted.
With a legally adequate General Plan in place, the City can systema7cally implement its vision through regulatory tools such as Specific Plans, Zoning Ordinances, and Design Guidelines, as well as immediate-term projects like Land Subdivisions, Design Permits, Condi7onal Use Permits, and Public Works Capital Improvement Programs.
The proposed 2040 Technical General Plan Update is organized into the following elements: Land Use; Housing; Mobility; U7li7es; Public Services and Facili7es; Environment, Parks, and Recrea7on; Safety; and Environmental Jus7ce. Together, these elements cover all topics required to be included in a General Plan under State law. Addi7onal elements may be added in the future as resources and priorities arise.
A copy of the General Plan is included as AIachment 2, Exhibit A. A graphic prepared by the League of California Ci7es illustrates the General Plan and its rela7onship to mid- and short-range policy ac7ons. See AIachment 4. You can read more about the Purpose and Use of a General Plan in the Introduction Chapter of the General Plan.
General Plan Study Areas:
California state law requires the study area to include the City limits plus any land outside its boundaries, in the planning agency’s judgment, that bears rela7on to its planning ” (Gov. Code § 65300). Consistent with State Law, there are several geographical areas that influence long-term planning. These include the following:
City Limits. This is the boundary within the incorporated city limits. Land Use policies in American Canyon are adopted by the City Council. Except for property owned and operated by the Federal Government or State of California and their agencies (i.e.: Caltrans, Napa Valley Unified School District), American Canyon has land use authority over all land within its city limits.
Sphere of Influence. The Napa Local Agency Forma7on Commission (LAFCO) establishes the Sphere of Influence (SOI). The SOI includes incorporated and unincorporated areas where the City has or plans to have responsibility to provide public facili7es and services. In most situa7ons, property must be located in the SOI before it can be annexed into the City limits.
The City’s SOI was approved by LAFCO at the 7me of incorpora7on in 1992 and updated periodically since then. In April 2025, LAFCO added the Green Island Vineyard property into the City's Sphere of Influence.
32 Urban Limit Line. The City Council adopted a voter-ini7ated Urban Limit Line (ULL) around the city in 2008. Nego7ated with Napa County in 2008, the ULL extends beyond the City's SOI.
The ULL boundary represents an agreement between the City and County over the City limits to the Year 2030, aBer which the ULL expires. The General Plan contemplates extending the exis7ng ULL indefinitely and designates the Hess/Laird Property northeast of the City’s current ULL as a ULL Study Area.
General Plan Planning Area. The General Plan Planning Area encompasses the City of American Canyon Water and Sewer Service areas. Napa County has land use authority outside the City Limits, however, as the Water and Sewer Service provider, the City has authority over these services. For this reason, the Water and Sewer Service areas bear rela7on to the City’s planning consistent with Government Code Section 65300.
An updated map published by LAFCO following to the April Green Island Vineyard SOI decision depicts the City in grey, the SOI with a solid black line, and the ULL with a dashed red line. See Attachment 5. A map depicting the City's General Plan Planning Area is included as Attachment 6.
General Plan Update Scope:
The General Plan update effort began in December 2019 with Min7er Harnish as the project manager. Later on, Rincon Associates joined the team. Over these years, numerous significant ac7vi7es influenced the proposed General Plan. A summary of important milestones are listed below:
January 2020 - The City Council established an advisory commiIee for Lifelong Learning and the West Side Roadway Connector. Numerous mee7ngs helped shape policies in the 2040 General Plan.
January 2020 - The City Council amended the General Plan to update the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. This plan remains in the 2040 General Plan along with the Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in 2017.
September 2020 - Significant budget reduc7ons caused by diminished economic ac7vity from the Covid Pandemic necessitated a lower General Plan budget and reduced scope.
June 2021 - The City Council accepted the West Side CommiIee's roadway alignment recommendation. See Attachment 7.
September 2021 - The City Council amended the General Plan to incorporate greenhouse gas and climate change policies into the Land Use Element. This General Plan Amendment enabled an ordinance to prohibit any new gas stations in American Canyon.
September 2021 - The City Council amended the General Plan to allow mul7family residen7al development on the east side of Oat Hill. A series of en7tlements were approved at that 7me, 33 and today, apartment construction is well under way.
January 2022 - City Council modified the scope to address a more technical approach, intended to expedite completion of the General Plan schedule.
April 2022 - The City Council directed staff to add the Hess/Laird property to the General Plan scope as a Special Study area for potential inclusion in the City's Urban Limit Line.
June 2022 - The City issued a No7ce of Prepara7on (NOP) to begin the environmental review process for the General Plan. The NOP provides a detailed descrip7on of the General Plan Update. A copy of the NOP is included in Attachment 8.
January 2023 - In a joint mee7ng with the Planning Commission, the City Council approved an update to the Housing Element. In June 2023, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) certified the Housing Element.
April 2023 - The City Council amended the General Plan to delete growth control policies that conflicted with State Housing laws.
August 2023 - The City Council amended the General Plan to accommodate changes to the Watson Ranch Specific Plan.
September 2023 - The City Council adopted for "Vehicle Miles Traveled" (VMT) standards for new development. Adopting VMT standards is a goal in the NOP scope of work.
September 2023 - The City Council decided to not amend the NVUSD surplus school sites to a residential zoning district through the General Plan update process.
November 2023 - The City Council amended the General Plan to accommodate pre-zoning for the Paoli/Watson Lane annexation.
February 2024 - The City Council cer7fied the Measure K Ini7a7ve, establishing ministerial permitting for certain warehouse facilities in American Canyon.
February 2024 - The City Council approved first-of-its-kind industrial greenhouse gas and commerce center sustainability standard ordinances in the Bay Area.
September 2024 - The General Plan DraB Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was released for public review.
October 2024 - The Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the Draft EIR conclusions. 34 December 2024 - Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopted an updated Airport Land Use Compa7bility Plan (ALUCP) for the County's two airports - Angwin and Napa.
This issue is discussed further in the staff report.
December 2024 - The extended General Plan EIR public review period ends.
March 2025 - Responses were sent to address comments on the Draft EIR.
General Plan Map and Zoning Map Changes:
The proposed General Plan Land Use map is included as AIachment 9. This map designates a General Plan land use category toall property within the city limits, sphere of influence, and urban limit line.
Normally, a Comprehensive General Plan Update brings many land use changes. Fortunately, because many significant land use amendments were completed during the General Plan update 7meframe, there are few remaining land use changes needed at this 7me. What is leB include General Plan land uses that do not match the exis7ng uses. For example, various creeks are redesignated from Residen7al to Open Space. Napa Junc7on Elementary School, Donaldson Way Elementary School, and various parks are redesignated from Residen7al to Public. Proposed land use changes are shown in Attachment 10.
The General Plan land use changes are paired with zoning map changes. Amending the zoning at the same 7me as the General Plan maintains consistency between these two documents. A table iden7fying each parcel earmarked for a zoning map amendment can be found within the DraB Zoning Amendment Ordinance included as Attachment 3.
Public Review Draft General Plan Revisions:
The General Plan was made available for public review in September 2024. During this 7me, the City received a leIer from the Napa County Bicycle Coali7on. In addi7on,City staff conducted its own review. The Napa County Bicycle Coalition comments improved the General Plan.
Nearly all the Napa County Bicycle Coali7on recommenda7ons were included in the revised General Plan. One area that staff is unable to accommodate involves the Bike Coali7on's recommenda7ons for service standards. Examples include commi8ng to a specific percentage VMT reduc7on by 2045, comple7ng 50% of our ac7ve transporta7on network by 2040, street sweeping schedules, and similar suggestions.
While staff does not necessarily disagree with the intent and benefits of these standards, they require City Council policy direc7on related to general plan implementa7on. We appreciate the 7me spent by the Napa County Bicycle Coali7on to improve the General Plan. A copy of their leIer and staff response is included as Attachment 11.
The draB General Plan has been renamed "Public Review DraB March 2025." The current draB 35 iden7fies changes to the September Public Review DraB. Deleted text is noted with strikethrough.
Added text is noted with a double underline. Each change is explained with a Justification note.
Economic Development:
A General Plan promotes economic development by providing a framework for future growth, including land use, infrastructure, and housing. This framework aIracts businesses and creates a stable environment for economic activity.
The original General Plan included an Economic Development Element, but its policies are now outdated. Due to Covid-era budget limita7ons, a new Economic Development Element was removed from the General Plan scope. While an Economic Development Element can be useful, the updated General Plan includes Economic Development policies. In addi7on, a General Plan that complies with State Law is itself a powerful tool for spurring economic development. For example, a General Plan that highlights American Canyon's intrinsic appeal can attract economic activity.
What makes American Canyon an aIrac7ve loca7on for economic ac7vity? The City's contribu7on to economic ac7vity is good governance. Good governance means implemen7ng the General Plan through the following public services:
Specific Plans (such as Watson Ranch and Broadway District), CEQA Streamlining with Program EIRs (such as the General Plan EIR), Online permitting,
Responsive development application review times,
Cost-effective infrastructure implementation (including parks, trails, roadways, and utilities), Strong public safety,
Robust recreation and active transportation measures,
Environmental stewardship and climate adaptation,
Support for public schools and lifelong learning,
Inclusive community outreach and participation,
Extensive community partnership,
A balanced municipal budget, and much more.
Policies addressing these and other issues, when implemented earnestly, will enhance American Canyon as an attractive place to do business, thereby furthering economic development in our City.
Sheet Metal Workers' General Plan Proposal:
On April 1, 2025, the Sheet Metal Workers' Union Local 104 recommended that the City Council consider adding General Plan policies to priori7ze hiring local workers over out-of-area workers for private medium to large scale construc7on projects in American Canyon. This recommenda7on aims to prevent local residents from losing income opportuni7es and to support the local economy.
Addi7onally, there are concerns that career training for youth and veterans would bolster qualified local workers and provide an advantage over out-of-area workers that may lack California-approved 36 training.
Staff discussed these issues with Alicia Mijares, Business Representa7ve for District 1 North Bay Sheet Metal Workers' Union Local 104. Based on this discussion, staff draBed poten7al policies to address the concerns raised on April 1. These policies would supplement the Economic Development policies in the General Plan Land Use Element. For discussion purposes, the draB General Plan Goal and associated Policies are written below:
Goal:
Improve the well-being of the en7re community by leveraging job crea7on from medium to largescale private construction projects to benefit American Canyon residents and the local economy.
Policies:
1. Require medium to large-scale private construc7on projects in American Canyon provide residents with employment opportunities that offer living wages and benefits.
2. Increase the local pool of skilled construc7on labor in Napa and Solano County areas by supporting apprentice programs for youth and veterans.
3. Reduce 7me for private construc7on projects to be built, consume less 7me for city inspec7on, and enable new private construc7on projects to contribute to the City economy sooner by implemen7ng City regula7ons that require medium to large-scale private construction projects in American Canyon hire skilled construction employees.
4. Require medium to large private construc7on projects hire a minimum percentage of workers that live within American Canyon and the surrounding communi7es of Napa and Solano Counties.
By adop7ng one or more of the Sheet Metal Workers' General Plan Economic Development Goals and Policies, the Council would be able to subsequently adopt an ordinance, or similar mechanism to achieve these Goal and Policies.
Napa Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Update:
On December 4, 2024, the Napa County Airport Commission (ALUC) adopted a new Airport Land Use Compa7bility Plan (ALUCP) for the County's two airports - Angwin and Napa. The 2024 ALUCP updates and en7rely replaces the 1991 ALUCP which was amended in December 1999 (1999 ALUCP). The comprehensive update was driven by the ALUC's desire to bring the plan up to current standards, reflect current airport layout plans, and address stakeholder needs.
The ALUCP is a complex regulatory document that considers various land use scenarios in the vicinity of each airport. A land use compa7bility zone map, which corresponds to safety associated with aircraB paIerns around the airport, is a primary tool to regulate building occupancy and land uses within the airport influence area. The ALUCP land use compa7bility zone map is an exhibit in the new Zoning Code Chapter 19.55 - Airport Land Use Compatibility (Attachment 3, Exhibit B). 37 The Land Use Compa7bility Zone map divides the airport influence area into Zones A through E.
Zone A is the most restric7ve, and Zone E is the last restric7ve. In American Canyon, most areas of the City are located well outside the most restric7ve areas close to the airport. In our industrial districts located south of Napa Airport, the warehouse, logis7cs and office uses meet the building occupancy standards. Under the new plan there is no significant change an7cipated to occupancy limitations on new development.
The areas of American Canyon, generally south of the warehouses off Green Island Road, and north and east of Oat Hill were located in Zone D of the former Airport Compa7bility Plan. Under the former plan, Zone D was considered an aircraB noise impact area and housing was considered incompatible.
The new plan updated aircraB noise contours and concluded that very low density and higher density housing is compa7ble in the southern areas of the former Zone D. Today, the ALUCP designates this area as Zone D1 and D2. Allowance of residen7al uses in the former Zone D opens up new housing opportuni7es and other uses for proper7es along the City's northern boundary and within the Hess/Laird General Plan study area and newly-added Green Island Vineyard Sphere of Influence. Amendments to the General Plan, should it be considered, would occurafter this current General Plan update is complete.
Because the Napa Airport Land Use Compa7bility Plan extends into American Canyon, State Law requires our General Plan to be revised within 180 days of the ALUCP adop7on. The 180-day deadline will occur on June 2, 2025. To meet this deadline, the General Plan update incorporates the ALUCP as a standalone document into the General Plan and adds policy amendments. The ALUCP may be viewed in AIachment 1, Exhibit B. The ALUCP policy amendments may be viewed in the Land Use Element, Goal LU-9 and the Safety Element, Goal S-6.
State Law also requires the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the ALUCP. To provide this consistency, the Zoning Code Amendment includes a new Municipal Code Chapter 19.55 - Airport Land Use Compa7bility. This new zoning chapter provides further consistency with the ALUCP. The new Chapter 19.55 can be viewed in Attachment 3, Exhibit B.
Amendment of the General Plan, including policies to bring the General Plan and Zoning into conformance with the ALUCP requires a conformance review by the ALUC. Staff submiIed an applica7on to ALUC on April 9, 2025. ALUC review should be completed before final Council ac7on on the General Plan update.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The General Plan Update is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a state law enacted in 1970. CEQA requires all public agencies to iden7fy and disclose poten7ally significant environmental effects of land use projects and to avoid or mitigate those effects if feasible. 38 The 2040 Technical General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the poten7al environmental effects of the proposed General Plan and subsequent ac7vi7es, such as zoning code amendments and approval of development proposals throughout the City.
The EIR evaluates numerous environmental issues and categorizes each poten7al impact under one of four levels of environmental significance:
1. No Impact: The proposed plan would have no effect on environmental condi7ons or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
2. Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mi7ga7on measures. However, mi7ga7on measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.
3. Less than Significant with Mi6ga6on Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level with reasonably available and feasible mi7ga7on measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
4. Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level with reasonably available and feasible mi7ga7on measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considera7ons to be issued if the proposed plan is approved pursuant to Section15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Fortunately, the General Plan is an7cipated to cause only two significant and unavoidable environmental impacts:
1. Construc6on Noise. Construc7on noise will temporarily exceed limits in the Noise Ordinance.
Although noise may exceed standards, many measures can be taken to reduce noise to the greatest extent possible, including measures that will reduce noise from non-construc7on ac7vi7es. Table ES-1 in the Draft EIR identifies these measures. See Attachment 1, Exhibit A.
2. Vehicle Miles Traveled. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) measures the distance people travel.
Typically, automobile travel is inefficient because many of us travel alone in cars. As a result, transporta7on is a major source of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Smart growth policies, such as improving transit, crea7ng safer ways to walk and bike to frequent des7na7ons, and reducing the distance between homes and shopping or employment can reduce VMT.
American Canyon adopted a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Policy in 2023, aiming to reduce per capita vehicle transporta7on use by 19 percent. The good news is that smart growth policies in the updated General Plan reduce non-residen7al (employee) VMT by nearly 33%, exceeding the 19% reduc7on goal. However, citywide residen7al VMT is forecasted to be reduced by only 4.4%, falling short of the 19% reduc7on goal. Con7nued efforts to provide services near residents and economic development efforts to bring more jobs closer to American Canyon residents will help reduce VMT 39 in the long term.
Because the General Plan Update creates two significant and unavoidable impacts, the Planning Commission will be requested to recommend the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations which is contained in Attachment 1, Exhibit E.
General Plan Graphic Images:
There are a number of placeholder graphics throughout the General Plan. Over the past year, the City Communica7ons team has acquired an extensive library of local photos. Staff will review the General Plan graphics and replace "non-local" images with illustra7ons more representa7ve of life in American Canyon.
General Plan Review Schedule:
The General Plan Update schedule would complete the update and associated zoning code amendments before the the City's next Fiscal Year, which begins July 1. Listed below is the schedule:
Date Hearing Body Hearing Type
03.27.25 Planning Commission EIR, General Plan & Zoning Public Hearing
04.02.25 OSATS Commission General Plan & Zoning Recommendation
04.10.25 Parks & Community Services Commission General Plan & Zoning Recommendation
04.15.25 City Council EIR, General Plan & Zoning Workshop
05.07.25 Napa County ALUC General Plan & Zoning Conformance
05.20.25 City Council EIR, General Plan & Zoning Public Hearing
06.03.25 City Council Zoning Final Reading Consent
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the EIR, General Plan and Zoning Code amendments on March 27, 2025. The OSATS and Parks & Community Services Commissions received a presentation and provided comments on the General Plan.
COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Organizational Effectiveness: "Deliver exemplary government services."
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost to prepare the General Plan Update project is included in the current and proposed Citywide budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of American Canyon prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR – State Clearinghouse No. 2022070038) for the General Plan Update Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
40 ATTACHMENTS:
1 DRAFT CEQA Reso General Plan Update
1. Exhibit A 2040 General Plan Update DEIR
1. Exhibit B 2040 General Plan Update DEIR Appendices
1. Exhibit C 2040 General Plan Update FEIR
1. Exhibit D MMRP
1. Exhibit E CEQA Findings and SOC_Final
2. DRAFT Resolution General Plan Update 04.15.25
2. Exhibit A 2040 General Plan Update
2. Exhibit B ALUCP
3. DRAFT Zoning Ordinance for the General Plan Update
3. Exhibit A Chapter 19.55 Airport Land Use Compatibility
4. General Plan Graphic
5. City SOI and ULL Map
6. General Plan Study Area Map
7. West Side Connector
8. EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP) 7-5-22
9. General Plan Land Use Map
10. General Plan Land Use Amendments
11. NCBC Comments
41 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XX
A RESOLUTION TO: (i) CERTIFY THE COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH # 2022070038), (ii) ADOPT CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND (III) ADOPT A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in 2019, the City of American Canyon ("City") began the process of comprehensively updating the General Plan, and since this time City officials, employees, and community members have been actively involved in the preparation of the 2040 General Plan Update ("2040 General Plan"); and WHEREAS, the 2040 General Plan applies to lands within City limits and also certain lands outside City limits, which collectively comprise the City's Planning Area. The City's Planning Area covers includes the City of American Canyon Water and Sewer Service area, the City limits, the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), and urban limit line; and
WHEREAS, the 2040 General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term plan for the City's future growth and development, represents the community’s view of its future, and contains the goals and policies upon with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions; and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the 2040 General Plan project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the City has completed the 2040 General Plan and analyzed potential environmental impacts in compliance with CEQA. The 2040 General Plan and corresponding environmental review documents are now before the City's decision- making bodies for consideration, certification, and adoption; and WHEREAS, on July 5, 2022, the City filed a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") with the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR") to determine the scope of environmental review for the 2040 General Plan. The NOP was circulated to the relevant state and local public agencies, as well as to interested organizations and members of the public between July 5, 2022 to August 4, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (SCH No. 2022070038) for the 2040 General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2024, the City issued a Notice of Completion (NOC) and a Notice of Availability (NOA) which started a 45-day review period that extended to November 12, 2024; and WHEREAS, the City notified the public about the availability of the Draft EIR through the publication of an advertisement in a newspaper (Vallejo Times Herald) and via email; and WHEREAS, on October 24, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop to receive public comments on the scope and content of the environmental impact report; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the City extended the public review period to December 27, 2024; and 42 WHEREAS, the City received a total of nine (9) comment letters relating to the 2040 General Plan Draft EIR during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, on or before March 14, 2025, the City delivered responses to each of the nine (9) written comment letters received on the content of the Draft EIR in the form of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the 2040 General Plan, which incorporates the Draft EIR, contains the City's responses to written comments received on the Draft EIR, and identifies revisions to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 14 ("CEQA Guidelines"), Section 15090, the lead agency's decision-making bodies shall review the Final EIR and certify that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City prepared findings regarding the significant adverse environmental impacts that may result from approval and implementation of the 2040 General Plan ("CEQA Findings"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the City prepared a Statement of Overriding Considerations for environmental impacts that are expected to remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15097, the City prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for mitigation measures imposed to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Final EIR (incorporated hereto as Exhibit A), the CEQA Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached hereto as Exhibit B), and the MMRP (attached hereto as Exhibit C); and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 requires that, prior to approving a proposed project for which a Final EIR has been prepared, a lead agency’s decision making body must certify that: (1) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) the Final EIR reflects the lead agency‘s independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, prior to approving a proposed project for which a Final EIR has identified significant environmental effects, a lead agency’s decision making body is required, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, to adopt findings demonstrating that the decision making body has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant project-related environmental effects (“CEQA Findings of Fact”); and
WHEREAS, prior to approving a project that requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects, a lead agency’s decision-making body is required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a), to adopt a mitigation monitoring and 43 reporting program to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted by the lead agency are carried out; and
WHEREAS, on March 27, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to evaluate the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update and Final EIR and determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, written and oral testimony given at meetings, it is appropriate to recommend that the City Council certify the Final EIR as adequate to address environmental impacts associated with the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2025, the City Council conducted a workshop to evaluate the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update and Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on [date to be determined], the Napa County Airport Land Use Commission determined that the proposed General Plan Update is consistent with the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to evaluate the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update and Final EIR and determined that based on all the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, written and oral testimony given at meetings, it is appropriate to certify the Final EIR as adequate to address environmental impacts associated with the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes the three findings necessary to certify that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City and thoroughly as adequate to addresses the potentially significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR (Exhibit A to this Resolution) and Appendices (Exhibit B to this Resolution), and the Final EIR, which includes a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR, responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR, and errata or revisions to the Draft EIR (Exhibit C to this Resolution).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update Exhibit D to this Resolution).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts Findings of Fact for the Comprehensive Technical General Plan Update (Exhibit E to this Resolution).
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 20th day of May 2025, by the following vote:
44 AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
Pierre Washington, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ _________________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney Exhibits
Exhibit A: Draft EIR
Exhibit B: Draft EIR Appendices
Exhibit C: Final EIR
Exhibit D: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Exhibit E: Findings of Fact
45 American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2022070038
prepared by
City of American Canyon
Community Development Department
4381 Broadway Street Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
Contact: Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2024
46 American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2022070038
prepared by
City of American Canyon
Community Development Department
4381 Broadway Street Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
Contact: Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2024
47 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. 48 Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis.........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................ES-1 Alternatives................................................................................................................................ES-2 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-2 Issues to be Resolved.................................................................................................................ES-2 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR.......................................................................................ES-2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-3 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background..................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Overview of the Project.................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 Purpose and Legal Authority........................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Scope and Content.......................................................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies....................................................................... 1-6
1.6 Intended Uses of the EIR................................................................................................. 1-6
1.7 Environmental Review Process....................................................................................... 1-7 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Project Purpose............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Proponent/Lead Agency..................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-1
2.4 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................................... 2-3
2.5 Project Objectives........................................................................................................... 2-5
2.6 Project Characteristics.................................................................................................... 2-5
2.6.1 2040 General Plan Update Organization........................................................ 2-5
2.6.2 Land Use Designations.................................................................................... 2-6
2.6.3 Urban Limit Line Expansion ............................................................................ 2-6
2.6.4 Project Buildout............................................................................................ 2-10
2.6.5 Mobility Updates.......................................................................................... 2-10
2.7 Intended Use of this EIR................................................................................................ 2-13
2.8 Project Implementation................................................................................................ 2-13
2.9 Required Approvals....................................................................................................... 2-13 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Setting ............................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 EIR Baseline..................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Cumulative Development ............................................................................................... 3-2 49 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ii
4 Environmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-6
4.1.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.1-7
4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-7
4.2.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.2-14
4.3 Biological Resources..................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-5
4.3.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.3-10
4.4 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-6
4.4.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.4-10
4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-5
4.5.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.5-16
4.6 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-2
4.6.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.6-6
4.7 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.7.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.7-1
4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.7-5
4.7.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.7-9
4.8 Paleontological Resources........................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.8-1
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-5
4.8.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.8-7
4.9 Population and Housing............................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.1 Setting.......................................................................................................... 4.9-1
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-3
4.9.3 Impact Analysis............................................................................................ 4.9-4
4.10 Public Services and Recreation .................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.10-1 50 Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report iii
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-5
4.10.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.10-8
4.11 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.11-1
4.11.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.11-1
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-2
4.11.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.11-6
4.12 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................... 4.12-1
4.12.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-2
4.12.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.12-5
4.13 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 4.13-1
4.13.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.13-1
4.13.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.13-8
4.13.3 Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 4.13-20
4.14 Wildfire....................................................................................................................... 4.14-1
4.14.1 Setting........................................................................................................ 4.14-1
4.14.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.14-5
4.14.3 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................... 4.14-9
4.15 Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant................................................................. 4.15-1
4.15.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................... 4.15-1
4.15.2 Energy ........................................................................................................ 4.15-2
4.15.3 Geology and Soils....................................................................................... 4.15-6
4.15.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................... 4.15-10
4.15.5 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................. 4.15-16
4.15.6 Mineral Resources................................................................................... 4.15-20 5 Other CEQA Required Discussions.............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Growth Inducement........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Population and Economic Growth.................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2 Removal of Obstacles to Growth.................................................................... 5-2
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects................................................................ 5-2
5.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts..................................................................................... 5-3 6 Alternatives................................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative.............................................................................. 6-3
6.1.1 Description...................................................................................................... 6-3
6.1.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................... 6-4
6.2 Alternative 2: Watson Ranch Natural Alternative ........................................................ 6-11
6.2.1 Description.................................................................................................... 6-11
6.2.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................. 6-11 51 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
iv
6.3 Alternative 3: Limited Growth ...................................................................................... 6-17
6.3.1 Description.................................................................................................... 6-17
6.3.2 Impact Analysis............................................................................................. 6-17
6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected .......................................................................... 6-23
6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................... 6-23 7 References.................................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 List of Preparers............................................................................................................ 7-19 Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual ImpactsES-4 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response........................................................................... 1-4 Table 2-1 Residential Buildout Compared to Existing Conditions.......................................... 2-11 Table 2-2 Non-Residential Buildout Compared to Existing Conditions.................................. 2-11 Table 4.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................. 4.2-5 Table 4.2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in Napa County ..................................... 4.2-5 Table 4.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Data ...................................................................................... 4.2-6 Table 4.2-4 Clean Air Plan Control Measures Consistency Analysis....................................... 4.2-17 Table 4.2-5 Comparison of VMT and Population Increase due to the Project....................... 4.2-22 Table 4.6-1 Project Consistency with the Plan Bay Area 2050................................................. 4.6-8 Table 4.7-1 Criteria for Vibration Damage Potential................................................................ 4.7-3 Table 4.7-2 Existing Traffic Noise Levels Along Roadway Segments........................................ 4.7-4 Table 4.7-3 Existing Railroad Noise Levels ............................................................................... 4.7-5 Table 4.7-4 Exterior Noise Limits for Stationary Sources......................................................... 4.7-8 Table 4.7-5 Noise Limits for Construction Activities ................................................................ 4.7-9 Table 4.7-6 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment............................................... 4.7-11 Table 4.7-7 Roadway Vehicle Noise Increase Along Roadway Segments.............................. 4.7-16 Table 4.7-8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment......................................... 4.7-22 Table 4.8-1 Paleontological Sensitivity in the Planning Area ................................................... 4.8-5 Table 4.9-1 Housing Inventory in the City, County, and State ................................................. 4.9-1 Table 4.9-2 Household Size in the City, County, and State ...................................................... 4.9-2 Table 4.9-3 American Canyon Estimated Population, Dwelling Units, and Employment........ 4.9-3 Table 4.10-1 ACFPD Equipment................................................................................................ 4.10-1 Table 4.10-2 Enrollment Trends for NVUSD Schools in American Canyon .............................. 4.10-3 Table 4.10-3 Parks in the Planning Area................................................................................... 4.10-5 Table 4.11-1 VMT Impact Thresholds....................................................................................... 4.11-7 Table 4.11-2 Project VMT......................................................................................................... 4.11-9 Table 4.13-1 Current and Projected Sources of Water Supply ................................................ 4.13-1 Table 4.13-2 Projected Water Demand.................................................................................. 4.13-25 52 Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report v
Table 4.13-3 2020 UWMP Projected Water Supply and Demand.......................................... 4.13-26 Table 4.15-1 Identified Hazardous Materials Sites in American Canyon ............................... 4.15-13 Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................ 6-24 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process ................................................................................ 1-9 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Location........................................................................................................ 2-4 Figure 2-3 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations .............................................................. 2-7 Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use Element Amendments.............................................................. 2-8 Figure 2-5 Proposed Urban Limit Line ...................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-6 Proposed Roadway Connections............................................................................ 2-12 Figure 4.1-1 View of American Canyon Creek, Facing East ....................................................... 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-2 View of Distant Basalt Plant Site, Facing Northeast.............................................. 4.1-2 Figure 4.1-3 View of Foothills East of Newell Drive, Facing East............................................... 4.1-3 Figure 4.1 4 View of American Canyon from Napa Junction Road, Facing Southeast.............. 4.1-3 Figure 4.1-5 View of Oat Hill from Napa Junction Road, Facing South ..................................... 4.1-4 Figure 4.1-6 View of the Napa River and Wetlands from Wetlands Edge Road, Facing Northwest.............................................................................................................. 4.1-4 Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities in American Canyon ..................................................... 4.3-2 Figure 4.7-1 Existing Traffic Noise Contours.............................................................................. 4.7-6 Figure 4.7-2 2040 Traffic Noise Contours................................................................................ 4.7-15 Figure 4.8-1 Geologic Units in the Planning Area...................................................................... 4.8-3 Figure 4.13-1 Water Service Area.............................................................................................. 4.13-6 Figure 4.14-1 Fire Hazard Severity Zones.................................................................................. 4.14-4 Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Recieved Appendix B Supporting Biological Resources Information
Appendix C Supporting Noise Information
53 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
vi
This page intentionally left blank.
54 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed City of American Canyon 2040 Technical General Plan Update (“project”). This executive summary summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project, EIR alternatives, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with implementation of the proposed project.
Project Synopsis
Lead Agency Contact Person
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
City of America Canyon Planning Department
4381 Broadway Street Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503 [email protected]
Project Description
This EIR has been prepared to examine the potential environmental effects of the proposed project.
The following is a summary of the full project description, which can be found in Chapter 2, Project Description.
The project is an update to the City’s current General Plan, which includes the following chapters:
Introduction, Land Use Element, Housing Element, Economic Development Element, Circulation Element, Utilities Element, Public Services and Facilities Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Natural and Historic & Cultural Resources Element, Geology Element, Flood Hazards Element, and Noise Element. The project establishes the City’s vision for future development through the horizon year of 2040. The project will serve as the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions in a way that meets the community needs and priorities while serving as a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of a community. The 2040 General Plan Update will help the City plan for important community issues, such as community growth; health, housing, mobility, and infrastructure needs; climate change; and environmental protection. It will also set the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the city.
Project Objectives
The Technical 2040 General Plan will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development, represents the community’s view of its future, and contains the goals and policies upon with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. The Technical 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 Technical 2040 General Plan would implement the vision of the existing General Plan. The City identifies the following three fundamental roles of the City:
55 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-2
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.
Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the proposed plan. Studied alternatives include the following three alternatives. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 3 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Alternative 2: Watson Ranch Natural Alternative
Alternative 3: Limited Growth
Refer to Chapter 6, Alternatives, for the complete EIR alternatives analysis.
Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify areas of known controversy for the proposed plan. Public responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR as well as public input received at the EIR scoping meeting held by the City are summarized in Chapter 1.0, Introduction.
Issues to be Resolved
There are no CEQA-related issues to be resolved at this time.
Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Impacts related to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mineral Resources were found to be less than significant. Discussion of these impacts is included in Chapter 4.15, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of the EIR.
56 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required) associated with implementation of the proposed project. Impacts are categorized as follows:
Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the proposed plan is approved pursuant to Section15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. No Impact: The proposed plan would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
57 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-4
Table ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1. The project would not have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista, including views of hills, and impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than Significant
Impact AES-2. The city of American Canyon does not
have a designated state scenic highway and the project
would not damage scenic resources within a state
scenic highway. No impact would occur.
No mitigation is required No Impact
Impact AES-3. The project would implement policies
that would require development of objective design
standards for future development. The project would
not conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality and this impact
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than Significant
Impact AES-4. Construction and operation of future
development facilitated by the project could create
new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect the visual environment. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
AES-1 Construction Lighting Plan. Prior to nighttime construction, if needed for a particular project, project applicants shall submit a construction lighting plan to the City for review and approval. The construction lighting plan shall ensure that the minimum amount of lighting is used to meet safety requirements and ensure no spillover occurs to nearby sensitive uses. All lighting shall be directed downward and away from surrounding land uses.
AES-2 Operational Lighting Plan. Prior to discretionary project approval, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City for review and approval which demonstrates that all exterior light fixtures will be directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to prevent light spillage. The approved plan shall be incorporated into project design plans.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The project would be consistent with the
BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan. Impacts would be less
than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than Significant
Impact AQ-2. The project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
pollutants during construction or operations. Impacts
would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required Less than Significant
58 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact AQ-3. Construction activities for projects lasting longer than two months or located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of the project may also expose sensitive receptors to
operational sources of toxic air contaminants. Impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
AQ-1 Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the City a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations for any development project that has at least one the following characteristics:
The project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Project construction would last longer than two months. Project construction would not utilize equipment rated USEPA Tier 4 (for equipment of 50 horsepower or more); construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more); or alternative fuel construction equipment.
If the HRA determines that construction will exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the HRA shall provide mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant, including but not limited to requiring the use of Tier 4 engines, Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters, and/or alternative fuel construction equipment.
AQ-2 Reduce Operational Toxic Air Contaminants Near Sensitive Receptors. For new sensitive receptors proposed within 500 feet of a major sources of TAC (high-volume roadways with 10,000 vehicles or more per day), the project applicant shall prepare an operational health risk assessment for the City’s review and approval. If TAC exposure at new sensitive receptor sites would exceed BAAQMD health risk thresholds, require the project applicant include mechanical air filtration or other measures to reduce health risk exposure to acceptable levels.
AQ-3 Conduct Operational Health Risk Assessment. Prior to permit approval for industrial, warehousing, or commercial land uses that would generate at least 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day, the applicant shall submit an operational health risk assessment (HRA) or submit proof that an HRA is not required in accordance with BAAQMD thresholds to the City for review and approval. If required by the City, the operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD requirements, and mitigated to an acceptable level. Typical measures to reduce risk impacts may include, but are not limited to:
Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible.
Electrifying warehousing docks.
Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
59 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-6
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
The operational HRA shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
Impact AQ-4. The project would not create
objectionable odors that could adversely affect a
substantial number of people. Impacts related to odors
would be less than significant with mitigation.
AQ-4 Reduce Operational Odor Impacts. Prior to discretionary approval by the City, if it is determined by the City that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, the project applicant shall prepare an odor management plan and submit it to the City for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to:
Wastewater treatment plants
Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
Painting/coating operations
Large-capacity coffee roasters
Food-processing facilities
The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the latest BAAQMD screening distances and guidelines. The odor management plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the documents prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. The project could have the potential to
have an adverse impact on special status species.
Implementation of federal, state, and local regulations and policies, as well as mitigation measures bio-1 and
bio-2, would ensure development facilitated by the
project would not have a substantial adverse effect on
candidate, sensitive, or special status species. This
impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
BIO-1 Biological Resources Screening and Assessment. For projects proposed within undeveloped parcels, the City shall require project applicants to engage a qualified biologist (having the appropriate education and experience level) to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a project-specific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 500 feet around the project footprint, as is feasible, and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, Less than Significant
with Mitigation
60 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, the following mitigation measures (mitigation measures BIO-2 through BIO-8) shall be incorporated, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Pending the results of the project-specific biological analysis, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, CDFW, and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.
BIO-2 Special-status Plant Species Surveys. If the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or state-listed plants or regional population level impacts to species with a CRPR of 1B or 2B from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for special-status plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.
BIO-3 Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation. If federally and/or state-listed or CRPR 1B or 2 species are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-2), and would be directly impacted, or there would be a population-level impact to non-listed sensitive species, then the project shall be redesigned to avoid impacting those plant species, where feasible. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm.
BIO-4 Habitat Restoration Plan. If federally or state-listed plants or non-listed specialstatus CRPR 1B and 2 plant populations identified during special status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-2), cannot be avoided, and will be impacted by development, all impacts shall be mitigated by the applicant at a ratio not lower than 1:1 per acre of impact (and 1:1 per tree), and to be determined by the City (in coordination with CDFW and USFWS as and if applicable) for each species as a component of habitat 61 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-8
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
restoration. A qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a restoration plan to the City for review and approval prior to City approval of project plans. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed plant species will be impacted, the restoration plan shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or state take authorization may be required by these agencies.) The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
1. Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).
2. Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).
3. Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).
4. Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).
5. Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).
6. Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).
7. Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.
8. An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.
9. Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.
10. Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
11. All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.
BIO-5 Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) determine that suitable habitat may be present for federal or state listed, candidate, or proposed species, protocol habitat assessments/surveys shall be completed in accordance with current CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits. 62 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
If, through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS, it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, the applicant shall complete and document this consultation and submit it to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits.
Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed wildlife species will be impacted, federal and/or state take authorization may be required by USFWS and CDFW.)
BIO-6 Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization. The following measures shall be applied to impacted aquatic and/or terrestrial animal species identified by the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
1. Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project.
A qualified biologist shall flag the project limits of disturbance. Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance.
2. All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31, if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Any work outside these dates would require project-specific approval from the City and may be subject to regulatory agency approval.
3. All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or state-listed endangered/threatened species shall have a CDFW- and/or USFWSapproved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities. Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.
4. No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.
5. If at any time during project construction an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease. A CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist shall document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume.
63 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-10
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
6. For all work occurring in areas where endangered/threatened species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, the applicant shall install exclusion fencing along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist. This fence shall consist of solid silt fencing placed at a minimum of three feet above grade and two feet below grade and shall be attached to wooden stakes placed at intervals of not more than five feet. The applicant shall inspect the fence weekly and following rain events and high wind events and shall be maintained in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.
7. All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body, including seasonal wetland features. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.
8. No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or wetland.
9. At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with a cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.
10. All trenches, pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.
11. Considering the potential for the project to impact federally and state-listed species and their habitat, the City shall contact CDFW and USFWS to identify mitigation banks within Napa County during project development. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) determine that impacts to federally and state threatened or endangered species habitat are expected, City and/or applicant shall explore species-appropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region for purchase of mitigation credits.
12. Prior to grading and construction in natural areas of containing suitable upland habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey as determined necessary during the biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) . The survey should include a transect survey over the entire project disturbance footprint (including access and staging areas), and mapping of suitable habitat features, such as burrows, that are potentially suitable for listed species. If any listed species are detected, no work shall be conducted until the individual(s) leaves the site of their own accord, unless federal and/or state “take” authorization has been issued for relocation. Typical preconstruction survey procedures, such as burrow scoping and burrow collapse, cannot be conducted without federal and state permits. If any life stage of listed species are found within the survey area, the City and/or applicant shall consult with the 64 Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Executive Summary
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
USFWS and CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the FESA and CESA, if permits are not already in place at the time of construction.
BIO-7: Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification. For all future development under the 2040 General Plan, construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 – September 15), involving removal of vegetation (e.g. trees and shrubs), abandoned structures, or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a buffer around the construction site at a distance determined by a qualified biologist, including staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be the following: 250 feet for non-raptors and 1,000 feet for raptors. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the American Canyon region. If construction lapses for seven days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The qualified biologist shall observe the active nest to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The qualified biologist shall continuously monitor the active nests to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change as a result of construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors, or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified biologist shall cease work causing those changes and may contact CDFW or USFWS for guidance. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified of the buffer zone as an “Ecologically Sensitive Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.
Project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to September 15, and 65 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-12
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.
BIO-8 Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal. For all future development under the 2040 General Plan that will require the removal of large trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter at five feet from the ground), abandoned buildings, bridges, or other suitable roosting structure identified during the Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO-1), prior to tree and/or structure removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees and structures to be removed or impacted by construction activities to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present on site. Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either the spring or the fall, and timed to ensure both suitable conditions for the detection of bats and adequate time for tree and/or structure removal to occur during seasonal periods of bat activity exclusive of the breeding season, as described below. Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts are found, the results of the survey will be documented and submitted to the City within 30 days of the survey, after which no further action will be required.
If roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
When possible, removal of trees/structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, including the following:
Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs.
Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs. If a tree/structure must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a colonial maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the contractor shall implement measures similar to or exceeding the following:
If it is determined that the roost is not an active maternity roost, then the roost may be removed in accordance with the other requirements of this measure. 66 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
If it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (April 15 to August 31). Tree removal procedures shall be implemented using a two-step tree removal process.
This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (no excavators or other heavy machinery) on day one. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night. The remainder of the tree is removed on day two.
Prior to the demolition of vacant structures within the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of all structures to be demolished. The habitat assessment shall be conducted enough in advance to ensure the commencement of building demolition can be scheduled during seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if required. If no signs of day roosting activity are observed, no further actions will be required. If bats or signs of day roosting by bats are observed, a qualified biologist will prepare specific recommendations such as partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon the roost, or humane eviction, both to be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, if required.
If the qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed.
Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately.
BIO-9 Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO1) determine that suitable habitat may be present for Crotch’s bumble bee, a habitat assessment shall be performed by a qualified biologist knowledgeable and experienced with Crotch’s bumblebee and the habitat in which they occur. If the biologist determines that suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumblebee is present, a focused survey shall be performed during the species’ active flight period for Crotch’s bumblebee and peak blooming period of nectar and pollen sources (May 1 through July 31). The Crotch’s bumblebee survey shall be conducted on foot and shall encompass the entirety of a project site and focus on areas that allow for the highest probability of detection, such as high abundance nectar or pollen sources and rodent burrows that may be used for breeding and nesting. If Crotch’s bumblebee is determined to be present, the project proponent shall 67 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-14
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
map the locations of the observed bumblebee, areas of abundant nectar or pollen sources, and any active nesting sites. A report summarizing the results of the habitat assessment and focused survey (if required) shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. Further, consultation with the CDFW will be necessary in the event Crotch’s bumblebee was observed within a project site and an Incidental Take Permit, in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act, may be required prior to initiating any ground disturbance on the site. If Crotch’s bumble are not listed and no longer candidates for listing at the time of project implementation, this mitigation measure would not be required.
Impact BIO-2. Development and mobility
improvements facilitated by the project would be
subject to adopted city regulations to minimize impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. Compliance with the NPDES construction
general permit, ms4 storm water permit, American
Canyon municipal code, and proposed policies in the
2040 general plan would ensure potential impacts to
riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and
wetlands would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact BIO-3. Implementation of the project would not
substantially impede the movement of native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors after
implementation of proposed policies in the 2040
general plan and compliance with the American Canyon
municipal code.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact BIO-4. The project would implement proposed
policies designed to protect biological resources.
Development and mobility improvements facilitated by
the project would be required to adhere to these
policies, as well as American Canyon municipal code
requirements to protect biological resources.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
68 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Impact BIO-5. Implementation of the project would not
conflict with the provision of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.
No mitigation is required. No Impact
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Development facilitated by the project
could adversely affect previously unidentified historicperiod resources. Impacts to historic-period resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
CUL-1 Historical Built Environment. Prior to project approval, the applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies any historic-age features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age) proposed to be altered or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45 years of age or older, by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation, in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, efforts shall be made by the applicant to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). The applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the PQS as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Impact CUL-2. Development facilitated by the project
could adversely affect previously unidentified
archaeological resources. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Assessment. Prior to project approval of a project that involves ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading), the applicant shall submit to the City an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified professional Less than Significant
with Mitigation
69 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-16
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects that include undeveloped areas to locate any surface cultural materials.
If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist. The City shall review and approve the archaeological resources assessment prior to project approval.
CUL-3 Unanticipated Discoveries. For projects whose Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, the applicant shall retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve grounddisturbing activities greater than 12 inches in depth and occur within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist will consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during construction.
Impact CUL-3. Development facilitated by the project
could result in damage to or destruction of human
burials. Impacts would be less than significant through adherence to existing regulations and with mitigation.
CUL-4 Human Remains. In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
70 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.
2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may each develop a plan with respect to their respective individual development proposals for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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 ghg-2 and ghg-3 would require
implementation of CEQA GHG thresholds and a climate
GHG-1 Construction GHG BMPs. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Measures may include but are not limited to:
Significant and
Unavoidable
71 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-18
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
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.
At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric.
At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction shall be sourced from local suppliers.
At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials shall be recycled or reused.
At least one contractor that has a business location in American Canyon shall be contracted for project construction.
All construction contracts shall include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) using during construction be electrically powered.
Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product. Project construction shall prohibit the use of generators and shall establish grid power connection to electrical equipment needs.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with their telephone number and contractor to contact. The construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be identified and visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
GHG-2 Adopt and Implement a CEQA GHG Emissions Threshold. The City shall include and implement a new 2040 General Plan policy under the Environment Element to prepare, adopt, and implement a CEQA GHG Emissions threshold of significance. The City shall adopt the CEQA GHG Emissions threshold of significance by the end of 2025 for use in future CEQA GHG emissions analyses through 2030. In addition, upon completion of future CAP updates and as necessary, the City shall update the CEQA GHG Emissions threshold of significance and American Canyon CEQA GHG Checklist to be consistent with each CAP update.
GHG-3 Adopt American Canyon CAP to Meet the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG Emissions Goals. The City shall draft and adopt the American Canyon qualified CAP by the end of 2025 72 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
to outline how American Canyon will meet the State’s 2030 goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality. Implementation measures in the updated qualified CAP to achieve the 2030 and 2045 goals may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Develop and adopt Zero Net Energy requirements for new and remodeled residential and non-residential development;
Develop and adopt a building electrification ordinance for existing and proposed structures;
Expand charging infrastructure and parking for electric vehicles; Implement carbon sequestration by expanding the urban forest, participating in soilbased or compost application sequestration initiatives, supporting regional open space protection, and/or incentivizing rooftop gardens; and
Implement policies and measures included in the California 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, such as mobile source strategies for increasing clean transit options and zero emissions vehicles by providing electric vehicle charging stations.
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1. The project would not physically divide an established community and there would be no impact.
No mitigation is required. No Impact
Impact LU-2. The project would not result in a
significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation measures AES-1, AES-2, AQ-1 through AQ-4, BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-1 through CUL-3, GHG-1 through GHG-3, NOI-1 through NOI-3, PAL-1, WF-1, and WF-2.
Less than Significant
73 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-20
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
Noise
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.
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 noisesensitive 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. 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 Significant and
Unavoidable.
74 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-21
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
blanket, curtain or equivalent absorptive material rated sound transmission class (STC) 32 or higher.
NOI-2 Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures. The City shall install “quiet pavement” roadway improvements, such as rubberized asphalt or open-grade asphalt concrete overlays along impacted roadway segments (American Canyon Road west of I-80 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.
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.
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.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
75 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-22
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Paleontological Resources
Impact PAL-1.the project has the potential to result in impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
PAL-1 Retention of a 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.
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Population and Housing
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
76 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-23
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Public Services and Recreation
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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.
No mitigation is required Less than Significant
Transportation
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
77 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-24
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
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.
No feasible mitigation measures beyond policies included in the Mobility Element of the General Plan.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact TRA-3. The project would not substantially
increase hazards due to a geometric design feature and
impacts would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Impact TRA-4. The project would not result in
inadequate emergency access and impacts would be
less than significant.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1. The project could adversely impact tribal cultural resources. Impacts would be less than
significant through consultation conducted pursuant to
AB 52.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Utilities and Service Systems
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
78 Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-25
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
Wildfire
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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.
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, Less than Significant
with Mitigation
79 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ES-26
Impact Statement Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Impact
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.
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.
No mitigation is required. Less than Significant
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.
No mitigation is required Less than Significant
80 Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) examines the potential environmental effects of the proposed City of American Canyon (City) 2040 Technical General Plan Update (“project”). The environmental review process for the project, and legal basis for preparing an EIR, are described below.
1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
This document is an EIR that evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the project. This section of the EIR:
Provides an overview of project’s background.
Summarizes the process involved in developing the project.
Describes the purpose of and legal authority of the EIR.
Summarizes the scope and content of the EIR.
Lists lead, responsible, and trustee agencies for the EIR.
Describes the intended uses of the EIR.
Provides a synopsis of the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The contents of other EIR sections are as follows:
Section 2, Project Description, provides a detailed discussion of the project. Section 3, Environmental Setting, describes the general environmental setting for the City of American Canyon.
Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, describes the potential environmental effects associated with development facilitated by the project. Section 5, Other CEQA Required Sections, discusses issues such as growth inducement and significant irreversible environmental effects.
Section 6, Alternatives, discusses alternatives to the project, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative.
Section 7, References and Report Preparers, lists informational sources for the EIR and persons involved in the preparation of the document.
In addition, this EIR also includes the following Appendices:
Appendix A. Notice of Preparation and Scoping Comments Received Appendix B. Supporting Biological Resources Information Appendix C. Supporting Noise Information
81 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
1-2
1.2 Overview of the Project
State law (Government Code Section 65300) requires each city and county adopt a comprehensive general plan. The City’s existing General Plan was adopted by the City Council on November 3, 1994.
The project is a comprehensive effort to update the existing General Plan to respond to current local and regional conditions, and changes in State law that may not have been in effect when the General Plan was originally adopted. The proposed 2040 Technical General Plan Update has been organized into the following elements: Land Use; Housing; Economic Development; Mobility; Utilities; Public Services and Facilities; Environment, Parks, and Recreation; Safety; and Environmental Justice. Together, these elements cover all topics required to include in a General Plan under State law.
The General Plan defines the policy framework by which the City’s physical and economic resources are to be managed and used over the next 18 years. City decision-makers will use the General Plan as a blueprint for:
Choices about the use of land;
Protection of environmental resources;
Conservation and development of housing;
Provision of supporting infrastructure and public and human services; and Protection of people and property from natural and constructed hazards.
The General Plan serves as a constitution for future development in American Canyon. Therefore, any City decision affecting land use and development must be consistent with the General Plan. This includes development projects that may be proposed in the future. An action, program, or project would be considered consistent with the General Plan if, considering all of its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the General Plan or not obstruct their attainment.
The project contains goals, policies, and implementation programs to implement the City’s overarching objectives.
Goals are statements that provide direction and state the desired end condition. Policies establish basic courses of action to achieve these goals, and directly guide the response of elected and appointed officials to development proposals and related community actions. Implementation Programs are specific actions, procedures, standards or techniques that the City must take to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted policy.
1.3 Purpose and Legal Authority
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to:
Inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
This EIR fulfills the requirements for a Program EIR. Although the legally required contents of a Program EIR are the same as a Project EIR, Program EIRs are by necessity more conceptual and may 82 Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-3
contain more general discussion of impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures than a Project EIR. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR enables the City (as Lead Agency) to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures and greater flexibility to address environmental issues and/or cumulative impacts on a comprehensive basis. While the Program level EIR uses expansive program-level thresholds, it should not be assumed that impacts determined to be less than significant at a program level would be less than significant for an individual project implemented under the 2040 General Plan, even if the individual project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan.
Once a Program EIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the Project must be evaluated to determine what, if any, additional CEQA documentation needs to be prepared. If the Program EIR addresses the Project’s effects as specifically and comprehensively as possible, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the Program EIR scope and additional environmental documentation may not be required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)). When a Lead agency relies on a Program EIR for a subsequent activity, it must incorporate applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into the subsequent activities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3)). If a subsequent activity would have effects not contemplated or not within the scope of the Program EIR, the Lead Agency must prepare a new Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a project level EIR. In this case, the Program EIR still serves a valuable purpose as the first-tier environmental analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(b) encourage the use of Program EIRs, citing five advantages:
Provision of a more exhaustive consideration of impacts and alternatives than would be practical in an individual EIR.
Focus on cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis. Avoidance of continual reconsideration of recurring policy issues. Consideration of broad policy alternatives and programmatic mitigation measures at an early stage when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with them. Reduction of paperwork by encouraging the reuse of data (through tiering).
This EIR has been prepared to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the project and provides feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that would minimize or eliminate these impacts.
1.4 Scope and Content
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was circulated to potentially interested parties on July 5, 2022. The NOP, included in Appendix A, indicates that all issues on the City’s environmental checklist would be discussed in the EIR. These include:
Aesthetics Noise
Agricultural and Forestry Resources Population and Housing Air Quality Public Services and Recreation
Biological Resources Transportation
Cultural Resources Tribal Cultural Resources
83 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
1-4
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Utilities and Service Systems Land Use and Planning Wildfire
This EIR evaluates potential impacts in each of these areas. Impacts regarding the CEQA topics of Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Mineral Resources were determined to not be significant and are analyzed in section 4.15 of this EIR. The focus of this EIR is to:
Provide information about the project for consideration by the City Council in its selection of the project, an alternative to the project, or a combination of various elements from the project and its alternatives, for approval;
Review and evaluate the potentially significant environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the growth and development envisioned in the project; Identify feasible mitigation measures that may be incorporated into the project to reduce or eliminate potentially significant effects;
Disclose any potential growth-inducing and/or cumulative impacts associated with the project; and
Examine a reasonable range of alternative growth scenarios (including growth according to the existing General Plan, reduced growth, and alternative locations within the City for growth) that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, while eliminating and/or reducing some or all of its potentially significant adverse environmental effects.
The NOP of this EIR received three written responses. The responses, included in Appendix A, are addressed, as appropriate, in the analysis contained in the various subsections of Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. The City staff also conducted a virtual scoping meeting on July 28, 2022. Two Planning Commissioners and one member of the public made comments at the Scoping Meeting. Table 1-1 shows a summary of the written comments and Scoping Meeting comments. The NOP and written comments are included in Appendix A.
Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised How and Where Addressed in the EIR Agency Comments
California
Department of
Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW)
Requested that the EIR include the
following information: land use changes;
project footprints; temporarily impacted
areas; plans for proposed structures,
ground disturbing activities, landscaping,
stormwater improvements, fencing, paving,
stationary machinery; operational features;
and construction activities.
Chapter 2, Project Description includes the
complete project description. Some of the
information requested by CDFW is currently not
available, including footprints, plans for buildings,
operational features, and construction information.
This EIR is a programmatic EIR and the information
requested by CDFW will be available when future
plans and projects are proposed and reviewed by
the City.
Requested creation of procedure or
checklist for evaluating subsequent project
impacts on biological resources to
determine if individual projects are within
the scope of the Program EIR.
Section 1.3, Purpose and Legal Authority identifies
how this Programmatic EIR would be used in the
future.
Noted regulatory authority under the
California Endangered Species Act, Native
These regulations are incorporated into Section 4.3,
Biological Resources.
84 Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-5
Commenter Issue Area/Issues Raised How and Where Addressed in the EIR Plant Protection Act, Fish and Game Code,
and Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Recommended EIR provide baseline data
for species and habitat from multiple
sources.
The baseline data used for this EIR is included in
Section 4.3, Biological Resources.
Recommended surveys be conducted for
special-status species.
A requirement for biological resource surveys for
future projects is included in Section 4.3, Biological
Resources.
Requested discussion of all direct and
indirect impacts associated with the
project, feasible mitigation, and cumulative
impacts
Impacts and mitigation are identified in Section 4.3,
Biological Resources.
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Identified that VMT analysis should include
discussion of multimodal transportation
and traffic safety issues; the project’s
effects on pedestrians, bicycles, travelers
with disabilities, and transit performance;
and, if necessary, mitigation for an increase
in VMT.
Comment is addressed in Section 4.11,
Transportation
Native American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
Noted tribal consultation is required under
Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.
The notification process, pursuant to Assembly Bill
52 and Senate Bill 18, is summarized in Section
4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources.
Identified procedures to follow and
requested feasible mitigation be
considered, including provisions for the
inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural
resources.
Comment is addressed in Section 4.4, Cultural
Resources and Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural
Resources.
Planning Commission Comments
Vice Chair Wong Requested information on Measure J
consistency with the American Canyon
General Plan and Napa County General Plan
This comment concerns the General Plan Update
and is not relevant to the EIR.
Requested information on EIR and General
Plan noticing process to public and Planning
Commission.
Summary of noticing is provided in Section 1.7,
Environmental Review Process.
Asked how the draft resolutions regarding
climate change would be incorporated into
the General Plan Update.
This comment concerns the General Plan Update
and is not relevant to the EIR. A discussion of
greenhouse gas emissions is provided in Section
4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Commissioner
Navarro
Asked if General Plan Update and EIR would
address climate change and prohibiting
new gas stations in the City.
Comment is addressed in Section 4.5, Energy, and
Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Noted highlighting greenhouse gas
reduction measures may result in extra
community engagement.
A discussion of greenhouse gas emissions is
provided in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Public Comments
Chris James Requested clarification on Measure J,
Green Island Vineyards project, and
LAFCO’s effect on the General Plan Update.
This comment concerns the General Plan Update
and is not relevant to the EIR.
Requested information on the Urban Limit
Line and introduction of the Hess Laird
property.
A discussion of the Urban Limit Line and Hess Laird
property is included in Chapter 2, Project
Description.
85 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
1-6
1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The City of American Canyon is the lead agency under CEQA for this EIR because it has primary discretionary authority to determine whether or how to approve the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 defines responsible agencies as other public agencies that are responsible for carrying out/implementing a specific component of a project or for approving a project that implements the goals and policies of a General Plan. There are no responsible agencies for the project. Although not responsible agencies under CEQA, several other agencies have review authority over aspects of the project or approval authority over projects that could potentially be implemented in accordance with various objectives and policies included in the project. These agencies and their roles are listed below.
The State Geologist is responsible for the review of the City’s program for minimizing exposure to geologic hazards and for regulating surface mining activities. The Napa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has responsibility for approving any annexations to the City that might occur over the life of the project. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has responsibility for approving future improvements to the state highway system, including State Route 29. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has responsibility for issuing take permits and streambed alteration agreements for any projects with the potential to affect plant or animal species listed by the State of California as rare, threatened, or endangered or that would disturb waters of the State.
The Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has the responsibility of reviewing the project and future individual projects, as applicable, for consistency with the ALUC’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
Any other public agencies which may own land within City boundaries.
Trustee agencies have jurisdiction over certain resources held in trust for the people of California but do not have a legal authority over approving or carrying out the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 designates four agencies as trustee agencies: CDFW with regards to fish and wildlife, native plants designated as rare or endangered, game refuges, and ecological reserves; the State Lands Commission, with regard to state-owned “sovereign” lands, such as the beds of navigable waters and State school lands; the California Department of Parks and Recreation, with regard to units of the State park system; and the University of California, with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System. The CDFW, due to the potential for rare or endangered species, is the only trustee agencies for the project.
1.6 Intended Uses of the EIR
This EIR is as an informational document for use in the City’s review and consideration of the project. This document is a Program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(a) states that:
A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria, to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities 86 Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-7
carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.
As a programmatic document, this EIR presents and discloses a region-wide assessment of the environmental impacts of the project. The information and analysis in this EIR will be used by the City of American Canyon Planning Commission and City Council, trustee agencies, and the general public to evaluate the project’s potential effects on the environment.
1.7 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process required under CEQA is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps appear in sequential order.
Notice of Preparation (NOP) Distributed. Immediately after deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to "responsible," "trustee," and involved federal agencies; to the State Clearinghouse, if one or more state agencies is a responsible or trustee agency; and to parties previously requesting notice in writing. The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk's office for 30 days. A scoping meeting to solicit public input on the issues to be assessed in the EIR is not required but may be conducted by the lead agency.
The NOP public comment period for the project was from July 5, 2022 to August 4, 2022 and a scoping meeting was held on July 28, 2022. Public comments were received in response to the NOP and scoping process.
Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) irreversible changes.
Public Notice and Review. A lead agency must prepare a Public Notice of Availability of an EIR.
The Notice must be placed in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days (Public Resources Code Section 21092) and sent to anyone requesting it. Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from responsible and trustee agencies, and adjacent cities and counties. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days, unless a shorter period is approved by the Clearinghouse (Public Resources Code 21091). Distribution of the Draft EIR may be required through the State Clearinghouse. This EIR will be circulated for a 45-day public review and will be sent to the State Clearinghouse.
Notice of Completion. A lead agency must file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse as soon as it completes a Draft EIR.
Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) any revisions to the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments.
Certification of Final EIR. The lead agency shall certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a project.
87 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
1-8
Lead Agency Project Decision. A lead agency may: a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted.
Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible. If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that set forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's decision.
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.
Notice of Determination. An agency must file a Notice of Determination after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared. A local agency must file the Notice with the County Clerk. The Notice must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the Notice starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA challenges. 88 Introduction
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-9
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process
89 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
1-10
This page intentionally left blank.
90 Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
The project analyzed in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the City of American Canyon (City) Technical 2040 General Plan Update, hereafter referred to as the “project.” This section of the EIR describes the key characteristics of the project, including the project proponent/lead agency, the geographic extent of the plan, project objectives, required approvals, and the development forecasted by the project.
2.1 Project Purpose
The project is an update to the City’s current General Plan, which includes the following chapters:
Introduction, Land Use Element, Housing Element, Economic Development Element, Circulation Element, Utilities Element, Public Services and Facilities Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Natural and Historic & Cultural Resources Element, Geology Element, Flood Hazards Element, and Noise Element. The project establishes the City’s vision for future development through the horizon year of 2040. The project will serve as the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions in a way that meets the community needs and priorities while serving as a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of a community. The 2040 General Plan Update will help the City plan for important community issues, such as community growth; health, housing, mobility, and infrastructure needs; climate change; and environmental protection. It will also set the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the City.
2.2 Project Proponent/Lead Agency
The City of American Canyon is both the project proponent and the lead agency for the project. The City’s Community Development Department (located at 4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201, American Canyon, California 94503) prepared this EIR with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. and Mintier-Harnish.
2.3 Project Location
The City of American Canyonis located in southern Napa County, as shown in Figure 2-1. The City is bordered by Napa County Airport to the north, Sulphur Spring Mountains to the east, Solano County and the City of Vallejo to the south, and the Napa River to the west.
Pursuant to State law, a General Plan must address all areas that bear a physical relationship to the long-term planning of the city. Consistent with this principle, the General Plan Area includes the City of American Canyon Water and Sewer Service area, the City limits, the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), and urban limit line. Figure 2-1 depicts the limits of the General Plan Area. 91 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
92 Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Any future development associated with the 2040 General Plan would be limited to the City limits, the SOI, and the urban limit line. As such, this EIR focuses on these three areas, which altogether are referred to as the “Planning Area.” Figure 2-2 depicts the City limits, the SOI, and the urban limit line. The American Canyon city limits defines land that has been incorporated and for which the City has authority. The Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) established the SOI, which defines the probable physical boundary and service area of a local agency. The SOI includes areas the City will have primary responsibility to provide public facilities and services. The City Council adopted an initiative in 2008 to adopt an urban limit line around the city. This urban limit line was negotiated with Napa County to be consistent with the County’s general plan and agricultural protection ordinances. The boundary helps preserve agriculture and open spaces, prevent urban sprawl, implement the planned development of the city, foster sustainable growth, and maintain a balance between housing and jobs. Primary regional access to the City is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80), approximately five miles to the east of the City limits. State Route 29 (SR 29) provides north-south access while State Route 12 (SR 12) provides east-west access to the City. The City is served by a surface street system ranging from multi-lane arterial roadways to narrow twolane streets.
2.4 Regulatory Setting
State law (Government Code Sections 65300 through 65303.4) sets forth the requirement for each municipality to adopt and periodically update its General Plan, and sets the requirement that a General Plan include the following mandatory subject areas, or “elements”: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Environmental Justice. State law also allows for optional elements that can be organized or combined at the City’s discretion. The 2040 General Plan has been organized into the following elements: Land Use; Housing; Economic Development; Mobility; Utilities; Public Services and Facilities; Environment, Parks, and Recreation; Safety; and Environmental Justice. Together, these elements cover all topics required to be included in a General Plan under State law. The Housing Element was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on June 30, 2023.
Under State law, a property’s zoning is required to be consistent with its General Plan land use designation (Government Code Section 65860). Section 65860(c) of the Government Code requires that when a General Plan is amended or updated in a way that makes the Zoning Ordinance inconsistent with the General Plan, “the zoning ordinance shall be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended.” 93 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
2-4
Figure 2-2 Project Location
94 Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-5
2.5 Project Objectives
The Technical 2040 General Plan will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development, represents the community’s view of its future, and contains the goals and policies upon with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. The Technical 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 Technical 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.
2.6 Project Characteristics
2.6.1 2040 General Plan Update Organization
The elements included in the 2040 General Plan are further described below. Land Use Element. This element contains the development policies and standards that directly shape land use decisions and the resulting physical form of the City of American Canyon. These include density, lot coverage, and height policies. The Land Use Element serves as the primary means for ensuring that new land uses are logically organized and developed sustainably. Mobility Element. This element provides a framework for decisions concerning the City’s multimodal transportation network. This element also incorporates Vehicle Miles Travelled policies consistent with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) and updates street standards for all modes of transportation including transit, bicycles, and pedestrian. Utilities. This element focuses on the variety of public facilities, utilities, and infrastructure that are necessary to sustain existing households and businesses and to accommodate future population and employment growth.
Environment, Parks, and Recreation. This element considers the effects of existing and planned development on natural resources, including biological resources, water resources, soil 95 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
2-6
resources, cultural and historic resources, and air quality and climate change. This element also guides the long-range preservation and conservation of open space, as well as the park and recreational facilities.
Safety Element. This element addresses natural and urban safety hazards in American Canyon, including existing and potential hazards. This Element establishes policies and actions to mitigate identified hazards to protect City residents and visitors. This element also focuses on noise element requirements, consistent with Government Code Section 65302(f), including new existing noise contours as well as projected noise contours based on future traffic volumes projected to arise from improvements planned for in the Mobility Element. Environmental Justice. This element establishes goals, policies, and implementation programs related to environmental justice to ensure all the members of the American Canyon community (i.e., residents, workers, business owners, local organizations, and visitors) regardless of race, ethnicity, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and socio-economic status feel valued, safe, respected, included, and secure.
The City has also prepared an updated Housing Element, which was made available for public review on September 27, 2022. The Housing Element identifies the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goal of 622 dwelling units and provides the City’s action plan for the 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 to 2031). The Housing Element was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on June 30, 2023. The Housing Element has undergone separate CEQA review and for that reason is not analyzed in this EIR.
In addition, the 2040 General Plan would include an Economic Development and Public Services and Facilities Element. However, these elements have not been updated and the current Economic Development and Public Services and Facilities Element in the current General Plan would still apply to the project. Pertinent policies that would reduce environmental impacts are identified in this EIR.
2.6.2 Land Use Designations
The land use map for the General Plan Update is provided in Figure 2-3. These land use designations define the basic categories of land uses allowed in the city but are implemented through the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, which are part of the City’s Municipal Code and contain more specific regulations and standards governing development on individual properties. The project would change some of the land use designations; however, these changes primarily resolve inconsistences between existing uses and the General Plan land use designations. Figure 2-4 shows the changes in land use designations compared to the current General Plan.
2.6.3 Urban Limit Line Expansion
As a part of the project, the City would update the Urban Limit Line to include the Hess/Laird Property, as shown in Figure 2-5. The lands that would be added to the Urban Limit Line are within Napa County’s jurisdiction and would need to be incorporated into the City with an annexation before any future development could occur in that area. Because these lands are not within the City’s jurisdiction, the potential environmental impacts from future development in the Hess Laird Property will be addressed when the City pursues annexation of that area. The expansion of the Urban Limit Line is an administrative process that would not result in an environmental impacts and is not discussed further in this EIR.
96 Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Figure 2-3 2040 General Plan Land Use Designations
97 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
2-8
Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use Element Amendments
98 Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Figure 2-5 Proposed Urban Limit Line
99 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
2-10
2.6.4 Project Buildout
Compared to existing conditions, there could be additional buildout from implementation of the 2040 General Plan. The potential buildout associated with the project was estimated based on the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study, as well as the known buildout of specific plans and already approved General Plan Amendments. Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 identifies the additional residential and non-residential buildout that could occur relative to existing conditions, respectively.
Overall, compared to existing conditions, the project could add a total of 3,379 additional residential units and approximately 5,704,000 square feet of commercial, retail, hotel, industrial, warehouse, and research and development (R&D) uses.
2.6.5 Mobility Updates
The 2040 General Plan includes a Mobility Element, which provides a vision and guiding principles for the transportation system. The Mobility Element identifies the following proposed major circulation improvements in American Canyon:
The City is in partnership with the Napa Valley Transportation Authority to identify improvements to SR 29, including landscaping improvements, pedestrian improvements, and multimodal features.
Newell Drive extension from Watson Ranch to Highway 29 at Green Island Road (2-Lane Major Collector Road and 4-Lane Arterial)
Green Island Road reconstruction from a 2-lane Arterial to a 3-Lane Arterial West Side Connector (2-Lane Major Collector)
Eucalyptus Drive extension from Theresa Avenue to Broadway (2-Lane Major Collector) Rio Del Mar or South Napa Junction Road, including new at-grade crossing from Broadway to Newell Drive (2-Lane Major Collector)
Napa Junction Road from Theresa Avenue to Hess Road (2-Lane Minor Collector) Newell Drive Railroad Overcrossing
American Canyon Road Pedestrian Crossing
Donaldson Way Pedestrian Crossing
Napa Junction Road Pedestrian Crossing
The new proposed roadways are shown in Figure 2-6.
100
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Table 2-1 Residential Buildout Compared to Existing Conditions Residential Type
Number of Dwelling Units
Pipeline
Projects a
Remaining TIF
Projects b
Broadway District
Specific Plan c
Watson Ranch
Specific Plan d
Oat Hill Residential General
Plan Amendment e Total
Single Family 41 197 0 1,061 0 1,299
Multi-family 186 36 1,200 192 291 1,905
Total 227 233 1,200 1,253 291 3,204
Notes:
a. The City has identified the following pipeline projects that would be constructed in the future: Lemos Pointe, Canton Estates, West Carolyn Subdivision, and Rio Del Mat West Subdivisions (City of American Canyon 2022).
b. The Remaining TIF Projects were calculated by subtracting the estimated buildout in the 2015 TIF with both the pipeline projects and the projects that were constructed between 2014 and 2021 (City of American Canyon 2015 and 2022a).
c. The Broadway District Specific Plan was adopted in July 2019 and has undergone CEQA review (City of American Canyon 2020). d. The Watson Ranch Specific Plan was adopted in 2018 and has undergone CEQA review (City of American Canyon 2018). e. In September 2021, the Oat Hill Multi-Family Residential Project, which included a General Plan Amendment was approved. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this Project (City of American Canyon 2021).
Table 2-2 Non-Residential Buildout Compared to Existing Conditions Non-Residential Type
Area (in Million Square Feet)
Pipeline Projects a
Remaining TIF
Projects b
Broadway District
Specific Plan c
Watson Ranch
Specific Plan d
Watson Lane
Annexation e Total
Office 0 65 100 25 0 190
Commercial/Retail/Hotel 0 0 840 175 189 1,204
Industrial/Warehouse/R&D 3,118 0 0 0 1,192 4,310
Total 3,118 65 940 200 1,381 5,704
Notes:
a. The City has identified the following pipeline projects that would be constructed in the future: Future Warehouse at 1055 Commerce Court, Napa Airport Commerce Center, Giovanni Logistics Center, SDG 217 Warehouse, and PGE Regional Center (City of American Canyon 2022). b. The Remaining TIF Projects were calculated by subtracting the estimated buildout in the 2015 TIF with both the pipeline projects and the projects that were constructed between 2014 and 2021 (City of American Canyon 2015 and 2022a).
c. The Broadway District Specific Plan was adopted in July 2019 and has undergone CEQA review (City of American Canyon 2020). d. The Watson Ranch Specific Plan was adopted in 2018 and has undergone CEQA review (City of American Canyon 2018). e. The Watson Lane Annexation Project would annex an area within the City’s SOI and allow for industrial and commercial development. The project is currently undergoing CEQA (City of American Canyon 2022b).
101
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
2-12
Figure 2-6 Proposed Roadway Connections
102
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-13
2.7 Intended Use of this EIR
This EIR provides a programmatic environmental review of implementing the City’s 2040 General Plan Update. Subsequent activities falling under the City’s 2040 General Plan Update will utilize this EIR to focus the environmental review of these consequent activities and to determine their effects.
If a new project is proposed that is not anticipated by the 2040 General Plan Update, or may result in project-level environmental effects not addressed in this program-level EIR, the future project would be evaluated as required under CEQA. This EIR is not intended to prohibit consideration of future projects or CEQA analysis of future projects.
2.8 Project Implementation
Following adoption of project by the City Council, all subsequent activities and development within the City will be guided by the goals and policies in the Technical 2040 General Plan Update. It therefore provides specific policy guidance for implementation of plan concepts. The City will also need to work with Napa County and other public agencies to implement policies that affect their respective jurisdictions or would affect the region. Implementing these policies in accordance with new development (residential, commercial, or industrial) will be subject to the City’s established review and approval processes, with final review and approval by the appropriate departmental staff, as well as the appointed and elected officials. The principal responsibilities that city officials and staff have for project implementation are briefly summarized below:
Update the City of American Canyon Zoning Ordinance to achieve consistency with the adopted General Plan Update.
Rezone properties, as dictated by future development proposals. Approve tentative maps, variances, conditional use permits, and other land use permits and entitlements.
Approve development agreements and issuance of related permits and approvals consistent with the 2040 General Plan Update.
Analyze and plan public infrastructure such as roadway improvements, other capital improvements, and natural/capital resource preservation and/or restoration. Conduct or consider further focused planning studies, as appropriate to future development in the city.
2.9 Required Approvals
With recommendations from the City’s Planning Commission, the American Canyon City Council will need to take the following discretionary actions in conjunction with the project:
Certify the Final EIR and adopt required findings, including required findings under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090, 15091, and 15093.
Approve and adopt the Technical 2040 General Plan Update. 103
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
2-14
This page intentionally left blank.
104
Environmental Setting
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the project. More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.
3.1 Setting
The City of American Canyon is located in southern Napa County, approximately 5 miles south of the City of Napa, 25 miles northeast of the city of San Francisco, and approximately 20 miles north of the City of Oakland. The city is located north of the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay, east of Napa River and west of the Newell Open Space Preserve and Lynch Canyon Open Space Park.
Broadly, the City of American Canyon is bordered by unincorporated Napa County and the Napa County Airport to the north, Sulphur Spring Mountains to the east, Solano County and the City of Vallejo to the south, and a salt marsh and wetland area including the Napa River to the west.
The City encompasses an area of approximately 6.1 square miles. In addition, the City has a sphere of influence (SOI), which represents those areas that may already receive City services and are a visual and logical expansion of the city boundaries. There is currently one area in the SOI that is not within City limits. The City is currently in the process of annexing that area as part of the Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project and is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (City of American Canyon 2022). Primary regional access to the city is provided by Interstate 80 (I-80), approximately 5 miles to the east of the city limits. State Route (SR) 29 provides north-south access while SR 12 and SR 37 provide east-west access to the city. The city is served by a surface street system ranging from multi-lane arterial roadways to narrow two-lane streets. Primary access to the project site is provided by SR 29, known locally as “Broadway.”
Land uses in the City include single and multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. The City plays an important role in the Napa Valley wine industry with continuous growth in wine logistics, wine making, storage and distribution. The City is also home to growing major food production industries and logistics distribution, such as Coca Cola, Barry Callebaut Chocolate, Mezzetta, Amazon, and the nation’s first IKEA E-Commerce Distribution Center.
The climate of the City of American Canyon is a warm-summer Mediterranean climate, characterized by dry, hot summers and moderately moist, cool winters. The average temperature for the year in the City is 56.4°F (13.6°C). The warmest month, on average, is August with an average temperature of 65.1°F (18.4°C). The coolest month on average is December, with an average temperature of 45.4°F (7.4°C) (Weatherbase 2022). Average annual precipitation in American Canyon is 17.4 inches. Generally, in an average or typical year, most precipitation is received from October through April (Weatherbase 2022).
3.2 EIR Baseline
Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) “should include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is 105
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
3-2
published.” Section 15125 states that this approach “normally constitute[s] the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” This EIR evaluates impacts against existing conditions, at the time the notice of preparation (NOP) was published, which was July 5, 2022. This EIR considers the potential impacts from buildout of the General Plan in 2040, compared to exiting conditions.
3.3 Cumulative Development
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that, when considered together, are considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows an EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.
Because the project is a general plan update, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than would be the case for a project-specific development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 provides the following direction relative to cumulative impact analysis and states that the following elements are necessary for an adequate discussion of environmental impacts:
A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.
By its nature, a general plan considers cumulative impacts insofar as it considers cumulative development that could occur within the Planning Area. For example, the transportation analysis considers the overall change in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) due to implementing several development projects that would add to the buildout associated with implementing the project.
These cumulative VMT calculations are accounted for in the air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise analyses; therefore, these analyses would also be considered cumulative.
Other impacts, such as geology and soils and cultural resources, are site specific and would not result in an overall cumulative impact from growth outside of the city. Therefore, the analysis of project impacts in this EIR also constitutes the cumulative analysis. 106
Environmental Impact Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the project for the specific issue areas identified through the scoping process with potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15382:
means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.
The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable. No Impact. The project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.
Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). The Executive Summary of this EIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the project.
107
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4-2
This page intentionally left blank.
108
Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1
4.1 Aesthetics
This section summarizes the aesthetic resources in the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts on aesthetics, including impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, visual quality, and light and glare due to the project.
4.1.1 Setting
The Planning Area is situated in the central portion of the Coast Mountain Ranges in the southeastern portion of Napa County, between the east bank of the Napa River and the Sulfur Springs Mountains foothills. The primary arterial roadway in the City is State Route (SR) 29, which bisects the City from north to south and serves as the primary commercial corridor. Residential uses are generally located in the southern portion of the City, with commercial and industrial uses located in the northern portion near the Napa County Airport. American Canyon is characterized by its low‐rise, rural suburban appearance, with most development having occurred within the last 40 years. The City is characterized by a variety of visual resources, both natural and constructed, including the rolling foothills to the east, riparian corridors, Oat Hill, Napa River, and the Basalt Plant. Visual resources in American Canyon are shown in Figure 4.1-1 through Figure 4.1-6. These figures show views of American Canyon Creek (Figure 4.1-1), the Basalt Plant site (Figure 4.1-2), the foothills to the east of American Canyon (Figure 4.1-3), an overview of American Canyon (Figure 4.1-4), a view of Oat Hill (Figure 4.1-5), and a view of the Napa River and wetlands to the west of American Canyon (Figure 4.1-6).
a. Scenic Resources
Most communities identify scenic resources that contribute to community identity. Scenic resources can be natural or constructed features such as trees, rock formations, historic buildings, and public art. The eastern foothills contribute to the City’s visual image as they provide a transition between the higher mountain ranges to the east and the low land or floodplains to the west. The foothills also contribute to the rural quality of the community and serve as a backdrop to the City’s existing development, which is viewed by its residents and vehicles traveling on State Route (SR) 29. Active vineyards located on portions of the foothills provide a linkage with the Napa Valley (City of American Canyon 1994a).
Oat Hill is located in the western portion of the City between developed land and the Napa River.
The hill is a visual landmark that provides direction and orientation to many residents in the community, particularly those living in residential neighborhoods within proximity to the hill (City of American Canyon 1994a).
Although most of the city’s visual resources are natural, the Napa Valley Ruins & Gardens is an exception. The Basalt Rock Company started a rock quarrying facility and operations near the Napa River in 1941. Following World War II, the plant built almost 30 miles of pipeline in Napa County.
This facility is now the focus of the Watson Ranch Specific Plan neighborhood. Architectural features of the Napa Valley Ruins & Gardens are planned to be incorporated into the design of the Watson Ranch Specific Plan neighborhood.
109
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.1-2
Figure 4.1-1 View of American Canyon Creek, Facing East Figure 4.1-2 View of Distant Basalt Plant Site, Facing Northeast 110
Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
Figure 4.1-3 View of Foothills East of Newell Drive, Facing East Figure 4.1-4 View of American Canyon from Napa Junction Road, Facing Southeast 111
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.1-4
Figure 4.1-5 View of Oat Hill from Napa Junction Road, Facing South Figure 4.1-6 View of the Napa River and Wetlands from Wetlands Edge Road, Facing Northwest
112
Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
Scenic Vistas and Views
A scenic vista provides views of an aesthetically valued landscape that benefits the public. The term “vista” generally implies an expansive view, usually from an elevated point or open area. This designation may be officially designated or unofficially defined by a set of criteria. American Canyon contains a number of streams and creeks, including American Canyon Creek, that provide the area with riparian habitats and vegetation and are considered scenic views. American Canyon Creek runs through the central portion of the City from the higher elevations of the Sulphur Spring Mountains to the Napa River. Development has altered the creek's natural stream course and ability to be viewed in some locations in American Canyon (City of American Canyon 1994a).
Although the Napa River flows outside City limits, the river serves as the primary western edge for American Canyon. In addition to the river’s role as a key boundary, the river itself is another visual resource that enhances the overall beauty of the area. Napa River is clearly visible from the City's higher elevations, including atop Oat Hill, the eastern foothills, and neighborhoods immediately east of the Napa River (City of American Canyon 1994a).
Scenic Roadways
California’s Scenic Highway Program designates scenic highways with the intention of protecting these corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of adjacent lands. A highway is designated as an eligible scenic highway when the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) determines that the roadway corridor qualifies for official status. The status of an officially designated scenic highway changes when the local governing body applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, adopts a Corridor Protection Program, and receives notification that the highway has been officially designated (Caltrans 2022). Scenic highways must have an approved Corridor Protection Program and remain in compliance to maintain scenic highway status. According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway Map and list of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways, SR 29 is eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway but is not officially designated as such (Caltrans 2018).
b. Visual Character
The City is in a transitional area between the Sulphur Springs Mountains and the Napa River. A highquality visual image and environmental character distinguish the area from other cities in the northern San Francisco Bay region. These visual and physical qualities provide a contrast from the urbanized areas to the south (City of American Canyon 1994b). Residential uses are generally located in the southern portion of American Canyon, with commercial and industrial uses located in the northern portion near the Napa County Airport.
c. Light and Glare Conditions
Light and glare from indoor or outdoor uses can reduce visibility of the night sky, create potential hazards to drivers, and be a nuisance to residential areas. The City has typical light conditions found in suburban areas (e.g., roadway lighting, commercial parking lot and building lighting, residential buildings, headlights from motor vehicles). Sources of daytime glare include direct beam sunlight and reflections from windows, architectural coatings, glass, and other shiny reflective surfaces.
Nighttime lighting and glare are produced by both stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, decorative landscape lighting, lighted signs, and streetlights. The primary source of mobile nighttime light is motor vehicle headlights. Sources of 113
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.1-6
light and glare in the residential areas include street lighting along roadways, lit building exteriors and signage, and parking lot lighting.
4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
No existing federal regulations pertain to the aesthetic resources in the City. b. State Regulations
California Scenic Highways Program
The California Scenic Highway Program, established in 1963, identifies and designates certain highways throughout the State which require special conservation treatment in relation to surrounding land use development. Caltrans manages the State Scenic Highway Program and defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way, that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Suitability for designations as a State scenic highway is based on the vividness, intactness, and unity of their view corridors, as described in Caltrans’ Scenic Highway Guidelines (Caltrans 2008):
Vividness is the extent to which the landscape is memorable. This is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity, and contrast of visual elements. A vivid landscape makes an immediate and lasting impression on the viewer.
Intactness is the integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the natural landscape is free from visual intrusions (e.g., buildings, structures, equipment, grading). Unity is the extent to which development is sensitive to and visually harmonious with the natural landscape.
California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), also known as the California Building Standards Code, consists of regulations to control building standards throughout the State. The California Electrical Code (Title 24, Part 3) and Green Building Standards Code (also referred to as the CALGreen Code; Title 24, Part 11) stipulate minimum light intensities for safety and security at pedestrian pathways, circulation ways, and paths of egress. The CALGreen Code (24 CCR, Part 11, Paragraph 5.106.8, Light Pollution Reduction) provides that all nonresidential outdoor lighting must comply with the following:
The minimum requirements in the California Energy Code (CEC) for Lighting Zones 0 to 4 as defined in Chapter 10 of the California Administrative Code; Backlight ratings as defined in the Illuminating Engineering Society’s Technical Memorandum on Luminaire Classification Systems for Outdoor Luminaires (IES TM-15-11); Uplight and Glare ratings as defined in the CEC; and
Allowable backlight, uplight, and glare ratings not exceeding those shown in Table 5.106.8 in Section 5.106.8 of the CALGreen Code, or a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to Section 101.7 of the CALGreen Code, whichever is more stringent. 114
Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7
The 2022 updates to the CALGreen Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. They require nonresidential buildings to maximize light emitting diode (LED) technology in indoor and outdoor lighting plans.
c. Local Regulations
American Canyon Municipal Code – Title 19 (Zoning)
The Zoning Code (Title 19) of the American Canyon Municipal Code implements the General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element. While General Plan designations are more generalized in nature, the Zoning Code and zoning districts provide specific controls on land use, density or intensity of development, and development standards to implement the City’s General Plan goals and policies.
The Zoning Code provides standards for protection of visual resources, compatible design, and illumination for new development in the City that is associated with zoning. Zoning Code Title 19 establishes standards for development within the City. Zoning Code Chapter 19.23 provides a list of prohibited signage in the City. The California Building Code, which includes lighting requirements, has been adopted in Chapter 16.02 of the Municipal Code (City of American Canyon 2022).
4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Significance Thresholds and Methodology
CEQA Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines a project may be deemed to have a significant impact on aesthetics if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.
Methodology
Aesthetics impact assessments involve qualitative analysis that is subjective but informed by the City policies detailed above. Reactions to the same aesthetic conditions vary according to viewer taste and interests but are basically governed by the visual compatibility with the surroundings and existing development, coherence with design guidelines established by the jurisdiction, and use of high-quality materials that blend into the landscape. Ultimately, development decisions that prescribe aesthetic or design treatments for specific projects fall under the purview of the American Canyon Planning Commission and appointed or elected bodies charged with overseeing development permits. As a programmatic document, this EIR presents a City-wide assessment of the project. Because the EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions for many years into the future, this analysis relies on program-level and qualitative evaluation. 115
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.1-8
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact AES-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON A SCENIC VISTA, INCLUDING VIEWS OF HILLS, AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City has no designated scenic vistas or scenic viewpoints; however, views of the hills and ridgelines surrounding the City, including the Sulphur Springs foothills to the east and Oat Hill to the west, are generally considered important visual resources. Views from SR 29 provide motorists with expansive, although fleeting, views of these hills. In addition, expansive scenic views of the City and surrounding natural areas are provided from the Newell Open Space Preserve. Views from the Newell Open Space Preserve include the City, the Napa Wetlands, the Napa River, and Oat Hill.
Wetlands Edge Road provides unobstructed views of the wetlands and Napa River to the west.
Future mobility improvements facilitated by the project, including improvements to roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, would not substantially obstruct views of a scenic vista. Mobility improvements such as installation of a roundabout, repaving of roads, or other improvements to bicycle lanes or pedestrian intersections are not large-scale developments which have the potential to substantially obstruct views of important visual resources in the City. In addition, mobility improvements could offer new opportunities for the public to view scenic areas. Accordingly, mobility improvements facilitated by the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
In addition, the 2040 General Plan Update would implement the following proposed policies to minimize impacts to scenic vistas:
Policy ENV-9.3: Identify Scenic Vistas. Identify notable viewsheds and public views from which scenic vistas can be observed.
Policy ENV-9.4: Visual Design. Require massing, height, and orientation of new development where allowable by the zoning standards adjacent to viewsheds and public views be evaluated and be sited and designed to minimize additional obstructions of public views to and along scenic areas.
Implementation of the proposed policies ENV-9.3 and ENV-9.4 would require the City’s Community Development Department to create and periodically update an inventory of scenic resources important to the City; identify and map valuable scenic views; and update the City’s development and design standards to protect scenic resources and viewsheds by requiring massing, height, and orientation of new development adjacent to viewsheds and public views be designed to minimize additional obstructions of public views and along scenic areas. Future development would be required to comply with the City’s updated development and design standards created in accordance with proposed policies ENV-9.3 and ENV-9.4. As a result, project-specific development would be designed to minimize obstruction to scenic vistas. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 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. 116
Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
Threshold 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact AES-2 THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON DOES NOT HAVE A DESIGNATED STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY AND THE PROJECT WOULD NOT DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.
There are no designated state scenic highways within or directly adjacent to the Planning Area (Caltrans 2018). Because there are no state scenic highways in the Planning Area, there would be no impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
There would be no impact.
Threshold 3: Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact AES-3 THE PROJECT WOULD IMPLEMENT POLICIES THAT WOULD REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT OF OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH
APPLICABLE ZONING AND OTHER REGULATIONS GOVERNING SCENIC QUALITY AND THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
CEQA Guidelines Section 21071 defines an urbanized area as an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
Has a population of at least 100,000 persons; or
Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.
The City does not meet the first criteria but does meet the second criteria (California Department of Finance 2022)1
. Therefore, this analysis considers whether the project conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The 2040 General Plan Update would implement the following proposed policies, which would minimize impacts on scenic quality from future development:
Policy LU-2.3: Objective Design Standards. Establish objective design standards that convey a high level of quality and character in new residential development. 1 The City of American Canyon has a population of approximately 21,758 persons. The City of Vallejo is an incorporated city which is contiguous to the City of American Canyon and has a population of approximately 121,558 persons. The combined population of both cities exceeds 100,000 persons.
117
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.1-10
Policy LU-2.4: Nonresidential Structures in Residential Neighborhoods. Require nonresidential structures in new development (e.g., recreation facilities, community meeting rooms and auditoriums, neighborhood commercial, services, and religious facilities) be designed to be compatible with and convey the visual and physical scale and character of residential structures. Policy LU-3.2: Unique Viewsheds. Accommodate commercial uses on Oat Hill that capitalize on the unique views of the Napa River, San Francisco Bay, and Napa Valley, site topography, and other natural characteristics.
Policy LU-5.2: Industrial Development Unified Character. Require new industrial development be designed to convey a unified character by inclusion of pedestrian walkways, arcades, an/or other visual elements to interconnect individual buildings; differentiation of building facades by materials, color, architectural details, and modulation of building volumes; use of consistent and well-designed public and informational signage; and installation of elements that define the key entries to the industrial district.
Policy LU-8.2: Objective Design and Development Standards. Require new development to comply with the City’s objective design and development standards to maintain long term, high-quality development.
Policy ENV-9.4: Visual Design. Require massing, height, and orientation of new development where allowable by the zoning standards adjacent to viewsheds and public views be evaluated and be sited and designed to minimize additional obstructions of public views to and along scenic areas.
Proposed policy LU-2.3 and policy LU-8.2 would require all new development to comply with objective design standards prepared by the City’s Community Development Department. Proposed policy LU-2.4 would require nonresidential structures be designed to be visually compatible with the surrounding character of residential structures. Proposed policy LU-3.2 would require commercial development to be sited and designed to emphasize the visual characteristics of its setting.
Proposed policy LU-5.2 would require industrial development to be designed to convey a unified character with surrounding development through implementation of visual elements to interconnect individual buildings. Furthermore, proposed policy ENV-9.4 would require massing, height, and orientation of new development adjacent to viewsheds and public views be evaluated and be sited and designed to minimize additional obstructions of public views to and along scenic areas.
All future development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to the proposed policies within the 2040 General Plan Update and the City’s objective design standards, which would be developed as required by the 2040 General Plan Update. As such, future development facilitated by the project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, 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. 118
Environmental Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
Threshold 4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Impact AES-4 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE
PROJECT COULD CREATE NEW SOURCES OF LIGHT OR GLARE THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
The City of American Canyon is a built out city with existing sources of light and glare. Future development facilitated by the project would introduce new sources of light or glare to American Canyon. New sources of light (security lighting, parking lot lighting, ornamental lighting, pedestrian scale lights, lighting from ground floor storefronts, and signs) would increase overall lighting levels in areas where increased development would occur.
Construction of future development would largely be limited to between 7:00a.m. and 7:00p.m., consistent with the City’s Noise Ordinance, codified as Chapter 8.12 in the American Canyon Municipal Code. However, temporary construction lighting may be necessary for specific developments during the early morning or evening hours for safety and security reasons, and could be approved by the City upon applicant request. The introduction of temporary construction lighting could potentially result in new sources of substantial light or glare that could adversely affect nighttime views. This lighting could be bright, which would be a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require construction lighting to be minimized and downward-facing.
The City is characterized by existing residential, commercial, and other land uses that already generate high ambient levels of lighting. Nonetheless, a potentially significant lighting impact could occur if lighting on future development is not properly installed to minimize light spillage. Future development facilitated by the project would adhere to the CALGreen Code Section 5.106.8 which stipulates new lighting must conform to standards that keep light generated on-site from leaving the site through the use of reflectors, shields, screen walls, and any other method which complies with the CALGreen Code’s intent to limit light pollution. Furthermore, future development facilitated by the project would adhere to existing American Canyon Municipal Code standards.
Section 19.14.040 prohibits bright or flashing lights to be visible off-site in industrial zones. Section
19.11.060 requires parking illumination in commercial districts, including security lighting, to be arranged to reflect from adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Furthermore, the 2040 General Plan includes the following policies that would minimize lighting impacts:
Policy LU-3.3: Unwanted Glare. Prevent glare with commercial lighting designed to illuminate within the property line in accordance with safety standards. Policy LU-5.4: Industrial Operations. Require, where industrial uses are located adjacent to residential neighborhoods, that their operations be controlled to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent property (e.g., noise, light and glare, and odors) and appropriate measures implemented to buffer these uses (e.g., setbacks, landscaping, and earthen berms).
Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would require the submittal of a photometric plan for future development to ensure that all exterior light fixtures are directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to minimize light spillage. Implementation of this mitigation, as well as the requirements in the Municipal Code and policies in the 2040 General Plan would minimize potentially significant light and glare impacts. 119
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.1-12
Mitigation Measures
AES-1 Construction Lighting Plan
Prior to nighttime construction, if needed for a particular project, project applicants shall submit a construction lighting plan to the City for review and approval. The construction lighting plan shall ensure that the minimum amount of lighting is used to meet safety requirements and ensure no spillover occurs to nearby sensitive uses. All lighting shall be directed downward and away from surrounding land uses.
AES-2 Operational Lighting Plan
Prior to discretionary project approval, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City for review and approval which demonstrates that all exterior light fixtures will be directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to prevent light spillage. The approved plan shall be incorporated into project design plans.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1 would require a construction lighting plan for projects that would require nighttime construction and Mitigation Measure AES-2 would require the preparation of a photometric plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2 would ensure that lighting and glare is minimized during construction and operation of future development. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, impacts would be less than significant.
120
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1
4.2 Air Quality
This section analyzes the potential effects on air quality related to implementation of the project, including impacts due to construction, operations, and impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
4.2.1 Setting
a. Climate and Topography
Air quality is affected by the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by climatic conditions that influence the movement and dispersion of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions, such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local and regional topography, influence the relationship between air pollutant emissions and air quality.
The Planning Area is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is comprised of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, southwestern Solano, and southern Sonoma Counties. SFBAAB covers approximately 5,540 square miles of complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and the San Francisco Bay. The SFBAAB is generally bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by the Coast Ranges, and on the east and south by the Diablo Range.
The climate within the SFBAAB is dominated by a strong, semi-permanent, subtropical high-pressure cell over the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Climate is also affected by the adjacent oceanic heat reservoir’s moderating effects. Mild summers and winters, moderate rainfall and humidity, and daytime onshore breezes characterize regional climatic conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). In summer, when the high-pressure cell is strongest and farthest north, fog forms in the morning and temperatures are mild. In winter, when the high-pressure cell is weakest and farthest south, occasional rainstorms occur.
Winter daytime temperatures in the SFBAAB typically average in the mid-50s, with nighttime temperatures averaging in the low 40s. Summer daytime temperatures typically average in the 70s, with nighttime temperatures averaging in the 50s. Precipitation varies in the region, but in general, annual rainfall is lowest in the coastal plain and inland valley, higher in the foothills, and highest in the mountains.
b. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. Ozone (O3) is generally considered to be regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are considered local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. Coarse particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are considered both regional and local pollutants. 121
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-2
Ozone
O3 is a highly oxidative unstable gas, produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between NOX and reactive organic gas (ROG)/volatile organic compounds (VOC).1 ROG are composed of non-methane hydrocarbons (with some specific exclusions), and NOX is composed of different chemical combinations of nitrogen and oxygen, mainly nitric oxide and NO2. NOX is formed during the combustion of fuels, while ROG are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic solvents. As a highly reactive molecule, O3 readily combines with many different components of the atmosphere. Consequently, high levels of O3 tend to exist only while high ROG and NOX levels are present to sustain the O3 formation process. Once the precursors have been depleted, O3 levels rapidly decline. Because these reactions occur on a regional rather than local scale, O3 is considered a regional pollutant. Groups most sensitive to O3 include children, the elderly, people with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2022a). Depending on the level of exposure, O3 can result in the following:
Cause coughing and sore or scratchy throat;
Make it more difficult to breathe deeply and vigorously and cause pain when taking a deep breath;
Inflame and damage the airways;
Make the lungs more susceptible to infection;
Aggravate lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis; and/or Increase the frequency of asthma attacks.
Carbon Monoxide
CO is a localized pollutant that is found in high concentrations only near its source. The major source of CO, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is the incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels by automobile traffic. Therefore, elevated concentrations are usually only found near areas of high traffic volumes. Other sources of CO include the incomplete combustion of petroleum fuels at power plants and fuel combustion from wood stoves and fireplaces during the winter. When CO levels are elevated outdoors, they can be of particular concern for people with some types of heart disease. People with heart disease have restricted blood flow which results in a lack of oxygen to the heart muscle. These people are especially vulnerable to the effects of CO when exercising or under increased stress, when the heart needs more oxygen than usual. In these situations, short-term exposure to elevated CO may result in reduced oxygen to the heart accompanied by chest pain also known as angina (USEPA 2022b).
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a by-product of fuel combustion; the primary sources are motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of NOx produced by combustion is nitric oxide, but nitric oxide reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating the mixture of nitric oxide and NO2, commonly called NOx.
NO2 is a reactive, oxidizing gas and an acute irritant capable of damaging cell linings in the respiratory tract. Such exposures over short periods can aggravate respiratory diseases, particularly 1 The California Air Resources Board defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this environmental impact report. 122
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
asthma, leading to respiratory symptoms (such as coughing, wheezing, or difficulty breathing), and increase hospital admissions and visits to emergency rooms. Longer exposures to elevated concentrations of NO2 may contribute to the development of asthma and potentially increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. People with asthma, as well as children and the elderly are generally at greater risk for the health effects of NO2 (USEPA 2022c). NO2 absorbs blue light and causes a reddish-brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of O3/smog and acid rain.
Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is included in a group of highly reactive gases known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of SO2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73 percent) and other industrial facilities (20 percent). Smaller sources of SO2 emissions include industrial processes such as extracting metal from ore and burning fuels with a high sulfur content by locomotives, large ships, and off-road equipment. Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2 (USEPA 2022d).
Particulate Matter
Suspended atmospheric PM10 and PM2.5 is comprised of finely divided solids and liquids such as dust, soot, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are directly emitted into the atmosphere as by-products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads.
Particulate matter is also created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and potential health effects associated with PM10 and PM2.5 can be very different. PM10 is generally associated with dust mobilized by wind and vehicles while PM2.5 is generally associated with combustion processes as well as formation in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM10 can cause increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, premature death, reduced visibility, surface soiling. For PM2.5, short-term exposures (up to 24-hours duration) have been associated with respiratory issues such as acute bronchitis and asthma attacks. In addition, PM2.5 can cause premature mortality, increased hospital admissions for heart or lung issues, and restricted activity days. These adverse health effects have been reported primarily in infants, children, and older adults with preexisting heart or lung diseases (California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2022a).
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engine exhaust that contains solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). More than 90 percent of DPM is less than one micron in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair) and thus is a subset of PM2.5. Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lungs (CARB 2022b).
TACs are different than criteria pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is 123
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-4
typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health.
TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. While DPM is a main source, TACs may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations may have an increased chance of developing cancer or experiencing other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced fertility), developmental, respiratory, and other health problems (USEPA 2020). c. Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The federal and state governments have authority under the federal and state Clean Air Acts (CAA) to regulate emissions of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for the protection of public health. An air quality standard is defined as “the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without harming public health” (CARB 2019a). The USEPA is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while CARB is the state equivalent in California. Federal and state AAQS have been established for six criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. AAQS are designed to protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as children under the age of 14, the elderly (over the age of 65), persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases (USEPA 2016). In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride (CARB 2019b). Table 4.2-1 lists the current National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as well as the CAAQS for regulated pollutants.
USEPA and CARB designate air basins or portions of air basins and counties as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each of the criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the AAQS standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The NAAQS (other than O3, PM10, PM2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over one- to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The CAAQS are not to be exceeded during a three-year period. The attainment status for Napa County is included in Table 4.2-2.
Pursuant to the CAA, USEPA designates areas as attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved. Whether an area meets the state and federal standards is based on air quality monitoring data. Areas that are unclassified have insufficient monitoring data for a specific pollutant to determine attainment or nonattainment status, although unclassified areas are typically treated as attainment for a specific pollutant. Since attainment and nonattainment designation is pollutant-specific, an area may be classified as nonattainment for one pollutant and attainment for another. Similarly, because the state and federal standards differ, an area could be classified as attainment for the federal standards of a pollutant and as nonattainment for the state standards of the same pollutant. The region is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal and state Ozone standards and the State PM10 and PM2.5 standards. The region is designated unclassified or attainment for all other ambient air quality standards (BAAQMD 2017a).
124
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
Table 4.2-1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time NAAQS CAAQS
Ozone 1-Hour – 0.09 ppm
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual − −
24-Hour − 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual − 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3
PM25 Annual 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3
24-Hour 35 µg/m3 −
Lead 30-Day Average − 1.5 µg/m3
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m3 −
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016; USEPA 2016
Table 4.2-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in Napa County Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified
PM2.5 Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Sources: BAAQMD 2017a
d. Current Ambient Air Quality
The Planning Area is located in Napa County, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD is responsible for achieving and maintaining the state and federal AAQS within its jurisdiction. BAAQMD operates a network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the SFBAAB. The monitoring stations aim to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether ambient air quality meets the state and federal standards. The monitoring station closest to the Planning Area is the Vallejo – 304 Tuolomne Street Station, approximately 4 miles south of the Planning Area. This station measures 8-hour O3, hourly O3, PM2.5, and NOX. The Napa – Valley College air monitoring station (located at Magnolia Drive and Route 221) in Napa is the closest air monitoring station to the Planning Area that measures PM10. This station is approximately 6.5 miles north of the Planning Area. Table 4.2-3 indicates the number of 125
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-6
days each federal and state standard was exceeded at the Vallejo – 304 Tuolomne Street and Napa – Valley College air monitoring stations. As shown in Table 4.2-3, O3 measurements exceeded federal or state O3 standards in all three observation years. PM10 measurements exceeded the State standard in 2020. PM2.5 measurements exceeded federal PM2.5 standards in 2020. No other state or federal standards were exceeded at these air monitoring stations.
Table 4.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant 2019 2020 2021
8 Hour Ozone (ppm), 8-Hour Average1 0.076 0.077 0.072
Number of Days of state exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 1 1 1
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.070 ppm) 1 1 1 Ozone (ppm), Worst Hour1 0.092 0.096 0.099
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 1 1
Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Worst-Hour * * *
Number of days of state exceedances (>20.0 ppm) * * *
Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm) - Worst Hour1 0.053 0.048 0.041
Number of days of state exceedances (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of federal exceedances (>0.10 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter 10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours2 37.5 122.9 22.9 Number of days of state exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 0 12 0
Number of days above federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours1 30.5 152.7 32.0 Number of days above federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 0 12 0 1 Measurements were taken from the Vallejo – 304 Tuolomne Street Station 2 Measurements taken from the Napa – Valley College Station. *Insufficient data available to determine the value.
Bold lettering indicates an exceedance of applicable AAQS.
Source: CARB 2022c
e. Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are facilities or land uses that include members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. According to BAAQMD, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals and residential areas (BAAQMD 2017b). The Planning Area contains residential sensitive receptors throughout the Planning Area. Schools within the city include American Canyon High School, Canyon Oaks Elementary School, Donaldson Way Elementary School, and American Canyon Middle School. 126
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) governs air quality in the United States. The CAA is administered by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) at the federal level, California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the State level, and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. The CAA of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the USEPA to establish the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that CO2 is an air pollutant covered by the CAA; however, no NAAQS have been established for CO2.
The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the federal CAA. The USEPA is also responsible for establishing NAAQS. NAAQS are required under the 1977 CAA and subsequent amendments. The USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside State waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards established by CARB.
USEPA Emission Standards for New Off-road Equipment
Before 1994, there were no standards to limit the amount of emissions from off-road equipment. In 1994, USEPA established emission standards for hydrocarbons, NOx, CO, and PM to regulate new pieces of off-road equipment. These emission standards came to be known as Tier 1. Since that time, increasingly more stringent Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 (interim and final) standards were adopted by USEPA, as well as by CARB. Each adopted emission standard was phased in over time.
New engines built in and after 2015 across all horsepower sizes must meet Tier 4 final emission standards. In other words, new manufactured engines cannot exceed the emissions established for Tier 4 final emissions standards.
b. State
California Clean Air Act
The California CAA allows the state to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the CAAQS.
CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts.
127
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-8
California State Implementation Plan
The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins, as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and control measures to attain the NAAQS. The USEPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.
State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan is the SIP for the SFBAAB. The 2017 Clean Air Plan accommodates growth by projecting the growth in emissions based on different indicators. For example, population forecasts adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are used to forecast population-related emissions. Through the planning process, emissions growth is offset by basinwide controls on stationary, area, and transportation sources of air pollution.
California Low-Emission Vehicle Program
CARB first adopted Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, the more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 SIP. In 2012, CARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Car Program, include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for both criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for new passenger vehicles.
California On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
CARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles.
Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. CARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others.
California Airborne Toxics Control Measure for Asbestos CARB has adopted Airborne Toxics Control Measures for sources that emit a particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology to minimize emissions. In July 2001, CARB approved an Air Toxic Control Measure for construction, grading, quarrying and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires application of best management practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. 128
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-9
The measure establishes specific testing, notification and engineering controls prior to grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than one acre in size. These projects require the submittal of a “Dust Mitigation Plan” and approval by the air district prior to the start of a project.
Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs.
Buildings often include materials containing asbestos. Asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present. The Planning Area is not located in an area likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos (California Department of Conservation 2000).
Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
USEPA and CARB tiered off-road emission standards only apply to new engines and off-road equipment can last several years. CARB has developed Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS), which are devices, systems, or strategies used to achieve the highest level of pollution control from existing off-road vehicles, to help reduce emissions from existing engines. VDECS are designed primarily for the reduction of diesel PM emissions and have been verified by CARB. There are three levels of VDECS, the most effective of which is the Level 3 VDECS. Tier 4 engines are not required to install VDECS because they already meet the emissions standards for lower tiered equipment with installed controls.
California Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
CARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of new state regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010, and 85 percent by 2020.
Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act
TACs in California are primarily regulated through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588), also known as the Hot Spots Act. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and has adopted the USEPA list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) as TACs.
Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program), a partnership between CARB and local air districts, issues grants to replace or retrofit older engines and equipment with engines and equipment that exceed current regulatory requirements to reduce 129
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-10
air pollution. Money collected through the Carl Moyer Program complements California’s regulatory program by providing incentives to effect early or extra emission reductions, especially from emission sources in environmental justice communities and areas disproportionately affected by air pollution.
The program has established guidelines and criteria for the funding of emissions reduction projects.
Within the SFBAAB, the BAAQMD administers the Carl Moyer Program. The program has established guidelines and criteria for the funding of emissions reduction projects. Within SFBAAB, the BAAQMD administers the Carl Moyer Program. The program establishes cost-effectiveness criteria for funding emission reductions projects, which under the final 2017 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines are $30,000 per weighted ton of NOX, ROG, and PM.
c. Regional and Local Regulations
Bay Area Clean Air Plan
The BAAQMD is responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other activities.
BAAQMD adopted the Bay Area Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (Bay Area Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017 as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD prepared the 2017 Clean Air Plan in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the ABAG. The goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to reduce regional air pollutants and climate pollutants to improve the health of Bay Area residents for the next decades. The 2017 Clean Air Plan aims to lead the region into a post-carbon economy, continue progress toward attaining all State and federal air quality standards, and eliminate health risk disparities from air pollution exposure in Bay Area communities. The 2017 Clean Air Plan defines an integrated, multi-pollutant control strategy that includes 85 distinct feasible control measures to reduce emissions for four categories:
ground-level ozone and its precursors, ROG and NOX; PM (primarily PM2.5, and precursors to secondary PM2.5); TACs, and greenhouse gas emissions. The control measures are categorized based on the economic sector framework and include stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, and water. To protect public health, the control strategy will decrease population exposure to PM and TACs in communities that are most impacted by air pollution with the goal of eliminating disparities in exposure to air pollution between communities. The control strategy will also protect the climate by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing a long-range vision of how the Bay Area could look and function in a year 2050 post-carbon economy.
The focus of control measures includes aggressively targeting the largest source of GHG, ozone pollutants, and PM emissions: transportation. This includes more incentives for electric vehicle infrastructure, off-road electrification projects such as Caltrain and shore power at ports, and reducing emissions from trucks, school buses, marine vessels, locomotives, and off-road equipment.
Additionally, the BAAQMD will continue to work with regional and local governments to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) through the further funding of rideshare, bike and shuttle programs. 130
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-11
BAAQMD Particulate Matter Plan
To fulfill federal air quality planning requirements, BAAQMD adopted a 2010 PM2.5 emissions inventory in 2012. The Bay Area Clean Air Plan also included several measures for reducing PM emissions from stationary sources and wood burning. In 2013, USEPA issued a final rule determining that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, suspending federal SIP planning requirements for the SFBAAB. Despite this USEPA action, the SFBAAB will continue to be designated as nonattainment for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard until BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to USEPA, and USEPA approves the proposed redesignation.
The SFBAAB is in nonattainment for the federal PM10 and federal PM2.5 standards. USEPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 ) to 35 µg/m3 in 2006, and
designated the Air Basin as nonattainment for the new PM2.5 standard effective December 14, 2009.
BAAQMD believes that it would be premature to submit a redesignation request and PM2.5 maintenance plan at this time. Therefore, BAAQMD will prepare a “clean data” SIP to address the required elements, including:
An emission inventory for primary PM2.5, as well as precursors to secondary PM formation; and Amendments to the BAAQMD’s New Source Review regulation to address PM2.5.
The SFBAAB will continue to be designated as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS until the Air District elects to submit, and the EPA approves, a redesignation request and maintenance plan.
At this time, BAAQMD does not have an applicable SIP with which the project would be required to comply. However, development facilitated by the project would be subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, in addition to regulations set forth by BAAQMD as discussed in the following section.
BAAQMD Regulations
Regulation 2, Rule 1 (Permits–General Requirements)
The BAAQMD regulates new sources of air pollution and the modification and operation of existing sources through the issuances of authorities to construct and permits to operate. Regulation 2, Rule 1 provides an orderly procedure which the project would be required to comply with to receive authorities to construct or permits to operate from the BAAQMD for new sources of air pollutants, as applicable.
Regulation 2, Rule 5 (New Source Review Permitting)
The BAAQMD regulates backup emergency generators, fire pumps, and other sources of TACs through its New Source Review (Regulation 2, Rule 5) permitting process. Although emergency generators are intended to be used only during periods of power outages, monthly testing of each generator is required. BAAQMD limits testing to no more than 50 hours per year. Each emergency generator installed is assumed to meet a minimum of Tier 2 emission standards (before control measures). As part of the permitting process, the BAAQMD limits the excess cancer risk from any facility to no more than 10 per 1-million-population for any permits that are applied for within a 2‐ year period, and would require any source that would result in an excess cancer risk greater than 1 per 1 million to install Best Available Control Technology for Toxics. 131
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-12
Regulation 6, Rule 1 (Particulate Matter–General Requirements) The BAAQMD regulates PM emissions through Regulation 6 by means of establishing limitations on emission rates, emissions concentrations, and emission visibility and opacity. Regulation 6, Rule 1 provides existing standards for PM emissions that could result during project construction or operation that the project would be required to comply with, as applicable, such as the prohibition of emissions from any source for a period or aggregate periods of more than 3 minutes in any hour which are equal to or greater than 20 percent opacity.
Regulation 6, Rule 6, (Particulate Matter–Prohibition of Trackout) One rule by which the BAAQMD regulates PM includes Regulation 6, Rule 6, which prohibits PM trackout during project construction and operation. Regulation 6, Rule 6 requires the prevention or timely cleanup of trackout of solid materials onto paved public roads outside the boundaries of large bulk material sites, large construction sites, and large disturbed surface sides such as landfills.
Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings)
This rule governs the manufacture, distribution, and sale of architectural coatings and limits the reactive organic gases content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during the construction.
Regulation 8, Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts)
Although this rule does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the reactive organic gases content of asphalt available for use during construction by regulating the sale and use of asphalt and limiting the ROG content in asphalt.
Regulation 1, Rule 301 (Odorous Emissions)
BAAQMD enforces odor control by helping the public to document a public nuisance. Upon receipt of a complaint, BAAQMD sends an investigator to interview the complainant and to locate the odor source if possible. BAAQMD typically brings a public nuisance court action when there are a substantial number of confirmed odor events within a 24-hour period. An odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over 3 years is considered to have a substantial effect on receptors. Several BAAQMD regulations and rules apply to odorous emissions. Regulation 1, Rule 301 is the nuisance provision that states that sources cannot emit air contaminants that cause nuisance to a number of persons. Regulation 7 specifies limits for the discharge of odorous substances where BAAQMD receives complaints from 10 or more complainants within a 90-day period. Regulation 7 also precludes discharge of an odorous substance that causes the ambient air at or beyond the property line to be odorous after dilution with 4 parts of odor-free air, and specifies maximum limits on the emission of certain odorous compounds.
Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants–Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines)
Under Regulation 9, Rule 8, the BAAQMD regulates the emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide from stationary internal combustion engines with an output rated by the manufacturer at more than 50 brake horsepower. As such, any proposed stationary source equipment (e.g., backup generators, fire pumps) which would be greater than 50 horsepower would require a BAAQMD permit under Regulation 9, Rule 8 to operate.
132
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-13
Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Hazardous Pollutants–Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing)
Under Regulation 11, Rule 2, the BAAQMD regulates emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, milling, and manufacturing and establishes appropriate waste disposal procedures. Any of these activities which pose the potential to generate emissions of airborne asbestos are required to comply with the appropriate provisions of this regulation.
Plan Bay Area
On October 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approved Plan Bay Area 2050. Plan Bay Area includes integrated land use and transportation strategies for the region and was developed through OneBayArea, a joint initiative between ABAG, BAAQMD, MTC, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Plan Bay Area is also considered the ABAG/MTC Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). In accordance with SB 743, Plan Bay Area included elements designed to encourage the type of landuse development to meet three primary objectives. First, Roadway Level of Service (LOS) could not be considered an environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Second, it introduced changes to VMT per capita as a determinant of environmental impact. Third, the use of VMT as an environmental impact in CEQA is considered a mechanism for achieving State and regional GHG reduction goals. As a regional land use plan, Plan Bay Area aims to reduce percapita GHG emissions through the promotion of more compact, mixed-use residential and commercial neighborhoods located near transit (ABAG; MTC 2021).
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards Ordinance 2024-03 The American Canyon Industrial Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards Ordinance applies to warehousing, logistics and distribution facilities in the City for which a Notice of Preparation is issued after March 1, 2024 under CEQA.The Ordinance requires zero or low emissions standards to various aspects of industrial commerce center(s), including zero-emission equipment, rooftop solar panels, and environmental compliance measures aimed at mitigating air quality degradation.
The Ordinance establishes the following standards to all warehousing, logistics, and distribution facilities in the City where a Notice of Preparation is issued after March 1, 2024, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It defines such facilities as those used for storing and consolidating manufactured goods, typically larger than 200,000 square feet with specific characteristics such as dock high loading doors and truck activities.
The following standards are applicable under the proposed Ordinance:
Zero Emission Operational Equipment: All on-site motorized operational equipment (forklifts, yard trucks, pallet jacks, etc.) must be zero-emission. This includes using electrical hookups instead of diesel-fueled generators for construction tools.
Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment: All outdoor cargo handling equipment must be zeroemission vehicles. Necessary charging stations or infrastructure for these vehicles must be included in each building.
Rooftop Solar Panels: Before issuing a business license, the City will ensure that rooftop solar panels are installed to supply 100% of the power needed for non-refrigerated parts of the facility, including parking areas.
133
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-14
Refrigerated Space Requirements: Facilities not committing to non-refrigerated use must install conduits during construction for potential refrigerated spaces. Electric plug-in units for refrigeration units must be installed at relevant dock doors.
Zero Emission Construction Equipment: All generators and diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment over 75 horsepower must be zero-emissions or have CARB Tier IV-compliant engines. Exemptions are possible if such equipment is not reasonably available.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Install infrastructure for Level 2 (or faster) EV charging stations for a percentage of employee parking spaces, increasing to 25% by 2030.
Air Filtration Systems: Install HVAC and/or HEPA air filtration systems in all warehouse facilities.
4.2.3 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 air quality if it would:
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
This analysis uses the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to evaluate air quality.
Construction Criteria Pollutant and TAC Emissions
Construction-related emissions are limited in duration but may still cause adverse air quality impacts. Construction would generate emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles (e.g., scrapers, loaders, dump trucks, etc.); ground disturbance during site preparation and grading, which creates fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances.
At this time, the pace, location, and duration associated with construction are not sufficiently detailed to quantify a specific emission impact, and thus it would be speculative to do so. Rather, construction criteria pollutant and TAC emissions impacts for the project are discussed qualitatively, pursuant to the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Operation Criteria Pollutant and TAC Emissions
Based on plan-level guidance from the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, long-term operational criteria pollutant and TAC emissions associated with implementation of the project are discussed qualitatively by comparing the project to the 2017 Clean Air Plan goals, policies, and control measures. In addition, comparing the rate of increase of plan VMT and population is recommended by BAAQMD for determining significance of criteria pollutants. If the project does not meet either criterion, then impacts would be potentially significant. 134
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-15
Odors
The impact analysis qualitatively evaluates the types of land uses facilitated by the project to evaluate whether major sources of anticipated odors would be present and, if so, whether those sources would likely generate objectionable odors. According to the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the project-level threshold for odor sources is if they result in five confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years within the screening distance for land uses shown in Table 3-3 of the guidelines (BAAQMD 2017b). The plan-level threshold states to identify the location and include policies to reduce the impacts of existing or planned sources of odors. None of the land uses identified as odor sources in the 2017 guidelines are planned as part of the project. The significance thresholds for odor impacts are qualitative in nature. Specifically, an odor-generating source with five or more confirmed complaints in the new source area per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact on receptors within the screening distances provided in the guidelines.
Methodology
Consistency with Air Quality Plan
The applicable air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which identifies measures to:
Reduce emissions and reduce ambient concentrations of air pollutants; and Safeguard public health by reducing exposure to the air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution.
The project would be consistent with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan if it would support the Clean Air Plan goals, include applicable control measures, and not disrupt or hinder implementation of Clean Air Plan. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan is the basis for determining whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan.
Construction Criteria Pollutant and TAC Emissions Thresholds BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines have no plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutants emissions. However, they do include the individual project-level thresholds for construction-related and long-term operational emissions of air pollutants. These thresholds represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the SFBAAB‘s existing air quality conditions. Construction emissions associated with implementation of the project are discussed qualitatively to evaluate potential air quality impacts.
For health risks associated with TAC and PM2.5 emissions, the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state a project would result in a significant impact if the any of the following thresholds are exceeded:
Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; Increased cancer risk of > 10.0 in a million;
Increased non-cancer risk of > 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.3 µg/m3 annual average
135
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-16
In addition, a project would have a cumulatively considerably impact associated with health risks from TAC and PM2.5 emissions if the aggregate total emissions of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius of the fenceline of the source plus the project’s contribution exceed any of the following thresholds:
Non-compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; Increased cancer risk of > 100.0 in a million;
Increased non-cancer risk of > 10.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute); or Ambient PM2.5 increase of > 0.8 µg/m3 annual average
Operational Criteria Pollutant and TAC Emissions Thresholds BAAQMD’s 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain specific operational plan-level significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Plans must show the following over the planning period:
Consistency with current air quality plan control measures VMT or vehicle trips increase is less than or equal to the plan’s projected population increase If a plan can demonstrate consistency with both of these criteria, then impacts are considered less than significant. The same thresholds listed above for construction health risks from TAC and PM2.5 would apply to operation.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact AQ-1 THE PROJECT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BAAQMD’S 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN.
IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with CEQA Guidelines thresholds should demonstrate that a project:
Supports the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan; Includes applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan; and Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures.
The following includes a discussion of consistency with these criteria for the project. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution and protecting the climate in the Bay Area. For consistency with climate planning efforts at the State level, the control strategies in the 2017 Clean Air Plan are based on the same economic sector framework used by CARB, which encompass stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-GHG pollutants (such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons). Table 4.2-4 identifies applicable control measures and discusses project consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
136
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-17
Table 4.2-4 Clean Air Plan Control Measures Consistency Analysis Control Measures Consistency
Stationary Sources
SS18: Basin-Wide Combustion Strategy. Stabilize and
then reduce emissions of GHGs, criteria air pollutant and toxic emissions from stationary combustion sources
throughout the Air District by first establishing carbon intensity caps on major GHG sources, and then adopting
new rules to (1) reduce fuel use on a source-type by
source-type basis, and (2) evaluate alternatives to
decarbonize abatement devices.
SS21: New Source Review for Air Toxics. Propose
revisions to Air District Rule 2-5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants, based on OEHHA’s 2015 Health
Risk Assessment Guidelines and CARB/ CAPCOA’s 2015
Risk Management Guidance. Revise the Air District’s
health risk assessment trigger levels for each toxic air contaminant using the 2015 Guidelines and most recent
health effects values.
Consistent. Stationary sources are regulated directly by BAAQMD, which routinely adopts/revises rules or
regulations to implement the Stationary Source control
measures to reduce stationary source emissions.
Therefore, any new stationary sources associated with
development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with BAAQMD’s regulations.
Transportation
TR2: Trip Reduction Programs. Implement the regional
Commuter Benefits Program (Rule 14-1) that requires
employers with 50 or more Bay Area employees to
provide commuter benefits. Encourage trip reduction
policies and programs in local plans, e.g., general and specific plans, while providing grants to support trip
reduction efforts. Encourage local governments to require mitigation of vehicle travel as part of new development approval, to adopt transit benefits ordinances in order to reduce transit costs to employees, and to develop
innovative ways to encourage rideshare, transit, cycling, and walking for work trips. Fund various employer-based trip reduction programs.
Consistent: The Mobility Element includes proposed
policies that encourage trip reduction programs. The
following proposed goals and policies aim to reduce VMT through implementation of policies such as:
Policy MOB-1.5: Sidewalks. Require sidewalks on all
arterial and collector streets. Where feasible,
separate sidewalks from streets on arterials and
collectors with landscaping including a tree canopy to
create shade.
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-1.22: Non-motorized Circulation
System. Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes
and bikeways between places.
Policy MOB-6.1: VMT Thresholds. Maintain and
periodically reevaluate established 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). Continue to maintain LOS standards for
the purposes of planning and designing street
137
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-18
Control Measures Consistency
improvements on Green Island Road, Devlin Road,
and American Canyon Road.
Policy MOB 5.10 : Transit Supportive Development.
Ensure that new development is designed to make
transit a viable transportation choice for residents,
including neighborhood centers or focal points with
sheltered bus stops; locating medium and highdensity development on or near streets served by transit wherever feasible; and link neighborhoods to
bus stops by continuous sidewalks or pedestrian
paths. (Source: Existing Policy 3.11)
Policy MOB 5.12 : SB 375 Implementation.
Coordinate with other agencies to implement
regional transit solutions as part of the SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy. Source: Existing
Policy 3.12)
TR13: Parking Policies. Encourage parking policies and
programs in local plans, e.g., reduce minimum parking
requirements; limit the supply of off-street parking in transit-oriented areas; unbundle the price of parking
spaces; support implementation of demand-based pricing
(such as “SF Park”) in high-traffic areas.
Consistent: Development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with existing City parking standards and standards regarding EV parking in compliance with
the latest CALGreen standards.
Energy
EN1: Decarbonize Electricity Production. Engage with
PG&E, municipal electric utilities and CCEs to maximize the amount of renewable energy contributing to the
production of electricity within the Bay Area as well as electricity imported into the region. Work with local
governments to implement local renewable energy
programs. Engage with stakeholders including dairy farms, forest managers, water treatment facilities, food
processors, public works agencies and waste management
to increase use of biomass in electricity production.
EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand. Work with local
governments to adopt additional energy-efficiency
policies and programs. Support local government energy
efficiency program via best practices, model ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners to develop
messaging to decrease electricity demand during peak
times.
Consistent. Measures EN1 and EN2 are intended to
decrease energy use as a means of reducing adverse air
quality emissions. Development facilitated by the project would comply with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards (or most recent version of the California
Building Code) requirements that commercial buildings be electric-ready and standards for expanded solar and
battery storage and residential development under three stories include rooftop photovoltaic panels. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated every three years and the project would be subject to the 2022 California Building Standards when they go into effect on January 1, 2023. In addition, 2040 General Plan proposed policies
listed in Section 4.15, Effects Found to be Less than
Significant, under Section 4.15.2, Energy, would
encourage energy efficiency and reduction.
Buildings
BL1: Green Buildings. Collaborate with partners such as KyotoUSA to identify energy-related improvements and
opportunities for on-site renewable energy systems in
school districts; investigate funding strategies to
implement upgrades. Identify barriers to effective local implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24) statewide
building energy code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement. Work with ABAG’s BayREN
program to make additional funding available for energyrelated projects in the buildings sector. Engage with additional partners to target reducing emissions from
specific types of buildings.
Consistent: Measures BL1 and BL2 focus on working with
local governments to adopt the best GHG emissions
control practices and policies. As discussed above for the Energy and Climate control measures, development
facilitated by the project would comply with 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards’ (or most recent version of the California Building Code) requirements that commercial
buildings be electric-ready and standards for expanded
solar and battery storage and residential development
under three stories include rooftop photovoltaic panels.
The Building Energy Efficiency Standards are updated
every three years and the project would be subject to the 2022 California Building Standards when they go into
138
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-19
Control Measures Consistency
BL2: Decarbonize Buildings. Explore potential Air District rulemaking options regarding the sale of fossil fuel-based space and water heating systems for both residential and commercial use. Explore incentives for property owners to replace their furnace, water heater or natural-gas
powered appliances with zero-carbon alternatives. Update Air District guidance documents to recommend that
commercial and multi-family developments install ground source heat pumps and solar hot water heaters.
effect on January 1, 2023. In addition, 2040 General Plan proposed policies listed in Section 4.15, Effects Found to be Less than Significant, under Section 4.15.2, Energy, would encourage energy efficiency and reduction.
Waste Management Control Measures
WA4: Recycling and Waste Reduction. Develop or identify and promote model ordinances on community-wide zero
waste goals and recycling of construction and demolition materials in commercial and public construction projects Consistent. Measure WA4 include strategies to increase
waste diversion rates through efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Development facilitated by the project would comply with Assembly Bill (AB) 341, which requires
mandatory commercial recycling for businesses that
generate four cubic yards or more of commercial solid
waste per week. For further discussion of waste diversion, please refer to Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems.
BAAQMD has identified examples of how a project or plan may disrupt or delay local government implementation of these control measures, such as a project that may preclude an extension of a transit line or bike path, or that propose excessive parking beyond parking requirements.
Development within the project area would not disrupt or delay local government implementation of control measures. Overall, the project would be consistent with the three criteria for evaluating consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and 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.
Threshold 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact AQ-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS DURING CONSTRUCTION OR OPERATIONS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Construction
Future development and mobility improvements associated with the project would involve constructions activities that result in air pollutant emissions. Specifically, construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate pollutant emissions.
These construction activities would create emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants, particularly during site preparation and grading. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROGs and NOX emissions, generated by construction equipment, would depend on the 139
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-20
quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. Dust emissions can lead to both nuisance and health impacts. According to the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, PM2.5 is the greatest pollutant of concern during construction.
The BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines have no plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutant emissions that would apply to the project. However, the guidelines include project-level thresholds for construction emissions. If an individual project’s construction emissions fall below the project-level thresholds, the project’s impacts on regional air quality would be individually and cumulatively less than significant. The BAAQMD has also identified feasible fugitive dust control measures for construction activities. These Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are recommended for all projects. In addition, the BAAQMD and CARB have regulations that address the handling of hazardous air pollutants such as lead and asbestos, which could be aerially disbursed during demolition activities. BAAQMD rules and regulations address both the handling and transport of these contaminants. Construction of development facilitated by the project would temporarily increase air pollutant emissions, possibly creating localized areas of unhealthy air pollution concentrations or air quality nuisances, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
However, the following 2040 General Plan proposed policy would reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities by requiring future development to implement construction management plans in accordance with BAAQMD standards:
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.
Best available control measures and best management practices in accordance with BAAQMD would include the following:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times a day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacture’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper conditions prior to operation. 140
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-21
Post a publicly visible sign with the applicant’s site superintendent telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
With adherence to 2040 General Plan proposed Policy ENV-11.2, cumulative construction impacts associated with violating an air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation in terms of criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.
Operation
The greatest source of criteria pollutants in American Canyon is and would continue to be from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway traffic. The project emphasizes reducing VMT on area roadways through emphasizing greater mixed use in the area and proximity of residents to jobs. The following 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies would encourage active transportation modes, such as walking and bicycling, as well as the use of public transit, thereby reducing vehicle trips and associated criteria air pollutants in the Planning Area:
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-1.20: 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 141
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-22
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-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-6.1: VMT Thresholds. Maintain and periodically reevaluate established 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). 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 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: Support Transit Operation Improvements. Work with NVTA to expand both ACT and VINE fixed route services, improve operations, and support dedicated bus lanes and/or queue-jump lanes on SR 29 to enhance bus operations by reducing travel time for transit vehicles.
Policy MOB-5.7: Future Transit Links. Consider orienting transit system expansion to link with other potential future commuter bus and/or rail services.
According to the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the threshold for criteria air pollutants and precursors requires a comparison of the percent increase in VMT and population. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the net increase in population versus VMT for cumulative plus project buildout conditions based on data provided by GHD (2022).
Table 4.2-5 Comparison of VMT and Population Increase due to the Project Scenario Existing (2024) Cumulative Plus Project Buildout a Net Increase Population (number of residents) 21,758 33,248 11,490
Percentage change 53%
Total Citywide VMT 562,492 568,813 6,321
Percentage change 1%
Note:
a. Cumulative conditions with the project is based on Year 2040 citywide residential and commercial growth, as well as projected regional land use growth
Source: GHD 2022
142
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-23
The project emphasizes changing land uses to concentrate growth and jobs and services near residences to reduce singular vehicle trips. As shown in Table 4.2-5, the City’s population increase would be proportionately greater than the VMT increase. If a plan’s VMT increase, under the cumulative condition, is less than or equal to the plan’s projected population increase, impacts to operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. As such, impacts from project operation 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 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Impact AQ-3 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECTS LASTING LONGER THAN TWO MONTHS OR LOCATED WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS COULD EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT MAY ALSO EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO OPERATIONAL SOURCES OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
Construction
The project would result in Diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off-road, heavyduty diesel equipment associated with site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, clearing), building construction, and other construction activities. The potential cancer risk from inhaling DPM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential non-cancer2 health impacts (CARB 2022b).
Generation of DPM from construction typically occurs in a single area for a short period. Future construction would occur over approximately seventeen years (assuming a buildout year of 2040), but use of diesel-powered construction equipment in any one area would likely occur for no more than a few years for an individual project and would cease when construction is completed in that area. It is impossible to quantify risk without identified specific project details and locations.
The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk.
Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the development (OEHHA 2015). BAAQMD uses an exposure period of 30 years (BAAQMD 2016). 2 Non-cancer risks include premature death, hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma, increased respiratory symptoms, and decreased lung function (CARB 2021a). 143
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-24
The maximum PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would occur during demolition, site preparation and grading activities, which would only occur for a portion of the overall estimated timeframe of seventeen years for individual project construction. These activities would typically last for approximately two weeks to two years, depending on the extent of grading and excavation required (e.g., projects with subterranean parking structures or geological constraints require additional grading as compared to those without). PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities such as building construction and architectural coating would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst-case condition for the total construction period. This would represent between 0.1 to 7 percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation.
Development facilitated by the project would also be required to be consistent with the applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD regulatory requirements and control strategies, and the CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, which are intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities. Additionally, development facilitated by the project would be required to adhere to General Plan proposed Policy ENV-11.2, which requires implementation of BAAQMD best available control measures and best management practices that would reduce construction-related TACs. According to the OEHHA, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or placed within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, which could result in potentially significant risk impacts.
There is the potential that development associated with the project could last more than two months or be within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. As such, these projects could exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute). Therefore, construction impacts from TAC emissions would be potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require the preparation of a Construction Health Risk Assessment for future projects and would mitigate potential construction-related TACs exposure impacts to a less than significant level.
Operation
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include methodology for jurisdictions to evaluate the potential impacts from placing sensitive receptors in proximity to major air pollutant sources. For assessing community risk and hazards for siting a new receptor, sources within a 1,000-foot radius of a project site are typically considered. Sources are defined as freeways or high-volume roadways with 10,000 vehicles or more per day and permitted sources (BAAQMD 2017b).
Development facilitated by the project could accommodate a net increase of approximately 3,379 additional residential units and approximately 5.7 million square feet of commercial, retail, hotel, industrial, warehouse, and research and development uses. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan in accordance with land use and zoning regulations would not site land uses that typically generate TAC, such as industrial land uses near residential land uses. Additionally, if the proposed commercial, retail, warehouse, research and development, and industrial uses site a new stationary TAC source, like an emergency generator, then said stationary source would be required to receive a permit from BAAQMD. The permitting process would ensure that the stationary source does not present a health risk to existing nearby sensitive receptors. 144
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-25
Furthermore, there are several high-volume roadways in American Canyon, including SR 29, American Canyon Road, Flosden Road, and Newell Drive. The 2040 General Plan may facilitate locating sensitive receptors in proximity to high-volume roadways and freeways. To minimize health risks to sensitive receptors located near stationary sources and/or high-volume roadways, the 2040 General Plan includes the following proposed goal and policies that aim to improve air quality and minimize exposure to TAC:
Goal ENV-11: Improve air quality and minimize human exposure to toxic air pollutants. 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.
In addition, the following proposed policy would ensure that industrial uses would not generate unacceptable levels of air emissions, including TAC.
Policy LU-5.5: Prevent Adverse Impacts. Control, through the permit process, the development of industrial uses that use, store, produce, or transport hazardous materials in threshold planning quantities, generate unacceptable levels of noise or air emissions, or result in other impacts that adversely impact American Canyon.
The primary mobile source of TACs within the plan area is truck idling and use of off-road equipment. New warehousing operations could generate substantial DPM emissions from off-road equipment use and truck idling. In addition, some warehousing and industrial facilities may include use of transport refrigeration units for cold storage. Such potential future uses could generate an increase in DPM that would contribute to cancer and noncancer health risk at nearby sensitive receptors. Without project-specific analysis, health risk impactsfrom nonpermitted sources associated with development of industrial and commercial land uses under the proposed plan would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would require project applicants to prepare an operational health risk assessment for the siting of new sensitive receptors within 500 feet of major sources of TAC (high-volume roadways with 10,000 vehicles or more per day).
Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would require applicants for land uses that would generate substantial diesel truck travel to determine the appropriate level of operational health risk assessment require.
With the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-3, the project’s impacts related to TAC emissions would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the City a construction health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations for any development project that has at least one the following characteristics:
The project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Project construction would last longer than two months. 145
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-26
Project construction would not utilize equipment rated USEPA Tier 4 (for equipment of 50 horsepower or more); construction equipment fitted with Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more); or alternative fuel construction equipment.
If the HRA determines that construction will exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the HRA shall provide mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant, including but not limited to requiring the use of Tier 4 engines, Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters, and/or alternative fuel construction equipment.
AQ-2 Reduce Operational Toxic Air Contaminants Near Sensitive Receptors For new sensitive receptors proposed within 500 feet of a major sources of TAC (high-volume roadways with 10,000 vehicles or more per day), the project applicant shall prepare an operational health risk assessment for the City’s review and approval. If TAC exposure at new sensitive receptor sites would exceed BAAQMD health risk thresholds, require the project applicant include mechanical air filtration or other measures to reduce health risk exposure to acceptable levels.
AQ-3 Conduct Operational Health Risk Assessment
Prior to permit approval for industrial, warehousing, or commercial land uses that would generate at least 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 or more trucks with diesel-powered transport refrigeration units per day, the applicant shall submit an operational health risk assessment (HRA) or submit proof that an HRA is not required in accordance with BAAQMD thresholds to the City for review and approval. If required by the City, the operational HRA shall be prepared in accordance with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and BAAQMD requirements, and mitigated to an acceptable level. Typical measures to reduce risk impacts may include, but are not limited to:
Restricting idling on-site beyond Air Toxic Control Measures idling restrictions, as feasible. Electrifying warehousing docks.
Truck Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable trailer spaces.
Requiring use of newer equipment and/or vehicles.
Restricting off-site truck travel through the creation of truck routes.
The operational HRA shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
Significance After Mitigation
Construction and operational related TACs exposure impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3.
Threshold 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact AQ-4 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CREATE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE. IMPACTS RELATED TO ODORS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
Construction of development and mobility improvements would require the operation of construction equipment and asphalt paving, which could generate oil, diesel fuel, and asphalt odors. 146
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-27
The odors would be limited to the construction period and would be temporary. Therefore, odors emitted from the construction of individual future projects under the project would be less than significant.
As stated in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, land uses typically producing objectionable odors include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food manufacturing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, and confined animal facilities. Development facilitated by the 2040 General Plan would include commercial, retail, hotel, industrial, warehouse, and research and development uses. Most of these land uses typically do not produce objectionable odors; however, certain commercial and industrial uses would have the potential to generate nuisance odors.
Therefore, individual projects under the 2040 General Plan could generate potentially significant objectionable odors unless analyzed and mitigated. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would require project applicants to evaluate potential odor impacts and implement odor control measures to the extent feasible. Therefore, 2040 General Plan impacts related to operational odor impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. In addition, other odors from development of the 2040 General Plan include odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and idling; however, odors from vehicles are not stationary and are dispersed throughout the roadway network and would result in less than significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-4 Reduce Operational Odor Impacts
Prior to discretionary approval by the City, if it is determined by the City that a development project has the potential to emit nuisance odors beyond the property line, the project applicant shall prepare an odor management plan and submit it to the City for review and approval. Facilities that have the potential to generate nuisance odors include, but are not limited to:
Wastewater treatment plants
Composting, green waste, or recycling facilities
Fiberglass manufacturing facilities
Painting/coating operations
Large-capacity coffee roasters
Food-processing facilities
The odor management plan shall demonstrate compliance with the latest BAAQMD screening distances and guidelines. The odor management plan shall identify the best available control technologies for toxics (T-BACTs) that will be utilized to reduce potential odors to acceptable levels, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include but are not limited to scrubbers (i.e., air pollution control devices) at the industrial facility. T-BACTs identified in the odor management plan shall be identified as mitigation measures in the documents prepared for the development project and/or incorporated into the project’s site plan.
Significance After Mitigation
Odor impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4 to reduce operational odor impacts.
147
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.2-28
This page intentionally left blank.
148
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1
4.3 Biological Resources
This section summarizes the biological resources in the Planning Area and analyzes the potential effects on biological resources related to implementation of the project.
4.3.1 Setting
This following information was obtained through a desktop literature review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Protected Resources Application; the Napa County General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and Napa County vegetation mapping.
a. Land Cover
The Planning Area contains substantial urban development. There are, however, areas of relatively undisturbed natural habitats in the Planning Area. Descriptions of the vegetation communities in the Planning Area are listed below, based on vegetation mapping in Napa County (Napa County 2019). Figure 4.3-1 shows the vegetation communities and land covers within the Planning Area.
Grassland
Grassland is a relatively common biotic community within the Planning Area. Three common grassland assemblages exist within Napa County: annual grassland, native grassland, and serpentine (bunchgrass) grassland. Of these assemblages, annual grassland is found within the Planning Area.
Vernal pools are found in some grassland areas (County of Napa 2007).
Oak Woodland
Oak woodland occurs across a broad range of elevations, on gentle and steep slopes. There are 13 vegetation types (alliances or associations) within the oak woodland group. Six of these are dominated by evergreen oak species, six are dominated by deciduous oak species, and one is a mixture of deciduous and evergreen oaks (County of Napa 2007). Within the Planning Area, oak savannahs are protected via the American Canyon Municipal Code, Chapter 19.24.
Riparian Woodland
Within the Planning Area, riparian areas are associated with the American Canyon Creek, Rio Del Mar Creek, North Slough, and No Name Creek. Riparian woodland habitat can provide shade, habitat, and nesting sites for resident birds, migratory birds, and other wildlife such as reptiles. In addition, riparian habitat can serve as rearing habitat for anadromous fish. 149
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-2
Figure 4.3-1 Vegetation Communities in American Canyon
150
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3
Wetlands, Streams, and Reservoirs
Wetlands are highly productive habitats for plants and wildlife. Coastal wetlands and riparian wetlands (linear areas adjacent to streams, creeks and drainages) are especially productive for plants, because recurrent flooding in these areas delivers influxes of soil and nutrients. This highly productive biotic community provides shelter and food sources for resident and migratory wildlife.
The structural complexity and existence of native vegetation in these areas enhance the productivity of wetlands for wildlife species, by providing diverse sites for foraging and breeding (Napa County 2007). According to the USFWS NWI, wetlands in and surrounding the Planning Area consist of estuarine and marine habitats, freshwater ponds, freshwater emergent wetlands, and riverine habitats (USFWS 2022a).
Open water habitats, such as streams and reservoirs, are highly diverse in size, type, water chemistry, and hydrologic functions. The Napa River is a prominent aquatic feature in the Planning Area (County of Napa 2007).
Eucalyptus
American Canyon contains eucalyptus groves near the northwestern border of its city limits. The eucalyptus groves are surrounded by industrial development, a school, and public facilities.
Eucalyptus are non-native and invasive in California.
b. Special Status Species
For the purposes of this analysis, special-status species include the following:
Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), including proposed and candidate species.
Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
Species designated as Fully Protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and Species of Special Concern or Watch List by CDFW.
Plant species protected by the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (State Rare). Plant species with California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B.
Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, or HCPs/NCCPs.
Queries of the USFWS’s IPaC, CNDDB, and CNPS’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding special-status species and sensitive vegetation communities known or with potential to occur in the Planning Area.
Queries of the CNPS inventory and CNDDB database included the Cuttings Wharf U. S. Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and surrounding 11 quadrangles (Cordelia, Sonoma, Napa, Mt. George, Fairfield North, Fairfield South, Vine Hill, Benicia, Mare Island, Petaluma Point, and Sears Point). The results of these scientific database queries are provided as Appendix B of this EIR. There are 51 plant species and 44 animal species with potential to occur within the Planning Area which meet at least one of the criteria for a special status species, described above (Appendix B). These include the federally endangered Suisun thistle (Cicuta maculate var. bolanderi), the federally threatened and State species of special concern California red-legged frog 151
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-4
(rana draytonii), the federally threatened green sturgeon – southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris pop. 1), and the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) (Appendix B). c. Nesting Birds
Suitable nesting sites for avian species protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), including shrubs, trees, man-made structures, and the ground surface occur throughout the Planning Area. Some species prefer vegetation for nesting, including ornamental vegetation and some species can be found nesting in man-made structures, such as power poles or the eaves of buildings. Nesting birds may occur during the breeding season (generally February 1 through August 31 but beginning January 1 for some raptor species). d. Sensitive Vegetation Communities and Critical Habitat Various habitats support special status species. The City identifies the following habitats as sensitive, and the American Canyon Municipal Code provides enhanced protection for these habitats and subsequently, species within these habitats:
Riparian corridors
Coastal saltmarsh
Mixed hardwood forest
Oak savannah
Vernal pool
Wetland habitats
The following five sensitive natural communities occur within the 12 quadrangles search range (Appendix B):
Coastal Brackish Marsh
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Vernal Pool
Serpentine Bunchgrass
In addition, NOAA identifies critical habitat for green sturgeon – southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris pop. 1) in the waters adjacent to the western border of the Planning Area (NOAA 2022).
UWFWS identifies critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (rana draytonii) and the vernal pool fairy shrimp within the City limits (Branchinecta lynchi) (USFWS 2022a). e. Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.
Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.
152
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5
The habitats within the linkages do not necessarily need to be the same or of the same quality as the habitats that are being linked. Rather, the linkage merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary inhabitation by ground-dwelling species. Typically, habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Depending upon the species using a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower-moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources spaced sufficiently close together to permit travel along a route in a short period of time.
Migration corridors can be bordered on either site by urban land uses, and within the City limits these corridors often include barriers to movement such as developed areas and roads. Substantial habitat connectivity occurs generally to the east and north of the City’s sphere-of-influence (SOI), as well as within the City’s riparian corridors. As defined by CDFW, the eastern portion of American Canyon, including the City’s SOI and urban limit line are within essential habitat connectivity areas.
However, due to the existing level of development, the area is considered less permeable, meaning it is more difficult for animals to migrate in these areas (CDFW 2022).
4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
FESA is intended to prevent the unlawful “take” of listed fish, wildlife, and plant species. Section 9(a)(1)(B) specifically states take of species listed as threatened or endangered is unlawful. Take is defined as any action that would harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, shoot, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species. Section 10 of the FESA allows the USFWS to issue incidental take permits if take of a listed species may occur during otherwise lawful activities.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) requires a Habitat Conservation Plan for an incidental take permit on non-federal lands. Section 7 of the FESA requires federal agencies to aid in the conservation of listed species, and to ensure that the activities of federal agencies will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat. The USFWS and NOAA are responsible for administration of the FESA and have regulatory authority over federally listed species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds, and prohibits the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds. The USFWS has regulatory authority for the MBTA.
Clean Water Act
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and USACE implementing regulations, has jurisdiction over the placement of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Congress enacted the CWA “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” In practice, the boundaries of certain waters subject to USACE jurisdiction under Section 404 have not been fully 153
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-6
defined. Previous regulations codified in 1986 defined “waters of the United States” as traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, all other waters that could affect interstate or foreign commerce, impoundments of waters of the United States, tributaries, the territorial seas, and adjacent wetlands.
USACE jurisdictional limits are typically identified by the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) or the landward edge of adjacent wetlands, where present. The OHWM is the “line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area” (33 Code of Federal Regulations 328.3).
The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The USFWS also has responsibility for project review under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
This statute requires that all federal agencies consult with USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and the State’s wildlife agency (CDFW) for activities that affect, control, or modify streams and other water bodies.
Under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and the CDFW review applications for permits issued under Section 404 and provide comments to the SACE about potential environmental impacts.
b. State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The CDFW is responsible for administration of the California Endangered Species Act. For projects that may affect both a State and federal listed species, compliance with the FESA will satisfy the CESA, provided the CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with the CESA.
Take is defined in the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities under CFGC Section 2081. Project proponents wishing to obtain incidental take permits can do so through a permitting process outlined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 783. Additionally, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the CFGC, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively.
Projects that may result in a take of a California listed species require a take permit under the CESA.
The federal and State acts lend protection to species considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Unlike the FESA, the CESA prohibits the take of not just listed endangered or threatened species, but also candidate species (species petitioned for listing). 154
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
The CESA defines an endangered species as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.
A threatened species is defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.
Candidate species are defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.
Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating:
…no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.
California Fish and Game Code - Nesting Bird Protection According to CFGC Section 3503, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird [except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)]. Sections 3503 and 3513 prohibit the taking of specific birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season. Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 overlaps with the federal MBTA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird.
California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and allows the California Fish and Wildlife Commission to designate plants as rare or endangered. Currently, 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites; changes in land use; and in certain other situations. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA permitting procedures (CFG Code Section 2081) would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as 155
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-8
"Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference between regulations and protocols for plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.
Clean Water Act Section 401, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering Section 401 of the CWA. In addition, where Federal jurisdiction is not asserted (for example, due to a lack of connectivity to a Relatively Permanent Waters [RPW] and Traditional Navigable Waters [TNW]), RWQCB assert jurisdiction over “waters of the State” pursuant to Section 13263 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. In this event, the SWRCB may issue general Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) regarding discharges to “isolated” waters of the State if limiting criteria are not exceeded (Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Dredged or Fill Discharges to Waters Deemed by the USACE to be Outside of Federal Jurisdiction) or project-specific WDRs.
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present. However, in the absence of statewide guidance, each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.
The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.
California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.
Pursuant to CFGC Section 1600, CDFW has authority over all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state, and requires any person, state or local governmental agency, or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that would “substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material 156
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9
containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake” that supports fish or wildlife resources.
A stream is defined as a “body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (CCR, Title 14 Section 1.72). A Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required for any project that would result in an adverse impact to a river, stream, or lake. CDFW jurisdiction typically extends to the top of the bank and out to the outer edge of adjacent riparian vegetation if present. However, CDFW can take jurisdiction over a body of flowing water and the landform that conveys it, including water sources and adjoining landscape elements that are byproducts of and affected by interactions with flowing water without regard to size, duration, or the timing of flow.
CDFW Special Animals List
Special-status wildlife species are those species included on the CDFW “Special Animals” list (CDFW 2020). “Special Animal” is a general term that refers to all the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. The species on this list generally fall into one or more of the following categories:
Officially listed or proposed for listing under the CESA and/or FESA State or Federal candidate for possible listing
Taxa that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380
Taxa considered by the Department to be a Species of Special Concern Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, declining throughout their range, or have a critical vulnerable stage in their life cycle that warrants monitoring Populations in California that may be on the periphery of a taxon’s range but are threatened with extirpation in California
c. Local Regulations
American Canyon Municipal Code
The American Canyon Municipal Code Title 14, Title 18, and Title 19 implement measures designed to protect biological resources. Chapter 14.28 implements requirements designed to reduce substantial adverse effects to water quality in the City. These include the following:
Implementation of erosion control measures.
Implementation construction and operational Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce protect water quality.
Prohibition of discharge, modification, deposition, construction, or placement of material into a water course.
Chapter 18.40 sets design standards for development. Specifically, Section 18.40.110 sets the following requirements to protect trees:
Requires existing trees to be preserved unless otherwise approved by City Council as part of site development plans.
157
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-10
Mandates removed trees shall be replaced on-site unless an exception is approved by City Council.
Chapter 19.24 requires protection, preservation, and enhancement of biological habitats, plants, and wildlife within the City. Specifically, Chapter 19.24 requires the following:
Requires the preparation of a biological assessment report for developments which have the potential to substantially adversely affect biological resources. Limits permitted uses in riparian corridors to development including underground utilities, flood control, fish and wildlife management, water supply projects, education and research, nonmotorized recreation, trails, bridges, and resource consumptive uses as provided in the California Fish and Game Code and Title 14 of the California Administrative Code. Prohibits development and grading that alters the biological integrity of a riparian corridor unless no feasible alternative exists, and damaged habitat is replaced with habitat of equal value.
Requires development permitted in riparian corridors to minimize the removal of vegetation, erosion, sedimentation, and runoff; provide for sufficient passage of native and anadromous fish; minimize wastewater discharges and entrapment; prevent groundwater depletion or substantial interference with surface and subsurface flows; minimize the channelization of streams or other water courses, provide wildlife corridors to adjacent open space; buffer habitat areas, and use open space or conservation easements to protect sensitive species and their habitats.
Requires development in wetlands areas and areas of existing or potential vernal pools be designed and sited to preserve these areas in their natural conditions. Requires habitat replacement for any wetland or vernal pool habitat removed. Requires development of areas designated as oak savannah, mixed hardwood forest, and coastal saltmarsh maintain a buffer from the edge of the designated habitat, maintain connectivity to surrounding habitats, and limit public access in areas where damage to habitats may occur.
4.3.3 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 biological resources if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
158
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Methodology
The assessment of potential impacts to biological resources were informed based on a review of readily available information from the USFWS, CDFW, and the NOAA. As a programmatic document, this EIR presents an assessment of the potential for adoption of the 2040 General Plan to result in significant impacts to biological resources. Because the EIR is a long-term document intended to guide actions for many years into the future, this analysis relies on program-level and quantitative evaluation.
Threshold 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact BIO-1 THE PROJECT COULD HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, AS WELL AS MITIGATION MEASURES BIO-1 AND BIO-2, WOULD ENSURE DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES.
THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
As discussed in Section 4.3.1, Setting, there are 51 plant species and 44 animal species with potential to occur within the Planning Area. In addition, the Planning Area contains riparian corridors, coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, and oak savannah which could serve as habitat for special status species. Critical habitat is also present within the Planning Area. Potentially significant effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species would occur if temporary disturbance during construction or permanent development facilitated by the project would result in incremental direct loss of habitat, fragmentation of larger open areas and wildlife corridors, or disturbance of special status wildlife or vegetation species.
As shown in Figure 4.3-1, the City is primarily developed and vegetation communities primarily exist outside of the City’s SOI. The American Canyon Municipal Code requires project-specific development to minimize the potential for impacts to biological resources. Section 19.24.030 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires a biological assessment report to be prepared by a qualified professional chosen by the City for project-specific development which has the potential to adversely affect biological resources. Section 19.24.040 of the American Canyon Municipal Code prohibits residential, commercial, and industrial use in riparian corridors. Section 19.24.060 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires development in areas that encompass oak savannah, mixed hardwood forest, and coastal saltmarsh to maintain buffers from these habitats as 159
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-12
recommended by the biological assessment report, maintain connectivity to surrounding habitats, and limit public access in areas where habitat damage may occur. In addition, the 2040 General Plan would include the following proposed policies that would help protect habitats:
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.
Compliance with the American Canyon Municipal Code and implementation of proposed policies in the 2040 General Plan would help ensure habitats are identified prior to project-specific siting and habitat areas are protected where applicable. However, the Municipal Code is only applicable to “significant biological habitats” defined as riparian corridors, coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, oak savannah, vernal pools and wetlands (as defined by USFWS), and special-status species may occur in other habitats such as grasslands and eucalyptus stands, or less suitable habitats within the planning area. The Municipal Code also does not specify what level of mitigation would be required if impacts are unavoidable within significant biological habitats. Regionally occurring special-status species such as Crotch’s bumblebee (Bombus crotchii, state candidate endangered), monarch butterfly (Danaus Plexippus, federal candidate), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, California species of special concern), and western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata, federally proposed threatened) may occur outside these significant biological habitats and development facilitated by the project could result in indirect impacts. Given the City does not have substantial contiguous, high-quality habitat to support special status species in previously developed and disturbed areas of the City and existing American Canyon Municipal Code requirements designed to limit the disturbance of habitat, including critical habitat, development facilitated by the project would not result in significant direct impacts to special status species due to habitat loss, but may impact special status-species if individuals are present during vegetation removal or construction.
Therefore, impacts to special-status species would be potentially significant.
Construction activities associated with development and mobility improvements facilitated by the project could potentially result in impacts to birds and raptors. Nesting birds and raptors have the potential to nest on buildings, in shrubs and trees, in rocky outcrops, and on bare ground throughout the City. Vegetation, including street trees, in the City can provide refuge cover from predators, perching sites, and favorable nesting habitat. Future development and mobility improvements facilitated by the project must comply with the requirements of the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, which include obtaining prior authorization by the USFWS before the take of a protected migratory bird species occurs, subject to USFWS requirements, and prohibiting the take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs.
However, existing City regulations do not mandate procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, it is possible development facilitated by the project could result in disturbance to birds or raptors and potentially violate the MBTA and Sections 3503, 3503.5, and/or 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code. Impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant. 160
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
In addition, construction activities associated with development facilitated by the project could result in indirect impacts to bats, such as the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis). Bats have the potential to roost in buildings and trees, including street trees. If construction or demolition activities associated with development facilitated by the project would alter, demolish, or remove buildings or trees it could result in the disturbance of bat roosts. Therefore, impacts to special-status bats would be potentially significant.
Indirect impacts to special status species which utilize riparian corridors and other aquatic habitat could occur because of future development and mobility improvements facilitated by the project.
The federal Clean Water Act requires compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit for projects disturbing more than one acre during construction. Compliance with the Construction General Permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (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 to implement appropriate BMPs to prevent the discharge of sediment. If a project would not be required to submit a SWPPP pursuant to the NPDES Construction General Permit, the City requires implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for any project subject to a grading 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. In addition, the 2040 General Plan would include the following proposed policies that would minimize water quality impacts:
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. 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).
Compliance with these regulatory requirements would minimize indirect impacts to special status species that utilize aquatic and riparian habitat. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant indirect impacts to special status species within aquatic or riparian habitat.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Biological Resources Screening and Assessment
For projects proposed within undeveloped parcels, the City shall require project applicants to engage a qualified biologist (having the appropriate education and experience level) to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources, inclusive of special-status plants and animals, sensitive vegetation communities (including vernal 161
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-14
pools and other wetlands), and critical habitat. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a projectspecific biological analysis to document the existing biological resources within a project footprint plus a minimum buffer of 500 feet around the project footprint, as is feasible, and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The project-specific biological analysis shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities, critical habitats, and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. If the project would have the potential to impact these resources, the following mitigation measures (mitigation measures BIO-2 through BIO-8) shall be incorporated, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Pending the results of the project-specific biological analysis, design alterations, further technical studies (e.g., protocol surveys) and consultations with the USFWS, CDFW, and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below may be completed as part of the project-specific biological analysis where suitable habitat is present.
BIO-2 Special-status Plant Species Surveys
If the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) determines that there is potential for significant impacts to federally or state-listed plants or regional population level impacts to species with a CRPR of 1B or 2B from project development, a qualified biologist shall complete surveys for special-status plants prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other construction activity (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the blooming season prior to development permit approval. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map with the use of Global Positioning System unit. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current protocols established by the CDFW, USFWS, and the local jurisdictions if said protocols exist. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the City, and the CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate, for review and/or approval.
BIO-3 Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation If federally and/or state-listed or CRPR 1B or 2 species are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-2), and would be directly impacted, or there would be a population-level impact to non-listed sensitive species, then the project shall be re-designed to avoid impacting those plant species, where feasible. Rare and listed plant occurrences that are not within the immediate disturbance footprint but are located within 50 feet of disturbance limits shall have bright orange protective fencing installed at least 30 feet beyond their extent, or other distance as approved by a qualified biologist, to protect them from harm.
BIO-4 Habitat Restoration Plan
If federally or state-listed plants or non-listed special-status CRPR 1B and 2 plant populations identified during special status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-2), cannot be avoided, and will be impacted by development, all impacts shall be mitigated by the applicant at a ratio not lower than 1:1 per acre of impact (and 1:1 per tree), and to be determined by the City (in coordination with CDFW and USFWS as and if applicable) for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a restoration plan to the City for review 162
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15
and approval prior to City approval of project plans. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed plant species will be impacted, the restoration plan shall be submitted to the USFWS and/or CDFW for review, and federal and/or state take authorization may be required by these agencies.) The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
1. Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted by habitat type).
2. Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type[s] and area[s]) of habitat to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat type[s] to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved).
3. Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership status, existing functions, and values).
4. Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan).
5. Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule).
6. Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than quarterly monitoring for the first year (performance standards, target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved, annual monitoring reports).
7. Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to be, at a minimum, at least 80 percent survival of container plants and 30 percent relative cover by vegetation type or other industry standards as determined by a qualified restoration specialist.
8. An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in meeting success criteria.
9. Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation.
10. Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
11. All nursery plants used in restoration shall be inspected for sudden oak death.
BIO-5 Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys
If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) determine that suitable habitat may be present for federal or state listed, candidate, or proposed species, protocol habitat assessments/surveys shall be completed in accordance with current CDFW and/or USFWS protocols prior to issuance of any construction permits. If, through consultation with the CDFW and/or USFWS, it is determined that protocol habitat assessments/surveys are not required, the applicant shall complete and document this consultation and submit it to the City prior to issuance of any construction permits. Each protocol has different survey and timing requirements. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring they understand the protocol requirements and shall hire a qualified biologist to conduct protocol surveys. (Note: if a federally and/or state-listed wildlife species will be impacted, federal and/or state take authorization may be required by USFWS and CDFW.)
163
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-16
BIO-6 Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization The following measures shall be applied to impacted aquatic and/or terrestrial animal species identified by the project-specific Biological Resources Screening and Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
1. Ground disturbance shall be limited to the minimum necessary to complete the project. A qualified biologist shall flag the project limits of disturbance. Areas of special biological concern within or adjacent to the limits of disturbance shall have highly visible orange construction fencing installed between said area and the limits of disturbance.
2. All projects occurring within/adjacent to aquatic habitats (including riparian habitats and wetlands) shall be completed between April 1 and October 31, if feasible, to avoid impacts to sensitive aquatic species. Any work outside these dates would require project-specific approval from the City and may be subject to regulatory agency approval.
3. All projects occurring within or adjacent to sensitive habitats that may support federally and/or state-listed endangered/threatened species shall have a CDFW- and/or USFWS-approved biologist present during all initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities. Once initial ground disturbing/vegetation clearing activities have been completed, said biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, said biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.
4. No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.
5. If at any time during project construction an endangered/threatened species enters the construction site or otherwise may be impacted by the project, all project activities shall cease.
A CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist shall document the occurrence and consult with the CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to determine whether it was safe for project activities to resume.
6. For all work occurring in areas where endangered/threatened species may be present and are at risk of entering the project site during construction, the applicant shall install exclusion fencing along the project boundaries prior to start of construction (including staging and mobilization).
The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/USFWS-approved biologist.
This fence shall consist of solid silt fencing placed at a minimum of three feet above grade and two feet below grade and shall be attached to wooden stakes placed at intervals of not more than five feet. The applicant shall inspect the fence weekly and following rain events and high wind events and shall be maintained in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.
7. All vehicle maintenance/fueling/staging shall occur not less than 100 feet from any riparian habitat or water body, including seasonal wetland features. Suitable containment procedures shall be implemented to prevent spills. A minimum of one spill kit shall be available at each work location near riparian habitat or water bodies.
8. No equipment shall be permitted to enter wetted portions of any affected drainage channel or wetland.
9. At the end of each workday, excavations shall be secured with a cover or a ramp provided to prevent wildlife entrapment.
164
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17
10. All trenches, pipes, culverts, or similar structures shall be inspected for animals prior to burying, capping, moving, or filling.
11. Considering the potential for the project to impact federally and state-listed species and their habitat, the City shall contact CDFW and USFWS to identify mitigation banks within Napa County during project development. If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) determine that impacts to federally and state threatened or endangered species habitat are expected, City and/or applicant shall explore species-appropriate mitigation bank(s) servicing the region for purchase of mitigation credits.
12. Prior to grading and construction in natural areas of containing suitable upland habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey as determined necessary during the biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) . The survey should include a transect survey over the entire project disturbance footprint (including access and staging areas), and mapping of suitable habitat features, such as burrows, that are potentially suitable for listed species. If any listed species are detected, no work shall be conducted until the individual(s) leaves the site of their own accord, unless federal and/or state “take” authorization has been issued for relocation. Typical preconstruction survey procedures, such as burrow scoping and burrow collapse, cannot be conducted without federal and state permits. If any life stage of listed species are found within the survey area, the City and/or applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine the appropriate course of action to comply with the FESA and CESA, if permits are not already in place at the time of construction.
BIO-7 Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification For all future development under the 2040 General Plan, construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 – September 15), involving removal of vegetation (e.g. trees and shrubs), abandoned structures, or other nesting bird habitat, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 5 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a buffer around the construction site at a distance determined by a qualified biologist, including staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radii surrounding the work area shall be the following: 250 feet for non-raptors and 1,000 feet for raptors. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the American Canyon region. If construction lapses for seven days or longer, the qualified biologist shall conduct another focused survey before project activities are reinitiated. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by the biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site. The qualified biologist shall observe the active nest to establish a behavioral baseline of the adults and nestlings, if present. The qualified biologist shall continuously monitor the active nests to detect signs of disturbance and behavioral change as a result of construction impacts, such as noise, vibration, odors, or worker/equipment motion. If signs of disturbance and behavioral changes are observed, the qualified biologist shall cease work causing those changes and may contact CDFW or USFWS for guidance. The buffer shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified of the buffer zone as an “Ecologically Sensitive Area” and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the 165
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-18
pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.
Project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to September 15, and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.
BIO-8 Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal For all future development under the 2040 General Plan that will require the removal of large trees (greater than 20 inches in diameter at five feet from the ground), abandoned buildings, bridges, or other suitable roosting structure identified during the Biological Resources Screening and Assessment (Mitigation Measure BIO-1), prior to tree and/or structure removal, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused survey of all trees and structures to be removed or impacted by construction activities to determine whether active roosts of special-status bats are present on site.
Tree or structure removal shall be planned for either the spring or the fall, and timed to ensure both suitable conditions for the detection of bats and adequate time for tree and/or structure removal to occur during seasonal periods of bat activity exclusive of the breeding season, as described below.
Trees and/or structures containing suitable potential bat roost habitat features shall be clearly marked or identified. If no bat roosts are found, the results of the survey will be documented and submitted to the City within 30 days of the survey, after which no further action will be required.
If roosts are present, the biologist shall prepare a site-specific roosting bat protection plan to be implemented by the contractor following the City’s approval. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. The plan shall incorporate the following guidance as appropriate:
When possible, removal of trees/structures identified as suitable roosting habitat shall be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, including the following:
Between September 1 and about October 15, or before evening temperatures fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs. Between March 1 and April 15, or after evening temperatures rise above 45 degrees Fahrenheit and/or no more than 0.5 inch of rainfall within 24 hours occurs. If a tree/structure must be removed during the breeding season and is identified as potentially containing a colonial maternity roost, then a qualified biologist shall conduct acoustic emergence surveys or implement other appropriate methods to further evaluate if the roost is an active maternity roost. Under the biologist’s guidance, the contractor shall implement measures similar to or exceeding the following:
If it is determined that the roost is not an active maternity roost, then the roost may be removed in accordance with the other requirements of this measure. If it is found that an active maternity roost of a colonial roosting species is present, the roost shall not be disturbed during the breeding season (April 15 to August 31). Tree removal procedures shall be implemented using a two-step tree removal process. This method is conducted over two consecutive days and works by creating noise and vibration by cutting non-habitat branches and limbs from habitat trees using chainsaws only (no excavators 166
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-19
or other heavy machinery) on day one. The noise and vibration disturbance, together with the visible alteration of the tree, is very effective in causing bats that emerge nightly to feed to not return to the roost that night. The remainder of the tree is removed on day two. Prior to the demolition of vacant structures within the project site, a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused habitat assessment of all structures to be demolished. The habitat assessment shall be conducted enough in advance to ensure the commencement of building demolition can be scheduled during seasonal periods of bat activity (see above), if required. If no signs of day roosting activity are observed, no further actions will be required. If bats or signs of day roosting by bats are observed, a qualified biologist will prepare specific recommendations such as partial dismantling to cause bats to abandon the roost, or humane eviction, both to be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity, if required. If the qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a large number of bats (large hibernaculum), bat boxes shall be installed near the project site. The number of bat boxes installed will depend on the size of the hibernaculum and shall be determined through consultation with CDFW. If a maternity colony has become established, all construction activities shall be postponed within a 500-foot buffer around the maternity colony until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the young have dispersed. Once it has been determined that the roost is clear of bats, the roost shall be removed immediately.
BIO-9 Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures
If the results of the project-specific biological analysis (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) determine that suitable habitat may be present for Crotch’s bumble bee, a habitat assessment shall be performed by a qualified biologist knowledgeable and experienced with Crotch’s bumblebee and the habitat in which they occur. If the biologist determines that suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumblebee is present, a focused survey shall be performed during the species’ active flight period for Crotch’s bumblebee and peak blooming period of nectar and pollen sources (May 1 through July 31). The Crotch’s bumblebee survey shall be conducted on foot and shall encompass the entirety of a project site and focus on areas that allow for the highest probability of detection, such as high abundance nectar or pollen sources and rodent burrows that may be used for breeding and nesting. If Crotch’s bumblebee is determined to be present, the project proponent shall map the locations of the observed bumblebee, areas of abundant nectar or pollen sources, and any active nesting sites. A report summarizing the results of the habitat assessment and focused survey (if required) shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities. Further, consultation with the CDFW will be necessary in the event Crotch’s bumblebee was observed within a project site and an Incidental Take Permit, in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act, may be required prior to initiating any ground disturbance on the site. If Crotch’s bumble are not listed and no longer candidates for listing at the time of project implementation, this mitigation measure would not be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-9 would reduce potential impacts to special-status species, nesting birds, and roosting bats to a less than significant level by requiring Biological Resources Screening and Assessments, avoidance and minimization, habitat restoration, and preconstruction surveys.
167
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-20
Threshold 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold 3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Impact BIO-2 DEVELOPMENT AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO ADOPTED CITY REGULATIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT, SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES, AND WETLANDS. COMPLIANCE WITH THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT, MS4 STORM WATER PERMIT, AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE, AND PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2040
GENERAL PLAN WOULD ENSURE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO RIPARIAN HABITAT, SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES, AND WETLANDS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The City identifies riparian corridors, coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, and oak savannah as sensitive areas. These areas support a range of wildlife species. Riparian areas in particular shade aquatic habitats and maintain cooler water temperatures for wildlife within riparian areas. In addition, the CNDDB identifies coastal brackish marsh, northern claypan vernal pools, northern costal salt marsh, northern vernal pool, and serpentine bunchgrass as sensitive natural communities, which could occur in the Planning Area (Appendix B). According to the USFWS NWI, wetlands in and surrounding the City consist of estuarine and marine habitats, freshwater ponds, freshwater emergent wetlands, and riverine habitats (USFWS 2022a). Potentially significant effects on riparian or other sensitive natural communities would occur if future development or mobility improvements facilitated by the project result in the loss of habitat or degradation of habitat, such as impacts to water quality. Potentially significant impacts to state or federally protected wetlands could occur if development or mobility improvements facilitated by the project would result in the loss or degradation of existing wetlands.
Mobility improvements facilitated by the project, including improvements to roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, are not likely to result in the removal of riparian or other sensitive natural community habitat, as they would occur in areas of the City that are developed and surrounded by existing development. Development facilitated by the project would be subject to American Canyon Municipal Code requirements to protect riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities.
Section 19.24.040 of the American Canyon Municipal Code restricts residential, commercial, and industrial uses in riparian corridors and limits the potential for new development to substantially affect riparian areas. In addition, Section 19.24.040 requires development permitted in a riparian corridor to minimize the removal of vegetation, erosion, sedimentation, and runoff; minimize wastewater discharges and entrapment; buffer habitat from the built environment; and locate and design roads and utilities to avoid conflicts with biological resources, habitat areas, and wildlife corridors. Section 19.24.030 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires a biological assessment report to be prepared for project-specific development that could result in potentially significant impacts to riparian habitat, wetlands, or vernal pools. This biological assessment would identify and provide mitigation for potentially significant impacts, in accordance with City review processes.
Section 19.24.050 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires new development to be sited to preserve wetlands, including the retention of sufficient natural space. If preservation of wetlands for project-specific development is infeasible, the project applicant would be required to replace the 168
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-21
habitat consistent with the provisions of Section 19.24.050. Future development would not result in substantial adverse effects due to the direct removal of wetlands, as development facilitated by the project would primarily occur outside of substantial wetland habitat, and any wetland habitat that would be removed would be replaced in accordance with City requirements.
Section 19.24.060 of the American Canyon Municipal Code requires development of areas that encompass oak savannah, mixed hardwood forest, and coastal saltmarsh to maintain a buffer from the edge of the designated habitat zone as recommended by a biological assessment report, maintain connectivity to surrounding habitats, and limit public access in areas where damage to habitat may occur.
In addition, Section 14.28.110 of the American Canyon Municipal Code prohibits discharge into a watercourse; modification of the natural flow of water; deposition or removal of material from a watercourse; alteration of watercourse; or the placement of loose or unconsolidated material in or adjacent to a watercourse. Implementation of Section 14.28.110 would minimize the potential for development facilitated by the project to fill or hydrologically interrupt a wetland or damage water quality in riparian habitat. Development in state and/or federally protected wetlands would potentially be subject to United States Army Corps of Engineers, CDFW, and RWQCB permitting requirements.
In addition, the 2040 General Plan would include the following proposed policies that would protect riparian, creek, and wetland habitats:
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. Policy: ENV-2.1: Creek Preservation. Maintain American Canyon Creek within its natural waterway.
Policy ENV-2.2: Existing Streams and Creeks. As required by wetland resource permitting agencies, require new development to incorporate existing streams and creeks into proposed development plans in their natural state to prevent degradation, erosion, or sedimentation and help impart a unique character to the city.
Development and mobility improvements facilitated by the project would be subject to applicable federal, State, and City requirements, which would minimize potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands. Through compliance with these regulations, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands. These impacts would be less than significant.
In addition, as discussed in Impact BIO-1, development and mobility improvements facilitated by the project would be required to comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit, MS4 Storm Water Permit, American Canyon Municipal Code, and proposed policies in the 2040 General Plan. Compliance with these regulations would ensure future development facilitated by the project would not substantially degrade water quality in wetlands riparian habitats. These indirect impacts would be less than significant.
169
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-22
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Impact BIO-3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPEDE THE MOVEMENT
OF NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES, OR WITH ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED POLICIES IN THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE.
Habitat connectivity is generally located to the east and north of the Planning Area, as well as within the riparian corridors in the Planning Area. Potentially significant effects on wildlife movement would occur if temporary disturbance during construction or permanent new development facilitated by the project would result in the fragmentation or degradation of wildlife corridors or nursery sites. Mobility improvements facilitated by the project, including improvements to roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, would occur in areas of the City that are developed and generally are surrounded by existing development and urban disturbance. As a result, mobility improvements facilitated by the project would not result in potentially significant impacts to wildlife movement because they would not obstruct wildlife corridors or fragment habitat such that wildlife movement is restricted.
Due to the existing level of development, the Planning Area is not within an essential connectivity area as defined by CDFW (CDFW 2022). Development facilitated by the project would generally occur in areas of the City that are developed or surrounded by existing development and urban disturbance. The 2040 General Plan includes the following proposed policy to establish a network of open spaces along the City’s natural drainages and riparian corridors:
ENV-1.5: Open Space Network. Establish a network of open spaces along the city's natural drainages and riparian corridors and link significant biological habitats by restricting alteration to these resources and limiting land uses. Any recreational use of these areas shall be designed to avoid damaging sensitive habitat areas.
In addition, Section 19.24.040 of the American Canyon Municipal Code restricts uses in riparian corridors, which would minimize the potential impacts on riparian habitat. Furthermore, Section
19.24.040 requires project-specific development permitted within riparian corridors provide for sufficient passage of native and anadromous fish and provide wildlife corridors to adjacent open spaces.
The 2040 General Plan also includes the following proposed policy, which would minimize impacts from any future development or mobility improvements on sensitive habitat that could provide opportunities for wildlife movement:
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 170
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-23
potential for impacts on these resources, and include measures to reduce any identifiable impacts.
With implementation of the proposed policies in the 2040 General Plan, as well as compliance with the American Canyon Municipal Code, development facilitated by the project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This impact 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 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Impact BIO-4 THE PROJECT WOULD IMPLEMENT PROPOSED POLICIES DESIGNED TO PROTECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. DEVELOPMENT AND MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THESE POLICIES, AS WELL AS AMERICAN CANYON MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS TO PROTECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The Planning Area has trees within its developed and disturbed areas, as well as its surrounding parks and open space. Section 18.40.110 of the American Canyon Municipal Code provides regulations governing trees in the City. Pursuant to Section 18.40.110, existing trees are required to be preserved unless otherwise approved by City Council as part of a development plan. Any tree removed as part of project-specific development is required to be replaced on-site at a minimum size of a 24-inch box of the same species, unless specifically approved by the City Council. In addition, the 2040 General Plan would implement the following proposed policies related to trees:
Policy ENV-1.4: Native Species. Encourage the use of native vegetation where possible. Policy ENV-1.6: Urban Forest. Build upon existing streetscapes and develop an urban forest within the City’s streets, parks, and open space to provide avian habitat, sequester carbon monoxide emissions, foster pedestrian activity, and provide shade. Policy ENV-1.7: Trees for Pollinators. Support sustainable pollinator species (i.e.: bees, birds, butterflies) in American Canyon by planting low-water use pollinator-supportive trees in streets, parks, open spaces, and private development.
Policy ENV-6.12: Climate Adaptation. Mitigate the effects of heat reflecting from paved trail surfaces by incorporating shade trees along the south and west sides of trails wherever possible.
In addition, the Environment, Parks, and Recreation Element in the 2040 General Plan has additional policies that would protect biological resources in the Planning Area. Development and mobility improvements facilitated by the project would adhere to the requirements of the American Canyon Municipal Code and the proposed polices in the 2040 General Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. This impact would be less than significant. 171
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.3-24
Mitigation Measure
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact BIO-5 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISION OF AN
ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR OTHER APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.
There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plans in the Planning Area. Therefore, development and improvements in the Planning Area would not conflict with such plans. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
There would be no impact and no mitigation would be required. 172
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1
4.4 Cultural Resources
This section summarizes the potential cultural resources in the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts on cultural resources due to the project.
4.4.1 Setting
a. Cultural Setting
The cultural setting for the Planning Area is presented broadly in three overviews: Prehistoric, Ethnographic, and Historic. The prehistoric and historic overviews describe human occupation before and after European contact. The ethnographic overview in the Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources provides a synchronic “snapshot” of traditional Native American culture.
Prehistory
The Planning Area lies in the San Francisco Bay Area archaeological region (Milliken et al. 2007, Moratto 1984). Milliken et al. (2007) generally divided the prehistoric chronology of the Bay Area into five periods: The Early Holocene (8,000-3,500 before common era [BCE]), Early Period (3,500- 500 BCE), Lower Middle Period (500 BCE to CE 430 common era [CE]), the Upper Middle Period (430-1050 CE), and the Late Period (1050 CE-contact).
It is presumed that early Paleoindian groups lived in the area prior to 8,000 BCE; however, no evidence for this period has been discovered in the San Francisco Bay Area (Milliken et al. 2007).
Sites dating to this period may be submerged or deeply buried as a result of rising sea levels and widespread sediment deposition that has occurred since the Terminal Pleistocene (Byrd et al. 2017).
For this reason, the Terminal Pleistocene Period (ca. 11,700-8,000 BCE) is not discussed here.
The earliest intensive study of the archaeology of the San Francisco Bay Area began with N.C. Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, between 1906 and 1908. He documented over 400 shell mounds throughout the area. Nelson was the first to identify the Bay Area as a discrete archaeological region (Moratto 1984).
Early Holocene (8,000-3,500 BCE)
Archaeological evidence from the early Holocene is limited as sites dating to this period are likely buried under Holocene alluvial deposits (Moratto 1984; Ragir 1972). The available data suggests that the Early Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized by a mobile forager pattern and the presence of millingslabs, handstones, and a variety of leaf-shaped projectile points. Two archaeological sites (CA-CCO-696 and CA-CCO-637) dating to this period have been identified in Contra Costa County at the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The earliest date for the Early Holocene comes from the CA-CCO-696, dating to approximately 7000 BCE (Milliken et al. 2007).
Early Period (3,500-600 BCE)
The Early Period saw increased sedentism with the introduction of new ground stone technologies (i.e., mortar and pestle), an increase in regional trade, and the first cut shell beads. The earliest evidence for the use of the mortar and pestle in the San Francisco Bay Area dates to 3800 BCE and comes from archaeological site CA-CCO-637. By 1500 BCE, mortars and pestles had almost completely replaced millingslabs and handstones, indicating a greater reliance on processing nuts, 173
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-2
especially acorns. Faunal evidence from various sites during this person indicate a diverse faunal exploitation pattern based on the presence mussel and other shellfish, marine mammals, terrestrial mammals, and birds within sites dating to this period (D’Oro 2009).
The earliest cut bead horizon is also associated with this period. Rectangular Haliotis spp. (abalone) and Callianax biplicate (formerly Olivella biplicata) (Vellanoweth et al. 2014) (snail) beads have been identified at several Early Period sites, including CA-CCO-637, CA-SCL-832 in Sunnyvale, and CA-ALA307 in Berkeley (Milliken et al. 2007). These early examples of cut beads were recovered from mortuary contexts.
Lower Middle Period (500 BCE-CE 430)
The Lower Middle Period saw numerous changes from the previous period. The presence of chipped stone points and bone tools became typical. Rectangular shell beads (common during the Early Period) disappear completely and are replaced by split-beveled and saucer Olivella beads. Haliotis spp. ornaments, bone tools and ornaments, and basketry awls also became typical, indicating the development of coiled basketry technology. Mortars and pestles continued to be the dominant grinding tool (Luby and Gruber 1999; Milliken et al. 2007).
Evidence for the Lower Middle Period in the Bay Area comes from sites such as the Emeryville shell mound (CA-ALA-309) and Ellis Landing (CA-CCO-295). The Emeryville shell mound (CA-ALA-309) is one of the largest shell mounds in the San Francisco Bay Area and contains multiple cultural sequences. The lower levels of the site, which date to the Middle Period, contain flexed burials with bone implements, chert bifaces, charmstones, and oyster shells (Moratto 1984).
Upper Middle Period (CE 430-1050)
Around CE 430, Olivella saucer bead trade networks that had been established during earlier periods collapsed and over half of known sites occupied during the Lower Middle Period were abandoned.
Olivella saucer beads were replaced with Olivella saddle beads. New types of material culture appear within these sites, including elaborate, decorative blades, fishtail charmstones, new Haliotis spp. ornament forms, and mica ornaments. Sea otter bones became more abundant, while salmon and other fish became less so, suggesting changes in faunal exploitation patterns from earlier periods (Milliken et al. 2007; Simons and Carpenter 2009). Excavations at archaeological site CAALA-309 indicate that a shift from mussels to oysters, and oysters to clams may have occurred (Gifford 1916). Isotopic analysis confirms that San Francisco Bay Area individuals shifted from hunting higher-trophic-level foods in the Early Period to gathering foods like plants and shellfish in the Middle and Upper Periods (Burns et. al 2012). Subsistence analyses at various sites dating to this period indicate a diverse diet that included numerous species of fish, mammals, birds, shellfish, and plant resources that varied by location in the San Francisco Bay Area (Hylkema 2002).
Late Period (CE 1050-contact)
The Late Period saw an increase in social complexity, indicated by differences in burials and an increased level of sedentism relative to preceding periods, evidenced by mortars weighing up to
90.7 kilograms (Lentz 2012). An increase in imported Napa Valley obsidian occurred during this time for the production of smaller points, preforms and simple flake tools. Small, finely worked projectile points of the Stockton Serrated series associated with bow and arrow technology appear around CE 1250. Olivella shell beads disappeared and were replaced with Olivella lipped and spire -lopped beads in the South Bay and clamshell disk beads in the North Bay. Thicker and larger beads indicated higher affluence. The toggle harpoon, hopper mortar, and magnesite tube beads also 174
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
appeared during this period (Milliken et al. 2007; Lentz 2012; Von Der Porten et al. 2014), as did an increase in the intensity of resource exploitation that correlates with an increase in population (Moratto 1984). Many of the well-known sites of earlier periods, such as the Emeryville shell mound (CA-ALA-309) and the West Berkeley site (CA-ALA-307) were abandoned, as indicated by the lack of Late Period elements. Researchers have suggested that the abandonment of these sites may have resulted from fluctuating climates and drought that occurred throughout the Late Period (Lightfoot and Luby 2002).
b. Historic Context
The Post-European contact history of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848–present).
Each of these periods is briefly described below.
Spanish Period (1769 – 1822)
For more than 200 years, Cabrillo and other Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the Alta (upper) California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). Explorers such as Francis Drake and Sebastian Cermeno explored the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1500s (Bean 1968). Gaspar de Portolá and the Franciscan Father Junípero Serra established the first Spanish settlement in Alta California at Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769, the first of 21 missions erected by the Spanish.
Portolá continued north, reaching the San Francisco Bay later that year. Pedro Fages’ expedition also explored the region in 1772 (Cook 1957). Mission San Francisco de Asis and the San Francisco presidio (military fort) were founded in 1776, and Mission San Rafael Arcangel was built in 1817, all within about 30 miles of the Planning Area (Presidio Trust 2020; California Missions Foundation, N.D.).
Mexican Period (1822 – 1848)
The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican Revolution (1810-1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. This period saw the federalization of mission lands in California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. This Act enabled Mexican governors in California to distribute former mission lands to individuals in the form of land grants.
Successive Mexican governors made more than 700 land grants between 1822 and 1846, putting most of the state’s lands into private ownership for the first time (Shumway 2007). The approximately 80,000-acre Rancho Suscol or Soscol was acquired by General Vallejo in 1843; which encompasses the Planning Area (City of Sonoma, N.D.).
The Mexican period saw an increased importance of sea trade and an influx of American settlers, which motivated the United States to expand their territory into California. The United States supported a small group of insurgents from Sonoma during the Bear Flag Revolt. The Bear Flaggers captured Sonoma in June of 1846. The next month, Commodore John Drake Sloat landed in Monterey and proceeded to take Yerba Buena, Sutter’s Fort, Bodega Bay, and Sonoma. Fighting between American and Mexican forces continued until Mexico surrendered in 1847 (Rolle 2003).
American Period (1848 – Present)
The American Period began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for the conquered territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Settlement of California 175
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-4
continued to increase during the early American Period. Many ranchos were sold or otherwise acquired by Americans, and most were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns. California’s population grew exponentially with the discovery of gold in 1848. San Francisco grew from a population of 812 to 25,000 in only a few years and became California’s first city (Rolle 2003).
The City of Vallejo, located directly south of the Planning Area, was founded on what was once General Vallejo’s rancho land, and thus was named after him. After the state of California was admitted to the Union, he donated 156 acres of land and offered funding to establish a new state capital. The town of Vallejo briefly became the site of the state capitol in 1852, and it served as the capital again in 1853 for approximately one month. Vallejo’s son-in-law, John B. Frisbie, is generally credited with the founding of the city and helping to establish its government (Vallejo Convention and Visitors Bureau 2019; Vallejo Chamber of Commerce 2020).
Although the town lost the government center, a naval shipyard was established there in 1854 which furthered development of the town. Mare Island Naval Shipyard, also located approximately 5-miles south of the Planning Area, became the first United States Navy installation on the Pacific Coast, and Vallejo developed into an important shipping center with ferry transportation serving passengers, railroads, and the Pony Express (Vallejo Convention and Visitors Bureau 2019). The Mare Island Naval Shipyard had an immense impact on the population of Vallejo and surrounding areas. It was known in the 1920s for the development of submarines, and its peak production period for shipbuilding, repair, and maintenance occurred during World War II. Correspondingly, the population in the areas greatly expanded during the war years. Mare Island continued to be a primary station for the construction and development of the Navy’s pacific fleet of submarines in the years that followed. At the time, the base encompassed 5,200 acres (Vallejo Chamber of Commerce 2020). The area flourished as well, in part due to the Navy’s presence which attracted countless military and civilian personnel from various parts. In the 1920s many Filipinos settled in the area following the Spanish-American War and the Filipino Insurrection, making the area one of the most diverse areas in northern California.
With the end of the Cold War, Mare Island Naval Shipyard’s budget was reduced and the shipyard was closed in 1996, dramatically affecting the surrounding areas. The municipality underwent a bankruptcy in 2008, and efforts afterwards focused on drawing new investment to the area (Felix 2013). Various industrial, educational, recreational and historical areas have been developed as part of evolving the property for new uses (Gase 2019). Today, the waterfront area has become a focus for redevelopment to generate economic growth (City of Vallejo 2018).
City of American Canyon
The area now comprising Napa County was subject to European exploration as early as 1823, when Francisco Castro, Father Jose Altamira, and Jose Sanchez led an expedition though the area to find a site for a new mission. However, despite this incursion, European-American settlement of what is now American Canyon did not begin until two years after California was admitted to the United States (FirstCarbon Solutions 2016). In 1852, American Simpson Thompson purchased lands from General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo and General J.B. Frisbie to establish a ranch. Thompson earned fame as one of the area’s earliest fruit growers, but also grew grains on his land. In 1869, a railroad servicing the Napa Valley was developed, with a stop at Napa Junction (the original name for American Canyon), from which another line went east into the interior of California (ACHC n.d.). The area maintained a predominantly agricultural character until around 1900, when Augustus Watson established a limestone quarry. By 1902, Watson sold the quarry to the Standard Portland Cement Company, which supplemented the quarry with a new cement plant. Central to the local economy, 176
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5
the plant employed 200 and produced more than 2,000 barrels of cement a day, on average. The plant continued producing cement until the 1920s or 1930s, when the local supply of limestone was exhausted. By 1946, the Basalt Rock Company repurposed the facility for the production of aggregate (FirstCarbon Solutions 2016).
Residential development of the area began after World War II. American Canyon’s first subdivision, McKnight Acres was completed in 1948 and the Rancho Del Mar subdivision was built in 1952.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the community established new institutions and municipal services, such as the American Canyon Fire Protection District and the American Canyon Water District, in addition to expansions of the sewer and parks systems. A multi-decade campaign resulted in the incorporation of American Canyon in 1992, confirming the community’s separate identity from neighboring Vallejo and Napa (ACHC n.d.). The city has grown steadily since its incorporation, expanding from about 7,000 in 1990 to approximately 21,758 residents in 2024 (see Section 4.13, Population and Housing).
c. Historical and Archaeological Resources in the Planning Area There are seven important historic resources in or next to American Canyon city limits: the four properties described below and three residential properties on Jameson Canyon Road. These properties are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources but with further research and evaluation they, along with other historic-age properties within the city boundaries, may have potential to be listed historical resources.
Watson Ranch
Watson Ranch gained its name from the Watson family, who homesteaded the land in the 1850’s and started the Napa Junction Company in 1900. This property consists of a main house and six outbuildings, including a secondary residence, three barns, a shop, and a garage. The Napa Junction Company mined and manufactured aggregate rock for cement, and Watson sold the company to the Standard Portland Cement Company in 1902.
Standard Portland Cement Company
The Standard Portland Cement Company mined limestone and clay from quarries located where the Watson Ranch development is now proposed. The concrete made from materials mined onsite went into countless projects in the Bay Area, including rebuilding San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake. Since the plant’s closure in 1970, the structures have deteriorated and were further damaged in the 2014 Napa earthquake. The remaining walls of the structures have become an attraction for local urban graffiti artists as well. The Watson Ranch development will possibly preserve parts of the historic structures and include housing, retail, and other community services.
Lee Ranch
Lee Ranch is located at the north end of American Canyon between Green Island Road and the railroad tracks in what is now an industrial area. The home was built in 1929 and is a privatelyowned home.
Newell Ranch
Newell Ranch was the home of Jack and Bernice Newell, beloved residents and benefactors of Vallejo and American Canyon for several decades until their passing. Historic Newell Ranch consists 177
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-6
of a barn and the ruins of two sheds, with a modern house constructed on the property in 1991. The ranch is a cultural icon for the community. The Newell Ranch Open Space was donated to the City of American Canyon by the Newell family in 1999, allowing residents to enjoy the 640 acres of trails, open hills, and scenic overlooks it provides, as well as preserving habitat for critical and endangered species and on-site cultural resources.
d. Native American Outreach
On August 16, 2022, 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. For a summary of the consultation meeting, refer to the discussion in Impact TCR-1 in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources.
4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
Although the project does not have a federal nexus, properties which are listed in or have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The following is therefore presented to provide applicable regulatory context. The NRHP was authorized by Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act and is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation. The NRHP recognizes the quality of significance in American, state, and local history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60.4, a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows:
178
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property.
Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
Certain properties are generally considered ineligible for listing in the NRHP, including cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions, relocated structures, or commemorative properties. Additionally, a property must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Park Service states that 50 years is the general estimate of the time needed to develop the necessary historical perspective to evaluated significance (National Park Service 1997:41). Properties which are less than 50 years must be determined to have “exceptional importance” to be considered eligible for NRHP listing. b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21804.1 requires lead agencies determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the CRHR; a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g); or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or cultural significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA.
Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
179
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-8
It contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also provides guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.
According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b]).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 stipulates an EIR shall describe feasible measures to minimize significant adverse impacts. In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and be roughly proportional to the impacts of the project.
Generally, a project which is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Standards) is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][1]). For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effects where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC Sections 5024.1 and 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by State and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the State and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected from substantial adverse change to the extent prudent and feasible (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance 180
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
(California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Further, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for NRHP eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2).
Properties are eligible for listing in the CRHR if they meet one of more of the following criteria:
Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past.
Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains, until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has determined if the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 states that the NAHC, upon notification of the discovery of Native American human remains pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be descended from the deceased (i.e., the Most Likely Descendant or “MLD”). With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD shall provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.
c. Local Regulations
City of American Canyon General Plan
The current City of American Canyon General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid potential impacts to cultural resources.
181
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-10
4.4.3 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 cultural resources if it would:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Methodology
If a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the characteristics of a resource that convey its significance or justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR, either through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means, then the project would have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]).
Direct impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed development, determining the exact locations of cultural resources within the Planning Area, assessing the significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the appropriate mitigation.
Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can permanently impact the historic fabric of an archaeological site, building or structure, or historic district.
The State Legislature, in enacting the CRHR, amended CEQA to clarify which properties are significant, as well as which project impacts are considered significantly adverse. A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 150645[b]). A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 150645[b][1]).
The CEQA Guidelines further state that “[t]he significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project… [d]emolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the California Register … local register of historic resources… or its identification in an historic resources survey.” As such, the consideration for determining whether the project will have a significant impact on identified historic resources is whether it will materially impair the physical integrity of the historic resource, such that it could no longer be listed in the CRHR or a local landmark program.
182
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED HISTORIC-PERIOD RESOURCES. IMPACTS TO HISTORIC-PERIOD RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
As discussed above in Section 4.4.1, Setting, review of historical maps and aerial photographs indicate that there are several historic-aged buildings or structures located within the Planning Area.
Currently there are no specific development plans; however, the 2040 General Plan could result in development on parcels containing buildings that meet the age threshold for potential historical resources, pursuant to CEQA.
Development facilitated by the project could result in material impairment of historical resources, which CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A] defines as the demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register.
The Environment Element of the 2040 General Plan Update contains the following proposed goals and policies, which would minimize impacts to historical resources within the City of American Canyon:
Goal ENV-4: Preserve and restore sites, and structures that have architectural, historical, archaeological and/or cultural significance to the City of American Canyon. Policy ENV-4.1: Resource Protection. Ensure the City's culturally, historically, and archaeologically significant resources are protected in a manner that preserves and/or enhances the inherent resource value.
Policy ENV-4.2: Historic Structure Compatibility. Encourage compatibility between new development and existing adjacent historic structures in terms of scale, massing, building materials and general architectural treatment.
Policy ENV-4.3: Historic Resource Reuse. Encourage appropriate adaptive reuse of historic resources where possible to prevent misuse, disrepair, and demolition. Policy ENV-4.4: Historical Building Code. When historical structures are rehabilitated in accordance with established historic preservation guidelines, consider implementing the State Historical Building Code Part 8, Title 24.
Policy ENV-4.5: Historic Resource Preservation. Prohibit demolition of an historic resource as a first-choice alternative for resources that qualify for Federal, State Historic Registration, or Locally Significant Resources.
Policy ENV-4.6: Flexible Development Standards Consider flexibility in development standards, such as a Variance of setbacks, heights and parking requirements to help feasibility of new development that contains preserved historic resources.
These policies would help reduce impacts; however, they do not require formal historical resource evaluations or the consideration of measures to mitigate potential impacts. As such, additional measures would be required to identify and mitigate impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level. The implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts on historical resources by requiring evaluations for age-eligible buildings within the Planning Area and 183
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-12
avoiding impacts on any identified potential historical resources. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of this mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 Historical Built Environment
Prior to project approval, the applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies any historicage features (i.e., structures over 45 years of age) proposed to be altered or demolished. If historical-age features are present, the applicant shall submit a historical resources evaluation to the City prepared in areas that contains buildings, structures, objects, sites, landscape/site plans, or other features that are 45 years of age or older, by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history (36 CFR Part 61). The evaluation shall include an intensive-level evaluation, in accordance with the guidelines and best practices meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
If historical resources are identified through the survey and evaluation, efforts shall be made by the applicant to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards).
The applicant shall submit a report to the City that identifies and specifies the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities, and demonstrates how the project complies with the Standards and avoids the substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b). The report shall be prepared by an architectural historian or historical architect meeting the PQS as defined by 36 CFR Part 61 and provided to the City for review and concurrence prior to project approval.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure a historical resource evaluation is conducted for sites with age-eligible resources within the Planning Area and require measures to reduce impacts to historical resources to less than significant.
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-2 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
The City has known archaeological sensitivity and, as a result, the potential to encounter unidentified archaeological resources is moderate to high. Overall, ground disturbance into native soils in any areas within the Planning Area could contain previously unknown prehistoric or historicperiod resources. Undeveloped areas have a higher probability of containing previously unidentified archaeological resources, given the City’s known sensitivity and the probable lack of previous ground-disturbing activities in those areas. The Environment Element of the 2040 General Plan contains the following proposed goals and policies, which would minimize impacts to archaeological resources within the City of American Canyon:
184
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-13
Goal ENV-4: Preserve and restore sites, and structures that have architectural, historical, archaeological and/or cultural significance to the City of American Canyon. Policy ENV-4.1: Resource Protection. Ensure the City's culturally, historically, and archaeologically significant resources are protected in a manner that preserves and/or enhances the inherent resource value.
Goal ENV-5: Protect cultural and tribal resources.
Policy ENV-5.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code.
Many portions of the Planning Area have been previously developed for various purposes and uses.
Nonetheless, there is the potential for both historic and prehistoric archaeological resources to exist surficially and below the ground surface throughout the Planning Area, which could be disturbed by grading and excavation activities for future projects. Therefore, development projects within the Planning Area that involve ground disturbance activities would have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources, especially if they occur in less disturbed sediments. Consequently, impacts would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required for projects involving ground disturbance activities.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-2 Archaeological Resources Assessment
Prior to project approval of a project that involves ground disturbance activities (that may include but are not limited to, pavement removal, potholing, grubbing, tree removal, and grading), the applicant shall submit to the City an archaeological resources assessment prepared by a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. Assessments shall include a CHRIS records search at the NWIC and a SLF Search from the NAHC. The records searches shall characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated in and around the development site. A qualified professional shall conduct a Phase I pedestrian survey for those projects that include undeveloped areas to locate any surface cultural materials.
If the Phase I archaeological survey identifies resources that may be affected, the applicant shall also conduct Phase II testing and evaluation. If resources are determined significant or unique through Phase II testing and site avoidance is not possible, the qualified professional shall identify appropriate site-specific mitigation measures in the Phase II evaluation. These measures may include, but would not be limited to, a Phase III data recovery program, avoidance, or other appropriate actions to be determined by a qualified archaeologist. If significant archaeological resources cannot be avoided, impacts may be reduced to less than significant level by filling on top of the sites rather than cutting into the cultural deposits. Alternatively, and/or in addition, a data collection program may be warranted, including mapping the location of artifacts, surface collection of artifacts, or excavation of the cultural deposit, to characterize the nature of the buried portions of sites. Curation of the excavated artifacts or samples would occur as specified by the archaeologist.
The City shall review and approve the archaeological resources assessment prior to project approval.
185
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-14
CUL-3 Unanticipated Discoveries
For projects whose Phase I archaeological survey identifies archaeological resources that may be affected, the applicant shall retain a qualified cultural resource specialist to monitor construction activities that involve ground-disturbing activities greater than 12 inches in depth and occur within 60 feet of a potentially significant cultural resource. If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology should be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent and collecting and curating artifacts may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. If archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, a qualified archaeologist will consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures. Periodic reports of the find and subsequent evaluations shall be submitted to the City during construction.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level by requiring the identification and evaluation of any archaeological resources that may be present prior to construction and by providing steps for the evaluation and protection of unanticipated finds encountered during construction.
Threshold 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-3 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN BURIALS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT THROUGH ADHERENCE TO EXISTING REGULATIONS AND WITH MITIGATION.
Human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. While no known burial sites have been identified within the Planning Area, excavations during construction activities could have the potential to disturb these resources, which could include Native American burial sites. Although it is unlikely that human remains are present, the Planning Area has the possibility of containing previously unidentified human remains.
Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in PRC Section 5097. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protect them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and establishes the NAHC to resolve any related disputes.
The Environment Element of the 2040 General Plan Update contains the following proposed goals and policies, which would minimize impacts to human burials within the City of American Canyon:
186
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-15
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.
Construction of future development and mobility improvements facilitated by the project, such as improvements to roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be subject to State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which states that if human remains are unearthed, no further disturbance can occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition of the remains, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an MLD. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would ensure that the appropriate protocols are followed if human remains are encountered and would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-4 Human Remains
In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:
There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98. 187
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.4-16
Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
The applicant may each develop a plan with respect to their respective individual development proposals for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would reduce potential impacts on human remains to a less than significant level by requiring the implementation of the appropriate protocols. 188
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1
4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section summarizes the setting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change and analyzes the impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change due to the project.
4.5.1 Setting
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); nitrous oxides (N2O); fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a 100-year GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).1 GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2022a).
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record, which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years. The IPCC expressed in their Sixth Assessment Report that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities (IPCC 2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, a total of 2,390 gigatons of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global 1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25. 189
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-2
surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021).
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius (°C) cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2013). However, since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by 47 percent, 156 percent, and 23 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (IPCC 2021). GHG emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of concentrations that occur naturally.
a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
Global Emissions Inventory
Worldwide anthropogenic GHG emissions totaled 47,000 million metric tons (MT) of CO2e in 2015, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (USEPA 2022b). Specifically, 34,522 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and fuel use from vehicles and buildings, which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed three percent and international transportation sources contributed two percent. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink of two percent from land-use change (including afforestation/reforestation and emissions removals by other land use activities) (USEPA 2022b).
United States Emissions Inventory
Total United States (U.S.) GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by
1.7 percent from 2018 to 2019. Since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of 0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to 2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes, economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy efficiency, and decrease carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of nationwide GHG emissions; while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16 percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors (USEPA 2022c).
California Emissions Inventory
Based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000- 2019, California produced 418.2 MMT of CO2e in 2019, which is 7.2 MMT of CO2e lower than 2018 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 40 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 21 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, while electric power accounts for approximately 14 percent (CARB 2021a). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, its relatively mild climate is a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to 190
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
other states. In 2016, the State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels, as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2021).
Local Emissions Inventory
Based on the City of American Canyon’s 2012 Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP), the City generated approximately 120,201 MT of CO2e in 2010 (City of American Canyon 2012). On-road transportation was the major source accounting for 39.9 percent of the total, largely due to passenger vehicles, but also commercial trips and buses. Commercial/industrial energy was the second largest source of emissions at 27 percent. Residential energy usage represented 18 percent, and solid waste and wastewater represented 7 percent each. Off-road transportation accounted for 2 percent. Agriculture accounted for less than 1 percent of emissions (City of American Canyon 2012).
b. Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades on record, and the decade from 2000 through 2010 has been the warmest. The observed global mean surface temperature from 2015 to 2017 was approximately 1.0°C higher than the average global mean surface temperature over the period from 1880 to 1900 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020).
Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature obtained from station observations jointly indicate that Land-Surface Air Temperature and sea surface temperatures have increased.
According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 0.6 to 1.1°C higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, larger forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). In addition to statewide projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state and regionally specific climate change case studies (State of California 2018). However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California because of climate change.
Air Quality
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by
2.4 to 3.2°C in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C in the next century (State of California 2018).
Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone. The magnitude of the effect of the increased concentration of ground-level ozone, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (State of California 191
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-4
2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains could tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution, which would effectively reduce the number of large wildfires and thereby ameliorate the pollution associated with them (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).
Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.
Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century.
During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides most of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow and the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack (State of California 2018). Projections indicate that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of California 2018).
Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding (State of California 2018). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century.
Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2022, observed by satellites, is approximately 3.5 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2022). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. While the City is no close to the Pacific coast, sea level rise may jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018).
Agriculture
California has an over $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2020). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant wateruse efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase 192
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). Temperature increases could also change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).
Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions because of higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018).
4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
a. International
United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention
On March 21, 1994, the United States joined a number of countries around the world in signing the United Nations Climate Change Framework Convention. Under the Convention, governments agreed to gather and share information on GHG emissions, national policies, and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing GHG emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. b. Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.
In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the U.S. Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology. 193
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-6
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.
The SAFE Rule Part One revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and to adopt its own zero-emission vehicle mandates. On April 30, 2020, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published Part Two of the SAFE Vehicles Rule, which revised corporate average fuel economy and CO2 emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks of model years 2021-2026, such that the standards increase by approximately 1.5 percent each year through model year 2026, as compared to the approximately 5 percent annual increase required under the 2012 standards (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2022).
Construction Equipment Fuel-Efficiency Standard
USEPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The first federal standards (Tier 1) were adopted in 1994 for all off-road engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in by 2000. A new standard was adopted in 1998 that introduced Tier 1 for all equipment below 50 hp and established the Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards. The Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards were phased in by 2008 for all equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements, which are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068 (originally adopted in 69 Federal Register 38958 [June 29, 2004] and most recently updated in 2014 [79 Federal Register 46356]). Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.
c. State Regulations
CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California. There are numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions. These initiatives are summarized below.
California Advanced Clean Cars Program
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and costeffective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allows California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the USEPA. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, the rules will be fully implemented, and new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011).
California Advanced Clean Trucks Program
In June 2020, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which requires manufacturers who certify Class 2b-8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. In addition, 194
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7
the regulation requires company and fleet reporting for large employers and fleet owners with 50 or more trucks. By 2045, all new trucks sold in California must be zero-emission. Implementation of this regulation would reduce consumption of nonrenewable transportation fuels as trucks transition to alternative fuel sources.
Executive Order B-48-18: Zero-Emission Vehicles
On January 26, 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-48-18 requiring all State entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030, as well as install 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of the EV charging stations should be direct current fast chargers. This order also requires all State entities to continue to partner with local and regional governments to streamline the installation of ZEV infrastructure. The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development is required to publish a Plug-in Charging Station Design Guidebook and update the 2015 Hydrogen Station Permitting Guidebook to aid in these efforts. All State entities are required to participate in updating the 2016 ZEV Action Plan, along with the 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update, which includes and extends the 2016 ZEV Action Plan (Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles 2016, 2018) to help expand private investment in ZEV infrastructure with a focus on serving low-income and disadvantaged communities.
Executive Order N-79-20
Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20 in September 2020, which sets a Statewide goal that 100 percent of all new passenger car and truck sales in the State will be zeroemissions by 2035. It also sets a goal that 100 percent of statewide new sales of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles will be zero emissions by 2045, where feasible, and for all new sales of drayage trucks to be zero emissions by 2035. Additionally, the Executive Order targets 100 percent of new off-road vehicle sales in the State to be zero emission by 2035. CARB is responsible for implementing the new vehicle sales regulation.
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Assembly Bill 1279)
The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” (AB 32), outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main state strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of 431 MMT of CO2e, which was achieved in 2016. CARB approved the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which included GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among others (CARB 2008).
The CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan update in May 2014. The update defined the CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years, set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals, and highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan.
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the state to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 195
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-8
percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 and SB 100 (discussed below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies.
AB 1279, “The California Climate Crisis Act,” was passed on September 16, 2022 and declares the State would achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. In addition, the bill states that the State would reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve AB 1279 targets (CARB 2022). The actions and outcomes in the 2022 Scoping Plan would achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon.
Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.
The City of American Canyon is within the planning area of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). ABAG was assigned targets of a 10 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035 (CARB 2022b).
Assembly Bill 1493 (Reduce GHG Emissions from Vehicle Use) AB 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the Pavley Bill, amended Health and Safety Code Sections 42823, and added Section 43018.5 requiring CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California.
Assembly Bill 1007 (State Alternative Fuels Plan)
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare a State plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, State, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-State 196
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
CARB In-Use On-Road and Off-Road Diesel Rules
The CARB rule imposes limits on idling, restricts the addition of older vehicles, and requires the retirement or replacement of older engines depending on their fleet size category. This policy indirectly impacts energy consumption.
More specifically, CARB is also charged with developing air pollution control regulations based upon the best available control measures and implementing feasible control measures under the State and Federal Clean Air Act. (Health & Safety Code, Sections 39602.5, 39667, 43013, subds. (a) and (h), 43018, 40600, 40601, 40612(a)(2) and (c)(1)(A).) Pursuant to these statutory authorities, more stringent emission standards were adopted in 2004 for off-road construction equipment (i.e. “Tier 4” standards) (40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, Section 2025; AR 2854). CARB also adopted emission standards for on-road heavy duty diesel vehicles (i.e., haul trucks). (Cal. Code Regs., title 13, Section 1956.8.) These haul truck regulations mandate fleet turn-over to ensure that by January 1, 2023, nearly all on-road diesel trucks will have 2010 model year engines or equivalent [i.e., Tier 4]. In addition, interim steps are incorporated into the regulations (e.g., vehicles older than 1999 will be replaced with newer engines by 2020).
California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 341)/Assembly Bill 1826 (Mandatory Recycling/Composting)
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows diversion away from landfills of 75 percent of all solid waste by 2020 and annually thereafter.
AB 1826 requires recycling of organic waste (i.e., composting). All businesses and public entities that generate four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week and multi-family residential dwellings that have five or more units are required to recycle and compost.
Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels SB 1383 also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.
Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 197
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-10
2030, and 100 percent by 2045. The 2020 goal was met, with approximately 36 percent of electricity coming from renewable sources in March 2021 (CARB 2021b).
Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the former Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.
California Refrigerant Management Program
California’s Refrigerant Management Program (RMP) regulates refrigerants used in larger facilities, primarily industrial and supermarket land uses. Refrigerants regulated under the RMP include any refrigerant that is an ozone depleting substance as defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulation, Part 82, and any compound with a GWP value equal to or greater than 150 according to the GWPs specified in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007. According to the RMP, all supermarket and industrial refrigeration systems with a full recharge capacity of 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) or greater will be required to limit the refrigerants used to no greater than 150 GWP beginning in 2022. Similarly, according to the RMP, all room air conditioning unit systems with a full recharge capacity of 50 pounds or greater will be required to limit the refrigerants used to no greater than 750 GWP beginning in 2023.
Senate Bill 1020
Senate Bill 1020 (SB 1020), signed into law on September 16, 2022, requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to supply 90 percent of all retail electricity sales by 2035, 95 percent by 2040, and 100 percent by 2045. All State agencies facilities must be served by 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon resources by 2030. SB 1020 also requires the Public Utilities Commission, Energy Commission, and CARB to issue a joint progress report outlining the reliability of the electrical grid with a focus on summer reliability and challenges and gaps. Additionally, SB 1020 requires the Public Utilities Commission to define energy affordability and use energy affordability metrics to develop protections, incentives, discounts, or new programs for residential customers facing hardships due to energy or gas bills.
CARB Gas Appliances Sales Ban
As part of the 2022 State Implementation Plan, CARB adopted a ban on new sales of natural gas heaters, water heaters, and furnaces by 2030 in September of 2022. This new measure is intended to reduce emissions from new residential and commercial space and water heaters sold in the State.
An emission standard for space and water heaters will go into effect in 2030. Beginning in 2030, 100 percent of the sales of new natural gas-powered heaters and water heaters would need to comply with the emission standard, such as putting in electric heaters or other zero-emission options.
California Building Standards Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 is referred to as the California Building Standards Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction, including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The California Building Standards Code’s energyefficiency and green building standards are outlined below. These standards are updated every 198
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11
three years and future projects would be subject to the 2022 California Building Standards when they go into effect on January 1, 2023.
Part 6 – Building Energy Efficiency Standards/Energy Code CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the CEC. The current iteration is the 2019 Title 24 standards. The California Building Standards Code’s energyefficiency and green building standards are outlined below. The 2022 Standards have been adopted and will come into effect January 1, 2023.
Part 11 – California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective on January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2022 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.
The mandatory standards require:
Minimum 20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels2 Waste Reduction
Minimum 65 percent non-hazardous construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills; Non-residential and Multifamily dwellings with 5 or more units shall provide readily accessible areas identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling including (at a minimum) paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastic, organic waste, and metals;
Nonresidential: 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation soils resulting from primary land clearing shall be reused or recycled. Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging for New Construction3
Multifamily dwellings, hotels/motels with less than 20 units/rooms: Designation of at least 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable and at least 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV Ready. 2 Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen water reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms.
Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate. 3 EV Capable = a vehicle space with electrical panel space and load capacity to support a branch circuit and necessary raceways to support EV charging. EV Ready = a vehicle space which is provided with a branch circuit and any necessary raceways to accommodate EV charging stations including a receptacle for future installation of a charger. See 2022 California Green Building Standard Code, Title 24 Part 11 for full explanation of mandatory measures including exceptions. 199
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-12
Multifamily dwellings, hotels/motels with greater than 20 units/rooms: Designation of at least 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable, at least 25 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV Ready, and at least 5 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with a Level 2 Charging Station.
Non-residential land uses shall comply with the following EV charging requirements based on the number of passenger vehicle parking spaces
− 0-9: no EV capable spaces or charging stations required; − 10 – 25: 4 EV capable spaces but no charging stations required; − 26 – 50: 8 EV capable spaces of which 2 must be equipped with charging stations; − 51 – 75: 13 EV capable spaces of which 3 must be equipped with charging stations; − 76 – 100: 17 EV capable spaces of which 4 must be equipped with charging stations; − 101 – 150: 25 EV capable spaces of which 6 must be equipped with charging stations; − 151 – 200: 35 EV capable spaces of which 9 must be equipped with charging stations; − >200: 20 percent of the total available parking spaces of which 25 percent must be equipped with charging stations;
Non-residential land uses shall comply with the following EV charging requirements for medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles: Warehouses, grocery stores, and retail stores with planned off-street loading spaces shall install EV supply and distribution equipment, spare raceway(s) or busway(s) and adequate capacity for transformer(s), service panel(s), or subpanel(s) at the time of construction based on the number of off-street loading spaces as indicated in Table 5.106.5.4.1 of the California Green Building Standards. Bicycle Parking
Non-residential short term bicycle parking for projects anticipated to generate visitor traffic:
permanently anchored bicycle racks within 200 feet of visitor entrance for 5 percent of new visitor motorized vehicle parking spaces with a minimum of one two-bike capacity rack.
Non-residential buildings with tenant spaces of 10 or more employees/tenant-occupants:
Secure bicycle parking for 5 percent of the employee/tenant-occupant vehicle parking spaces with a minimum of one bicycle parking facility.
Shade Trees (Non-Residential)
Surface parking: Minimum No. 10 container size or equal shall be installed to provide shade over 50 percent of the parking within 15 years (unless parking area covered by appropriate shade structures and/or solar);
Landscape areas: Minimum No. 10 container size or equal shall be installed to provide shade of 20 percent of the landscape area within 15 years;
Hardscape areas: Minimum No. 10 container size or equal shall be installed to provide shade of 20 percent of the landscape area within 15 years (unless covered by applicable shade structures and/or solar or the marked area is for organized sports activities).
The CALGreen voluntary standards are only mandatory if a local ordinance requires them. Since the City has not made any of the voluntary measures mandatory, the following voluntary standards would not be applicable to the project:
Deconstruct existing buildings and reuse applicable salvaged materials; 200
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13
Residential Bicycle Parking:
Multifamily/hotel/motel short-term parking: Provide permanently anchored bicycle racks within 100 feet of visitor’s entrance for 5 percent of visitor motorized vehicle parking capacity (minimum 1 two-bile capacity rack);
Hotel/Motel long-term parking: Provide one acceptable on-site bicycle parking space for every 25,000 square feet but not less than two spaces;
The CALGreen voluntary standards are divided into two tiers. Tier 1 adds additional requirements beyond the mandatory measures, whereas Tier 2 further increases the requirements. Tier I
Stricter energy efficiency requirements;
Stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures; Minimum 65 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification, Minimum 10 percent recycled content for building materials; Minimum 20 percent permeable paving;
Minimum 20 percent cement reduction;
Multifamily developments/hotels/motels: Minimum 35 percent of total parking spaces shall be EV ready and for projects with 20 or more dwelling units/rooms a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with EV charging stations; Tier II
Stricter energy efficiency requirements,
Stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures; Minimum 75 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification, Minimum 15 percent recycled content for building materials; Minimum 30 percent permeable paving;
Minimum 25 percent cement reduction;
Multifamily developments/hotels/motels: Minimum 40 percent of total parking spaces shall be EV ready and for projects with 20 or more dwelling units/rooms a minimum of 15 percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with EV charging stations Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a State-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan, known as an RTP/SCS, that would support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on advancing equity and improving resiliency in the Bay Area by creating strategies in the following four elements: Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Environment. The Plan discusses how the future is uncertain due to anticipated employment growth, lack of housing options, and outside forces, such as climate change and economic turbulence. These uncertainties will impact growth in the Bay Area and exacerbate issues for those who are historically and systemically marginalized and underserved and excluded. Thus, Plan Bay Area 2050 has created strategies and considered investments that will serve those systemically underserved communities 201
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-14
and provide equitable opportunities. The Plan presents a total of 35 strategies to outline how the $1.4 trillion dollar investment would be utilized. The strategies include, but are not limited to, the following: providing affordable housing, allowing higher-density in proximity to transit-corridors, optimizing the existing roadway network, creating complete streets, providing subsides for public transit, reducing climate emissions, and expanding open space area. To bring these strategies to fruition, it will require participation by agencies, policymakers, and the public. An implementation plan is also included as part of the Plan to assess the requirements needed to carry out the strategies, identify the roles of pertinent entities, create an appropriate method to implement the strategies, and create a timeline for implementation.
Napa Valley Transportation Authority
The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) formed in 1998 as a joint power authority between the cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, St. Helena, the town of Yountville, and the County of Napa. NVTA serves as the countywide transportation planning agency. NVTA also develops the long-range county transportation plan, which (along with similar plans from the other eight Bay Area counties) forms the “primary basis” for the RTP/SCS adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. In turn, the county transportation plan must consider the most recently adopted RTP/SCS to assure that both plans employ a common planning framework.
City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan The City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) was adopted in December 2012 to develop a coordinated approach to energy efficiency and GHG reductions within the community and local government. The EECAP provides feasible strategies and measures that cost-effectively reduce energy-related and GHG emissions. Additionally, the EECAP includes an inventory of GHG emissions from all sectors in the community for years 2005 and 2010, as well as forecasts of anticipated GHG emissions for years 2020 and 2035 under a business-as-usual scenario that takes into consideration current consumption patterns, as well as population and job projections.
American Canyon Industrial GHG Standards Ordinance 2024-02 CEQA requires lead agencies to choose a threshold of significance to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions that is supported by substantial evidence and captures all significant impacts which may be one developed by an expert agency. The City falls within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which in 2022 issued GHG significance thresholds recommendations for residential and commercial projects but did not recommend a threshold for industrial land uses. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which includes Los Angeles County, has developed a threshold of significance under CEQA for industrial land uses that is supported by substantial evidence and serves as a basis for mitigation of significant sources of GHG impacts.
The City’s threshold of significance that combines BAAQMD’s baseline threshold with the SCAQMD’s threshold will capture the main sources of GHG emissions from industrial land uses.
The threshold standards are applied in a tiered evaluation system:
202
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-15
Tier 1: CEQA Categorical Exemptions
Initially, determine if the project qualifies for any CEQA categorical exemptions. If it does not, proceed to Tier 2.
Tier 2: Consistency with Local GHG Reduction Plans
Assess if the project aligns with a locally adopted GHG reduction plan. This plan must have undergone public hearing and CEQA review, have an approved inventory, and include monitoring. If the project is not consistent with such a plan, move to Tier 3.
Tier 3: Project Design Elements
Evaluate the project against specific design elements
1. Buildings
a. The project should not include natural gas appliances or plumbing. b. The project should avoid wasteful or unnecessary energy use, as per CEQA guidelines.
2. Transportation
a. The project must achieve a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average, currently at least 15% as per the California Climate Change Scoping Plan. b. The project must comply with the latest CALGreen Tier 2 electric vehicle requirements.
If the project does not incorporate these design elements, it is considered to have a significant GHG impact. If it does, move to Tier 4.
Tier 4: GHG Emissions Screening Threshold
Determine if the project's GHG emissions exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s threshold of 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e) per year for industrial uses and stationary projects. Projects exceeding this threshold are deemed to have a significant GHG impact.
Industrial Commerce Centers Sustainability Standards Ordinance 2024-03 The American Canyon Industrial Greenhouse Gas Standards Ordinance establishes the following standards to all warehousing, logistics, and distribution facilities in the City where a Notice of Preparation is issued after March 1, 2024, under CEQA. It defines such facilities as those used for storing and consolidating manufactured goods, typically larger than 200,000 square feet with specific characteristics such as dock high loading doors and truck activities.
The following standards are applicable under the proposed Ordinance:
Zero Emission Operational Equipment. All on-site motorized operational equipment (forklifts, yard trucks, pallet jacks, etc.) must be zero-emission. This includes using electrical hookups instead of diesel-fueled generators for construction tools.
Zero Emission Cargo Handling Equipment. All outdoor cargo handling equipment must be zeroemission vehicles. Necessary charging stations or infrastructure for these vehicles must be included in each building.
203
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-16
Rooftop Solar Panels. Before issuing a business license, the City will ensure that rooftop solar panels are installed to supply 100% of the power needed for non-refrigerated parts of the facility, including parking areas.
Refrigerated Space Requirements. Facilities not committing to non-refrigerated use must install conduits during construction for potential refrigerated spaces. Electric plug-in units for refrigeration units must be installed at relevant dock doors.
Zero Emission Construction Equipment. All generators and diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment over 75 horsepower must be zero-emissions or have CARB Tier IV-compliant engines. Exemptions are possible if such equipment is not reasonably available.
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Install infrastructure for Level 2 (or faster) EV charging stations for a percentage of employee parking spaces, increasing to 25% by 2030.
Air Filtration Systems. Install HVAC and/or HEPA air filtration systems in all warehouse facilities.
4.5.3 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 GHG emissions if it would:
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence on climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]). The 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans provides two plan level thresholds for determining the significance of GHGs. The two approaches are as follows:
Consistency with a qualified GHG reduction plan
Meets the State’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045
The City of American Canyon’s EECAP is not a qualified GHG reduction plan, since it contains targets only for 2020 and was adopted prior to the adoption of new targets contained in the 2022 Scoping Plan; therefore, the first approach is not feasible. As such, the City uses the second approach to determine the significance of GHGs for development facilitated by the project. 204
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-17
Methodology
Based on plan-level guidance from the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans, GHG emissions associated with project implementation is discussed qualitatively by comparing the project to the 2022 BAAQMD GHG thresholds, namely whether policies work towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition, the project is qualitatively compared to other applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
In developing its 2022 GHG significance thresholds, BAAQMD analyzed what new land use development projects will require to achieve California’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, thereby better representing what design elements new land use development projects need to incorporate to sufficiently contribute to achieving the State’s goal. As GHG emissions from the land use sector come primarily from building energy use and from transportation, these are the areas that need to be evaluated to determine whether the project can or will be carbon neutral.
With respect to building energy use, this can be achieved by replacing natural gas with electric power and by eliminating inefficient or wasteful electricity usage. These strategies will support California’s transition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources and will bring the project’s GHG emissions associated with building energy use down to zero because SB 100 incrementally requires greater proportions of in-state sales of electricity to be generated from renewable and carbon-free sources, ultimately requiring 100 percent of in-state electricity sales to be generated from carbonfree sources by 2045. With respect to transportation, projects need to be designed to reduce project-generated VMT and to provide sufficient EV charging infrastructure to support the adoption of EVs. BAAQMD’s 2022 significance thresholds for project design elements are listed below. If a land use development project cannot demonstrate consistency, then that project would result in a potentially significant impact related to GHG emissions.
Buildings
i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
ii. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Transportation
i. Achieve compliance with off-street EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
ii. Achieve a 15 percent reduction in project-generated residential VMT per capita and VMT per employee rate below the existing American Canyon rate.
As discussed in Chapter 4.11, Transportation, project-generated traffic is evaluated for whether it 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.
SB 375 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. 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 205
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-18
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 American Canyon travel demand model is a trip-based model and estimates the following:
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 85 percent of the existing rate of VMT in each category for American Canyon, based on the American Canyon travel demand model.
In terms of the potential for wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), project energy impacts are addressed under Energy in Chapter 4.15, Effects Found to be Less than Significant.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 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 GHG-2 AND GHG-3 WOULD REQUIRE IMPLEMENTATION OF CEQA GHG 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.
Construction
Construction of future development and mobility improvements associated with the 2040 General Plan would result in GHG emissions during construction, primarily from fuel consumption associated with heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting. Temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment that may result in indirect GHG emissions from energy generation. The project would utilize construction contractors that would be required to comply with applicable CARB regulations, such as accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on-road and off-road equipment.
Construction contractors are required to comply with the provisions of CCR Title 13, sections 2449 and 2485, and CARB regulations, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial and off-road vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, minimizing unnecessary GHG emissions. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption and thus GHG emissions. These construction equipment 206
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-19
standards (i.e., Tier 4 efficiency requirements) are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements of CALGreen, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert construction and demolition debris from landfills. These practices would result in efficient use of energy during construction and, therefore, would minimize unnecessary GHG emissions. Furthermore, in the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary, which would also have the effect of minimizing GHG emissions.
The use of GHG-reducing construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) is considered by the City to be a pragmatic and effective approach for the control of construction-related GHG emissions. The BAAQMD, in their 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, recommend that following construction BMPs for reducing GHG emissions:
The use of alternative fueled construction vehicles and equipment for at least 15 percent of the fleet.
The use of local building materials for at least 10 percent of materials. The recycling and reuse of at least 50 percent of construction and demolition waste materials.
Pursuant to the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans, BAAQMD does not recommend a construction-related climate impact threshold. According to BAAQMD, GHG emissions from construction represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions. However, incorporation of feasible and applicable GHG-reducing construction BMPs serves herein as the basis for whether project construction would contribute its "fair share" of GHG emission reductions consistent with the legislative reduction targets codified by SB 32 and the State’s long-term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The California Supreme Court, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4th 204, 220-223), explained that an approach by which a lead agency ascertains a proposed project’s “fair share” of required Statewide GHG reductions is a legitimate approach for formulating significance thresholds for GHG emissions. Under this approach, which here is focused on the project incorporating BAAQMD-recommended BMPs for construction-related emissions, the project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if project construction would not incorporate feasible and applicable GHG reducing construction BMPs including, at a minimum, those listed above. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require incorporation of those GHG reducing construction BMPs and reduce construction related impacts to be less than significant.
The proposed thresholds for land use projects are designed to address operational GHG emissions that represent the vast majority of project GHG emissions. Therefore, the primary evaluation of GHG emissions impacts associated with project implementation is focused on operational emissions, discussed below.
Operation
The project would result in GHG emissions during operation. The nature of GHG emissions would be typical of those associated with residential, commercial, retail, hotel, industrial, warehouse, and research and development uses. GHG emissions would result primarily from building energy usage and fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips. The project contains policies that aim to reduce operational GHG emissions in accordance with State 2030 GHG emissions reductions goals and provide substantial progress to the State’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, as included below.
Operational buildout is expected to be 2040.
207
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-20
Transportation
On-road transportation sources are based on passenger vehicle and truck trip generation rates and VMT. As described in Section 4.11, Transportation, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would result in less than significant VMT impacts. The forecasted VMT of the project, including both VMT per residents and VMT per employee, would be more than 15 percent lower than existing VMT.
General Plan goals and policies listed under Impact AQ-2 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, would reduce emissions from vehicles by encouraging active transportation and transit use. Goal LU-1, coupled with proposed policy LU-1.4, would encourage compact development to reduce reliance on automobiles and associated GHG emissions. Goal MOB-1 and associated policies would encourage creation of complete streets (i.e., streets that support pedestrians and bicyclists) to reduce VMT in the City, which would reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicle use. Goal MOB-5 and associated policies would support public transit to reduce VMT, which would also reduce GHG emissions associated with vehicle use.
Buildings
Future buildings developed under the project would be served by Marin Clean Energy (MCE) or Pacific Gas and Electricity (PG&E). MCE is an alternative to PG&E for energy generation. All residents and local businesses are automatically enrolled in the Light Green Program (60 percent renewable energy) and have the option to opt up to the Deep Green Program, which offers 100 percent renewable energy. PG&E is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. It requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. In addition, GHG emissions from building use would be reduced through implementation of the proposed policies listed below, which would encourage energy efficiency in buildings.
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-9.5: 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.
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.
208
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-21
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.
Proposed policies U-9.1 and ENV-10.6 would encourage a reduction in building energy use and associated GHG emissions by adopting a reach code that requires greater energy efficiency than mandated by the State. Proposed policies U-9.2, U-9.5 through U-9.7, and ENV-11.1 through ENV-11.4 would reduce energy use and associated GHG emissions through various energy efficiency programs and increased use of renewable energy sources. Proposed policy ENV-10.8 would reduce GHG emissions by supporting a prohibition of natural gas.
The proposed policies regarding vehicle use and buildings would assist in reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 but would not necessarily achieve either goal. The project is a policy-level document that guides land use and development throughout the City. The CARB 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines a pathway to achieving the 2030 reduction targets set under SB 32, which are considered interim targets toward meeting the long-term 2045 carbon neutrality goal established by California Executive Order B-55-18. While the project would facilitate additional development within the City, building energy consumption and VMT (and thus GHG emissions), water consumption, and solid waste generation per capita would be reduced under the project’s buildout compared to existing conditions, given the above discussed policies. However, the project does not outline how the City would meet the goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. The project would therefore not be consistent with the California Executive Order B-55-18 goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, nor does it have a qualified GHG reduction plan to guide progress towards State goals. Therefore, impacts related to generation of GHG emissions and consistency with State GHG reduction plans due to the project would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-2 and GHG-3 would require that the City implement CEQA GHG emissions thresholds and adopt the American Canyon CAP to establish a Citywide GHG reduction target and provide an outline of how the City will meet the State goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.
209
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-22
Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 Construction GHG BMPs
Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating implementation of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs). Measures may include but are not limited to:
At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric.
At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction shall be sourced from local suppliers.
At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials shall be recycled or reused. At least one contractor that has a business location in American Canyon shall be contracted for project construction.
All construction contracts shall include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) using during construction be electrically powered.
Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product. Project construction shall prohibit the use of generators and shall establish grid power connection to electrical equipment needs.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with their telephone number and contractor to contact. The construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be identified and visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
GHG-2 Adopt and Implement a CEQA GHG Emissions Threshold The City shall include and implement a new 2040 General Plan policy under the Environment Element to prepare, adopt, and implement a CEQA GHG Emissions threshold of significance. The City shall adopt the CEQA GHG Emissions threshold of significance by the end of 2025 for use in future CEQA GHG emissions analyses through 2030. In addition, upon completion of future CAP updates and as necessary, the City shall update the CEQA GHG Emissions threshold of significance and American Canyon CEQA GHG Checklist to be consistent with each CAP update.
GHG-3 Adopt American Canyon CAP to Meet the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG Emissions Goals
The City shall draft and adopt the American Canyon qualified CAP by the end of 2025 to outline how American Canyon will meet the State’s 2030 goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 210
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-23
2045 goal of carbon neutrality. Implementation measures in the updated qualified CAP to achieve the 2030 and 2045 goals may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Develop and adopt Zero Net Energy requirements for new and remodeled residential and nonresidential development; Develop and adopt a building electrification ordinance for existing and proposed structures; Expand charging infrastructure and parking for electric vehicles; Implement carbon sequestration by expanding the urban forest, participating in soil-based or compost application sequestration initiatives, supporting regional open space protection, and/or incentivizing rooftop gardens; and
Implement policies and measures included in the California 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan, such as mobile source strategies for increasing clean transit options and zero emissions vehicles by providing electric vehicle charging stations.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that construction related GHG impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-2 and GHG-3 would ensure that development facilitated by the project after 2024 would be consistent with State emissions goals. However, 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. Until the CEQA GHG thresholds are adopted and the CAP is updated, implementation of the project would not be consistent with BAAQMD GHG thresholds nor would it be consistent with State GHG reduction plans. Therefore, the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
211
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.5-24
This page intentionally left blank.
212
Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1
4.6 Land Use and Planning
This section summarizes existing and planned land uses in the Planning Area and analyzes the impacts on land use and planning due to the project. The physical environmental effects associated with the project, many of which pertain to issues of land use compatibility (e.g., aesthetics, air quality, noise) are evaluated in other sections of this EIR.
4.6.1 Setting
a. Existing Land Use Patterns
The General Plan Planning Area includes the following four components.
Current City Limits: The City limits encompasses approximately 6.1 square miles. The existing uses within City limits are discussed in further detail below.
Sphere of Influence (SOI): The SOI represents areas that may already receive City services and are a visual and logical expansion of the city boundaries. There is currently one area in the SOI that is not within City limits. The City is currently in the process of annexing that area as part of the Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project and is currently preparing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation (City of American Canyon 2022).
Urban Limit Line (ULL): The ULL was established in a 2008 voter initiative. The ULL agreement obtained County support for City annexation of three properties in the Napa Airport Specific Plan and potentially additional properties within the ULL until the Year 2030. In return, the City clarified its City Water Service area policies for some properties outside the City limits. The ULL boundary includes the SOI plus additional properties east of the City (see Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description).
Historical City Water Service Area: Areas within the City’s historical water service area beyond the ULL are intended to remain outside the city limits for the duration of the General Plan planning period. This property is relevant to the General Plan because these County properties obtain potable water from the City’s water service area.
Within the City limits, approximately 30 percent of the city has residential uses, including singlefamily, multifamily, and mobile home parks (American Canyon 2020). Approximately 26 percent of American Canyon is made up of vacant land, primarily vacant industrial land. Public facilities, parks, and open space make up next largest category at 16 percent. Existing industrial uses occupy 14 percent of the city, while commercial uses comprise 4.2 percent (American Canyon 2020).
Residential
Residential uses are the predominant land use in the City. Housing units consist of single-family, multi-family, mobile homes, and estate (agricultural) homes. Neighborhoods containing singlefamily detached dwelling units are the primary developed land use within the city. Most low-density (i.e., single-family) residential uses are located west of State Route (SR) 29 while the higher density residential uses (i.e., multi-family and mobile homes) are generally located between American Canyon Road and the City' s southern limit, and between SR 29 and Flosden Road. 213
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.6-2
Commercial
Commercial uses in the City include retail (general and personal services), offices, restaurants, convenience markets, gas stations, and auto-related facilities. Commercial uses located along SR 29 and are generally sited to attract customers from commuter or tourist traffic on SR 29 (e.g., gas stations, restaurants, and convenience markets) (American Canyon 1994a). Planned multimodal improvements (i.e.: sidewalks, trails, property interconnectivity) as well as adjacent existing and planned housing will increase non-motorized access.
Industrial
Industrial uses in the City include light and heavy manufacturing, storage and salvage yards, business parks, and other related uses (American Canyon 1994a). Industrial uses are primarily located in the north-western portion of the City.
Institutional
Institutional uses include churches, and other religious institutions. These facilities provide a variety of services for the physically challenged, senior citizens, and others (American Canyon 1994a).
Public
The City’s public uses encompass educational facilities, recreational facilities, utilities, easements, and civic structures. Utility facilities and easements include such uses as a wastewater treatment plant and Pacific Gas & Electric transmission line corridors (American Canyon 1994a). The City also includes a network of public parks, primarily around residences, and open space adjacent to the Napa River and Newell Open Space to provide opportunities for recreation.
Agriculture
Agriculture uses are limited within the Urban Limit Line (ULL). These consist of grazing, livestock feed crops and vineyards.
Vacant
Vacant land in the city is primarily located in areas designated industrial and residential on the northwestern side of the city. In the northeastern side of the City and ULL, vacant land is designated industrial, residential, and special study.
4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
There are no federal regulations that pertain to land use and planning. b. State Regulations
General Plan Law (California Government Code Section 65300) California Government Code Section 65300 regulates the substantive and topical requirements of general plans. State law requires that each city and county adopt a general plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its 214
Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
planning.” The California Supreme Court has called the general plan the “constitution for future development.” The general plan expresses the community’s development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private.
California Government Code Section 65301
Section 65301 of the California Government Code requires a general plan to address the geographic territory of the local jurisdiction and any other territory outside its boundaries that bears relation to the planning of the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction may exercise their own judgment in determining what areas outside of its boundaries to include in the planning area. The State of California General Plan Guidelines denotes that the planning area for a city should include (at minimum) all land within the city limits and all land within the city’s SOI.
Government Code Section 65860(a)
State law requires that general law city or town zoning ordinances be consistent with the general plan. A zoning ordinance is consistent with an adopted general plan only if the various land uses authorized by the zoning ordinance "are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan" (Government Code Section 65860(a)). State law also provides that in the event a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan by reason of amendment to such a plan, the zoning ordinance must be amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the general plan as amended [Government Code Section 65860(a)]. The City of American Canyon is a general law city and is, therefore, required to have zoning consistency.
Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 The 2000 Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKH Act) established procedures for local agency changes of organization, including city incorporation, annexation to a city or special district, and consolidation of cities or special districts (Section 56000, et seq.). Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) have numerous powers under the CKH Act, but the most important are the power to act on local agency boundary changes and to adopt sphere of influences (SOIs) for local agencies. The law states that to update an SOI, LAFCOs are required to first conduct a review of the municipal services provided by the local agency. The CKH Act requires LAFCOs to update SOIs for every city and special district every five years. The original deadline was January 2006, five years following the CHK Act becoming State law. That deadline was extended two years to January 2008. Every SOI update must be accompanied by an update of the municipal services review. American Canyon’s SOI is not being updated as a part of the 2040 General Plan.
State Aeronautics Act
The State Aeronautics Act requires each county with an airport to establish an Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to regulate land use around airports to protect public safety and ensure that land uses near airports do not interfere with aviation operations. The Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) regulates land use around the Napa County Airport, as well as two other aviation facilities in the County, by requiring compliance with the policies of the plan. In certain circumstances, local governments may override the decisions of the ALUC.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) supports the State's climate goals by helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions through coordinated transportation, housing, and land 215
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.6-4
use planning. Under SB 375, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set targets for 2020 and 2035 for each of the 18 metropolitan planning organization regions in 2010 and updated them in 2018.
Each of the regions must prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), as an integral part of its regional transportation plan, that contains land use, housing, and transportation strategies that, if implemented, would allow the region to meet CARB’s targets. SB 375 establishes some incentives to encourage implementation of the development patterns and strategies included in an SCS.
Developers can get relief from certain environmental review requirements under CEQA if their new residential and mixed-use projects are consistent with a regions SCS that meets the targets (see Public Resources Code Sections 21155, 21155.1, 21155.2, and 21159.28). c. Local Regulations
Association of Bay Area Governments 2021 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is required by State and federal law to prepare, update, and adopt a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) every four years. Senate Bill (SB) 375, California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was enacted in 2008, requiring all RTPs to include an SCS that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles and lightduty trucks. The most recent update to the RTP/SCS was completed by ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in October 2021. The 2021 RTP/SCS, also known as Plan Bay Area 2050, builds on ABAG’s 2017 RTP/SCS and serves as the blueprint for the region’s transportation system over the next 30 years (ABAG 2021).
The 2021 RTP/SCS includes the following goals:
Protect and preserve affordable housing.
Spur housing production for residents of all income levels. Create inclusive communities.
Improve economic mobility.
Shift the location of jobs.
Maintain and optimize the existing transportation system. Create healthy and safe streets.
Build a next-generation transit network.
Reduce risks from hazards.
Expand access to parks and open space.
Reduce climate emissions.
City of American Canyon Municipal Code
The Zoning Code (Title 19) of the City of American Canyon Municipal Code is the primary tool used by the City to carry out the goals, objectives, and policies of the American Canyon General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the city, consistent with the General Plan. Zoning is the instrument that implements the land use designations of a general plan. In addition to establishing permitted uses, zoning may also establish development standards relating to issues such as intensity, setbacks, height, and parking. Projects submitted to the City for review and approval are generally evaluated for consistency with the zoning designations. 216
Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
The 21 existing zoning districts established by the American Canyon Zoning Ordinance are as follows (American Canyon 2015):
RE – Residential Estate
RR – Rural Residential (RR-20,000, RR-10,000)
RS – Suburban Residential (RS-8000, RS-6500)
RM – Medium Residential
RH – High Residential (RH-1, RH-2)
PC – Planned Community
SP – Specific Plan (SP-1, SP-2)
CN – Neighborhood Commercial
CC – Community Commercial
REC – Recreation
TC – Town Center
P – Public
LI – Light Industrial
GI – General Industrial
OS – Open Space
OS-CRW – Open Space Clarke Ranch West
SS – Special Study
Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
The Napa County ALUCP governs land use around Napa County Airport. The ALUCP identifies two categories of flight hazards: physical obstructions and land use characteristics. Physical obstructions are associated with tall objects or structures. The ALUCP establishes a height restriction of 35 feet above the ground for objects located within Zone D. Additional height may be permitted under stringent Special Use Permit procedures as provided for in the Airport Safety Ordinance No. 416 and be referred to the Napa County ALUC prior to final approval. Land use characteristics involve uses that may produce hazards to aviation. Specific characteristics prohibited within the airport land use planning boundaries are listed below:
Glare or distracting lights, which could be mistaken for airport lights Sources of dust, steam, or smoke that may impair pilot visibility Sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation Any use that may attract large flocks or birds, especially landfills or certain agricultural uses The ALUCP follows Noise Compatibility Guidelines, as included in Table 2-1 of the ALUCP (ALUC 1991). New residential uses are not permitted within Zone D without ALUC review. However, the City entered a Settlement Agreement with the ALUC on May 3, 2022. The Settlement Agreement provides that the City will not recommend for approval any application for a residential use in Zone D until an amendment to the ALUCP has been approved or December 31, 2023, whichever occurs first. The Settlement Agreement does not prohibit the City from processing an application for a residential proposal within Zone D.
217
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.6-6
4.6.3 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 land use and planning if it would:
1. Physically divide an established community;
2. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Methodology
The consistency analysis describes existing regional and local plans and policies and is intended to fulfill the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d). The emphasis of the analysis is on the project’s inconsistency and potential conflicts between the project and existing applicable land use plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and whether any inconsistencies would cause significant environmental effects. The project is considered consistent with the provisions of the identified regional and local plans if it meets the general intent of the applicable plans and does not conflict with directly applicable policies. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every policy nor does state law require precise conformity of a proposed project with every policy or land use designation. Courts have also acknowledged that general and specific plans attempt to balance a range of competing interests, and that it is nearly, if not absolutely, impossible for a project to be in perfect conformity with each and every policy set forth in the applicable plan. Additionally, in reaching such consistency conclusions, the City may also consider the consequences of denial of a project, which can result in other policy inconsistencies.
For example, Government Code Section 65589.5 explains that the potential consequences of limiting the approval of housing can include reduced mobility, urban sprawl, excessive commuting, and air quality deterioration.
For an impact to be considered significant, an inconsistency would also have to result in a significant adverse change in the environment not already addressed in the other resource chapters of this EIR.
The analysis below provides a discussion of the most relevant policies from the various planning documents. However, the City’s consistency conclusions are based upon the planning documents as a whole.
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project physically divide an established community? Impact LU-1 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY AND THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT.
Most of the Planning Area is currently developed. As described in Section 2, Project Description, the project would have a maximum buildout potential of an additional 3,204 residential units and an additional 5.7 million non-residential square footage. This buildout is projected to occur specifically within the existing City limits. The 2040 General Plan would involve implementation of proposed policies and land use designations that identify the type and intensity of uses permissible in the 218
Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7
Planning Area. Intensity and density standards are established for each land use classification. The intent of the land use designations is to adequately classify and distinguish the various land uses needed within the Planning Area.
The Land Use Element of the 2040 General Plan contains the following proposed goals and policies, which would maintain existing communities within the City of American Canyon and would ensure that established communities would not be divided by development facilitated by the project:
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-1.1: Balance of Land Uses. Establish a diversity of land use designations that provide for housing, commercial, employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, and recreation needs of residents; capture visitor and tourist activity; provide employment opportunities for residents of the greater subregion; and provide open space and aesthetic relief from developed urban/suburban areas.
Policy LU-1.2: Pattern of Development. Support a pattern of development that establishes distinct neighborhoods, districts, places of community activity and culture and open spaces that are interlinked and promote a cohesive image; locates jobs, commerce, recreation, and other places of community activity within close proximity to housing, minimizing the need for vehicular use; achieves a balance of uses to serve both sides of Highway 29; and establishes an overall compact urban form surrounded by open space.
Policy LU-1.4: Compact Development Pattern. Maintain a compact development pattern that fosters a walkable and bikeable urban form.
These policies would maintain existing communities in the City of American Canyon and would ensure that established communities would not be divided. Policy LU-1.1 would ensure orderly, contiguous development and would avoid land use incompatibilities, which would prevent division of existing communities. Policies LU-1.2 and LU-1.4 would encourage infill development and development of underutilized property, which facilitate development of vacant or underutilized properties to be consistent with their surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the mobility improvements identified in the Mobility Element of the 2040 General Plan would not be located within an established community and would therefore not divide an established community. The project would not physically divide the City of American Canyon or its established communities.
There would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required.
Significance After Mitigation
There would be no impact and no mitigation would be required. 219
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.6-8
Threshold 2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-2 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DUE TO A
CONFLICT WITH A PLAN ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING OR MITIGATING AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Several regionally and locally adopted land use plans, policies, and regulations apply to the project.
These include the Plan Bay Area 2050, the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan, and the ALUCP. Project consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan is discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality. Project consistency with applicable goals and policies of Plan Bay Area 2050 are identified below in Table 4.6-1.
Consistency of the project with the ALUCP is described below.
Table 4.6-1 Project Consistency with the Plan Bay Area 2050 Plan Bay Area Goals Project Consistency
Environmental Strategies
EN4. Maintain urban growth boundaries. Using urban
growth boundaries and other existing environmental
protections, focus new development within the existing
urban footprint or areas otherwise suitable for growth, as established by local jurisdictions.
Consistent. The Planning Area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence and urban limit line boundaries.
Economic Strategies
EC4. Allow greater commercial densities in Growth
Geographies. Allow greater densities for new commercial development in select Priority Development Areas and
Transit-Rich Areas to encourage more jobs to locate near public transit.
Consistent. The following 2040 General Plan proposed
goals and policies encourages commercial and mixed-use
development that is clustered and attractive to
pedestrians and cyclists.
Goal LU-3: Attractive and vibrant neighborhoods,
community, and regional commercial centers with
convenient shopping, services, entertainment, and
social interaction.
Policy LU-3.1: Diversity of Commercial Uses. Provide
for a diversity of retail and service commercial uses
that support multiple neighborhoods and the greater
community, reduce the need for trips to adjacent
jurisdictions for goods and services, and provide
shopping and service opportunities for commuters,
visitors, and tourists.
Goal LU-4: Improve the appearance and functionality
of the Highway 29 corridor and establish a Town
Center to provide for economically sound localserving commercial development. Policy LU-4.9: Commercial Clustering. Encourage the
clustering of commercial activities along Highway 29
to provide more attractive and cohesive facilities
while minimizing potential circulation conflicts.
Overall, compared to existing conditions, the project
could add approximately 5.7 million square feet of
commercial, retail, hotel, industrial, warehouse, and
research and development uses. With implementation of
the proposed goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan, the project would be consistent with strategy EC4.
220
Environmental Impact Analysis
Land Use and Planning
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9
Plan Bay Area Goals Project Consistency
EC6. Retain and invest in key industrial lands. Implement local land use policies to protect key industrial lands, identified as Priority Production Areas, while funding key infrastructure improvements in these areas.
Consistent. Portions of the Planning Area are mapped as Priority Production Areas by ABAG. The project would
facilitate infrastructure and roadway improvements while maintaining existing industrial lands throughout the
Planning Area.
The Napa County Airport is located less than one mile north of the city limits and development within the Napa County Airport’s sphere of influence is governed by the ALUCP. Portions of the northern areas of the city are located within Compatibility Zone D and Zone E. The Napa County ALUCP contains “Supporting Compatibility Policies” related to noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight (ALUC 1991). Consistency with the ALUCP regarding noise and maintenance of acceptable noise levels is discussed in Section 4.7, Noise, which finds impacts to be less than significant.
Consistency with the ALUCP regarding hazards, including those related to safety, airspace protection, and overflight, is discussed in Section 4.15, Effect Found to be Less Than Significant, which finds impacts to be less than significant. As such, the project would be consistent with the ALUCP and impacts would be less than significant.
As demonstrated above, the project would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 and the ALUCP.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures for land use and planning would be required beyond those identified throughout this EIR, including Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2; AQ-1 through AQ-4; BIO-1 and BIO-2; CUL-1 through CUL-3; GHG-1 through GHG-3; NOI-1 through NOI-3; PAL-1; and WF1 and WF-2.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation, beyond those identified throughout this EIR.
221
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.6-10
This page intentionally left blank.
222
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1
4.7 Noise
This section analyzes noise and groundborne vibration impacts associated with the project, including short-term construction and long-term operational noise and vibration. Noise modeling results associated with the analysis herein are included in Appendix C to this EIR.
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
a. Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dBA; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dBA decrease (Caltrans 2013).
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible; and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (Caltrans 2013).
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.
The most obvious change is the decrease in sound level as the distance from the source increases.
The manner by which noise declines with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result simply from the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013).
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver.
223
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
4.7-2
Noise Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, its frequency, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed.
One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and intensity is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time. Typically, Leq is equivalent to a one-hour period, even when measured for shorter durations, as the noise level of a 10- to 30-minute period would be the same as the hour if the noise source is relatively steady. Lmax is the highest Root Mean Squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period.
Normal conversational levels at three feet are in the 60- to 65-dBA Leq range and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).
Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day.
Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually differ by about 0.5 dBA and are, therefore, generally considered to be interchangeable. b. Overview of Groundborne Vibration
In environmental analysis, groundborne vibration of concern consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hertz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.
While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hertz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is impacted by 224
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3
vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.