The project would result in some land use designation changes; however, these changes primarily resolve inconsistencies between existing land uses and land use designations in the General Plan. As such, the project would generally preserve the existing land use pattern in American Canyon. The project does not facilitate development within the sphere-of-influence (SOI) or urban limit line. Any future proposals to develop within the SOI or urban limit line would be subject to annexation to the City of American Canyon in compliance with procedures identified by the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission, as well as additional environmental documentation.
In addition, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the 2040 General Plan includes mobility improvements, including roadway extensions. These roadway extensions would serve approved or pending development. For example, the Newell Drive Extension would serve, in part, the future development associated with the Watson Ranch Specific Plan.
For the reasons identified above, the project would not result in significant growth inducement due to the removal of an obstacle to growth.
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(c) requires a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the project, should the project be implemented. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, environmental accidents, and irreversible impacts associated with the project.
The project would irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products and potentially natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of future development. As described in Section 4.15, Effects Found to Be Less Than Significant, development facilitated by the project would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated buildings, and the Green Building Standards Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. Furthermore, the project would implement several policies which would require efficient energy use and promote renewable energy programs. Consequently, development facilitated by the project would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable and renewable resources would be less than significant. Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the project.
Growth facilitated by the project would require an irreversible commitment of fire protection, law enforcement, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. As discussed in Section 4.10, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, 542
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3
potential impacts to public services and utilities and service systems would be less than significant following implementation of 2040 General Plan proposed policies, as well as future project-specific environmental review that would be required for any future facilities constructed in accordance with the project.
Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.15, Effects Found to Be Less Than Significant, regulatory requirements, including those from the Napa County Division of Environmental Health would minimize potential accidents related to the spills of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not lead to significant irreversible environmental changes due to environmental accidents.
The anticipated increase in vehicle trips associated with the project would incrementally contribute to local traffic, air quality emissions, and noise. As described in Section 4.11, Transportation, VMTrelated impacts would be less than significant because the project would facilitate reduced work commute distances. As described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, and implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 would ensure the project would not result in people being exposed to substantial irreversible exposure to toxic air contaminants. However, as described in Section 4.7, Noise, the project would result in substantial increases in noise due to vehicle traffic. Although Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce noise through implementation of roadway vehicle noise reduction measures, implementation of the project would result in an irreversible increase in noise due to vehicle traffic.
The project would cause an irreversible increase in greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, although implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-2 and GHG-3 would ensure development facilitated by the project after 2024 would be consistent with the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, individual projects that may occur prior to 2024 would not be guaranteed to be consistent with State emissions goals, nor are exact emissions reductions known at the time of adoption of the 2040 General Plan. As a result, the project would cause a substantial irreversible increase in greenhouse gas emissions which may be inconsistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District greenhouse gas emissions thresholds and the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, until the adoption and implementation of greenhouse gas emissions thresholds and a Climate Action Plan.
5.3 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b) requires a discussion of the significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. These significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis and summarized below. The project would have the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
Impact GHG-1: Development facilitated by the project would make progress towards achieving state goals but would not necessarily meet State 2030 or 2045 goals. Mitigation Measures GHG2 and GHG-3 would require implementation of CEQA thresholds and a Climate Action Plan (CAP); however, development facilitated by the project would not meet the 2030 or 2045 goals until the CAP is updated and adopted. This impact would be significant and unavoidable. Impact NOI-1: Construction of individual projects facilitated by the project would temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Development facilitated by the project would also introduce new noise sources and contribute to increases in operational noise. Construction and operational traffic noise could exceed standards. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.
543
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
5-4
Impact TRA-2: The 2040 General Plan includes policies which would reduce VMT. However, because there is no specific mitigation to reduce VMT per resident and the General Plan policies cannot realistically enforce mitigation programs or policies that might reduce VMT below the threshold, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 544
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6, this environmental impact report (EIR) examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the 2040 General Plan will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development, represent the community’s view of its future, and contain the goals and policies upon with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. The 2040 General Plan will provide a contemporary plan that will guide American Canyon though the next 20 years. The primary objective of this project is to update the existing American Canyon General Plan in order for it to be compliant with State law.
The 2040 General Plan would implement the vision of the existing General Plan. The City identifies the following three fundamental roles of the City:
The City should be home for a residential population, internally accommodating a sufficient range of uses to support the needs of residents (including a mix of housing types, commercial services, entertainment, employment, recreation, education, health, religious, cultural facilities, transportation services, and open space). At the present time, many of these uses are located outside the City, which necessitates extensive travel by residents to access these services.
The City should be a center of employment and commerce for regional, as well as local residents. This will provide an opportunity to capitalize upon (1) the cluster of uses which have developed in the Green Island Industrial Park; (2) the proximity of the City to the Napa County Airport and Southern Pacific railroad, and (3) the relationship of the City to the agricultural and vineyard industries of Napa County.
The City can capture visitors to the Napa Valley by providing uses which capitalize on the unique environmental setting of the foothills, river valleys, and agriculture. Environmental educational facilities, such as wetlands interpretative centers, overnight camping and recreational vehicle facilities, river recreational facilities such as boating, golf courses, and hotel/motels and restaurants are representative of the range of uses which may be considered.
In addition, the City identifies the following ten visions and principles to guide development:
Existing residential neighborhoods should be preserved. Neighborhoods that deteriorate or decline should be improved or revitalized.
A variety of housing types should be provided to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents. Multi-family units should be dispersed to prevent an overcrowding of density in isolated areas and improve the character of development.
New residential neighborhoods should incorporate a mixture of uses, services, and pedestrian amenities and corridors to reduce the use of the automobile.
Adequate open space and recreational amenities should be incorporated in new residential subdivisions to ensure that the needs of the residents are adequately served. 545
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-2
A "town center" should be established in proximity to the closed basalt plant which functions as the symbolic center of American Canyon. A wide diversity of uses characterized by a high level of activity should be accommodated, including government, retail, office, service, entertainment, housing, and open space. The center should be developed as a pedestrianoriented village that is physically linked by pedestrian and bicycle trails and other elements to surrounding neighborhoods and districts.
Additional villages need to be established to accommodate the basic commercial uses necessary to support existing and future residents ( grocery stores, household supplies, clothing, and similar uses). These would be located at two primary sites: the intersection of American Canyon Road and Highway 29 and adjacent to the Town Center on Highway 29.
Highway 29 should be reconfigured in a more effective land use pattern. The clustering of commercial uses would establish a critical mass of development that would improve the quality and economic viability of the area. The current pattern of dispersal substantially diminishes these areas.
Opportunities should be provided for the expansion of the existing industrial development at Green Island Industrial Park and in the vicinity of the Napa Airport and Southern Pacific Railroad.
Areas adjacent to the Napa River should afford the opportunity for the establishment of a wetlands interpretative and conference center, nature observation, hiking, camping, and water recreational ( boating) uses.
Oat Hill offers the opportunity for the development of a restaurant or hotel that would take advantage of views of the Napa River and San Francisco Bay.
This analysis presents two alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the project that may reduce the project-related environmental impacts identified in this EIR. These Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options that would help decision-makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed project. The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Watson Ranch Natural Alternative
Alternative 3: Limited Growth
Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of the proposed project and each of the alternatives considered. Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.1 through 6.3.
546
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3
Table 6-1 Comparison of Alternatives
Proposed
Project
Alternative
1:
No Project
Alternative 2: Watson
Ranch Natural Alternative
Alternative 3:
Limited
Growth
Total Allowable Dwelling Units Under1
Alternative
3,204 3,204 3,975 2,971
Change in Total Maximum Dwelling
Units Compared to Proposed Project
N/A -175 +596 -408
Total Additional Residents Under
Alternative1
10,734 10,990 12,790 10,190
Change in Population Potential
Compared to Proposed Project (Number
of Residents)
N/A -600 +2,056 -1,400
Total Additional Non-Residential Square
Footage Under Alternative2
5,704,000 5,704,000 5,704,000 5,639,000
Change in Total Additional NonResidential Square Footage Compared to Proposed Project
N/A N/A N/A -65,000
Updated Policies in General Plan Yes No Yes Yes
1 The estimates for additional dwelling units, residences, and non-residential square footage are a conservative estimate based on the maximum buildout scenario. Overall, maximum growth will be dependent on multiple factors, including local economic conditions, market demand, and other financing considerations. These numbers are not meant to be a predictor of future growth. 2 Non-residential square footage in Alternative 2 was assumed to be the same as the existing General Plan and only residential densities were changed.
6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
6.1.1 Description
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) require that the alternatives discussion include an analysis of a No Project Alternative. Pursuant to CEQA, the No Project Alternative refers to the analysis of existing conditions and what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The No Project Alternative typically will proceed along one of two lines: (1) when a project is a revision of an existing regulatory plan or policy, the No Project Alternative will be continuation of the existing plan or policy; or (2) if a project is a development project on identifiable property, the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. In this case, the No Project Alternative represents the continuation of existing zoning and General Plan designations within the City.
Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, buildout for the No Project Alternative would allow for 3,204 housing units and approximately 5.7 million square feet of additional non-residential land uses. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan policies.
547
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-4
The No Project Alternative would not accomplish the primary objective of the project, which is to update the existing American Canyon General Plan in order for it to be compliant with State law. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not include the updated 2040 General Plan policies and programs pertaining to community development, preservation of natural resources, sustainability, and improvement of American Canyon’s circulation network.
6.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Development under the No Project Alternative would continue the land use pattern that currently exists in American Canyon. Impacts to aesthetics would be similar to the proposed project.
Development under the No Project Alternative could affect aesthetics compared to existing conditions due to buildout and would be required to comply with the same American Canyon Municipal Code regulations as the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project includes Mitigation Measures AES-1 and AES-2, which would require measures to minimize lighting impacts during construction and operation of projects. Both these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to light and glare to less than significant. However, the No Project Alternative would not include these mitigation measures and could result in a significant impact on light and glare.
Therefore, the severity of the impact on aesthetics for the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.
b. Air Quality
Like the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not preclude planned transit or bike pathways and would not disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and meet federal and State air quality standards. The No Project Alternative would be consistent with applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures, although not to the extent as the proposed project, as the No Project Alternative would not include 2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce criteria pollutant emissions such as proposed Policy ENV-8.2, which would reduce construction pollutants as well as proposed Goal MOB-1 and its corresponding policies which would reduce transportation emissions:
Policy ENV-11.2: Construction Management Plans. Require new development and redevelopment projects to prepare and implement a construction management plan that incorporates Best Available Control Measures and all best management practices in accordance with the Air District standards to reduce criteria pollutants.
Goal MOB-1: Provide safe and convenient access throughout the community with a citywide network of complete streets that meet the needs of all users and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Impacts regarding conflict with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant, albeit greater than the proposed project.
Buildout under the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations would involve a similar amount of construction emissions as compared to the proposed project. . Like the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) current recommended basic control measures.
The No Project Alternative would have similar overall construction-related impacts to air quality. 548
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-5
As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the greatest source of criteria pollutants in American Canyon is from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway traffic. The No Project Alternative would result in similar VMT impacts as compared to the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not include proposed 2040 General Plan proposed policies MOB-1.17 and MOB-5.1, which both support VMT reduction.
Policy MOB-1.17: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through layout of land uses, improved alternate travel modes, and provision of more direct routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle miles traveled by city and non-residents traveling to American Canyon to work or shop. Policy MOB-6.1: VMT Thresholds. Establish vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mitigation requirements for the purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City shall continue to maintain LOS standards for the purposes of planning and designing street improvements on Green Island Road, Devlin Road, and American Canyon Road.
These policies would ultimately reduce VMT per capita. Overall, operational air quality impacts for the No Project Alternative would also be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
The No Project Alternative would result in similar amounts of toxic air contaminants (TAC) near sensitive receptors when compared to the proposed project. However, as described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the proposed project includes 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to promote clean air quality, protect public health and safety, and mitigate adverse air quality impacts, such as proposed policies ENV-11.1 and ENV-11.3. Policy ENV-11.1: Regional Air Quality Efforts. Support and coordinate with BAAQMD and State and Federal planning efforts aimed at reducing air pollution and management of major pollutants affecting American Canyon and the region, including the Clean Air Plan. Policy ENV-11.3: Separate Sensitive Land Uses. Separate sources of air pollution from sensitive land uses, such as residences, schools, day care centers, hospitals, and nursing homes.
The No Project Alternative would not implement these policies. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to prepare a construction health risk assessment. The No Project Alternative would have similar overall construction-related TAC impacts to air quality as compared to the proposed project.
Like the proposed project, construction activities under the No Project Alternative would generate odors, which would be temporary and limited to the constructed period. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would have a less than significant with mitigation impact regarding creation of objectionable odors.
Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts to air quality as the proposed project but would not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater to the impacts from the proposed project. c. Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, potential habitat suitable for special-status species occurs in streams, grasslands, riparian woodland, and forests within the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative may still potentially impact special-status species or their habitat, including 549
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-6
riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Furthermore, in contrast to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan goals and policies, such as proposed Policy ENV-1.2 and Policy ENV-1.3 which are designed to preserve and protect biological resources in American Canyon.
Policy ENV-1.2: Sensitive Habitat Assessment and Impact Mitigation. Require new development and redevelopment located within sensitive habitats, including coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, oak savannah, vernal pools, and riparian habitats to provide a detailed assessment of the potential for impacts on these resources, and include measures to reduce any identifiable impacts.
Policy ENV-1.3: Habitat Conservation. Support habitat conservation efforts to set aside and preserve suitable habitats, with priority given to habitats for rare and endangered species in American Canyon in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements.
Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project; however, the No Project Alternative would also not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater than to the impacts from the proposed project.
d. Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would have the potential to impact historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon through development of individual projects.. In contrast to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan goals and policies designed to preserve and protect historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon such as proposed Goal ENV-5 and its corresponding policies.
Goal ENV-4: Protect cultural and tribal resources.
Policy ENV-4.1: Preservation. Protect areas containing significant historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, as defined by the California Public Resources Code. Policy ENV-4.2: Development. Ensure that human remains are treated with sensitivity and dignity and ensure compliance with the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Policy ENV-4.3: Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol. In the event any Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground disturbing activity, the “Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation” shall be implemented as included as Appendix A to the Housing Element.
Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have similar impacts compared to the proposed project; however, the No Project Alternative would not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this 550
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-7
analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater than the impacts from the proposed project.
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project Alternative would result in the same buildout as the proposed project. Temporary construction-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from grading and construction of new housing and non-residential development, as well as long-term impacts resulting from building operation (such as energy use, maintenance, and traffic) would be similar to the proposed project. .
However, the No Project Alternative would not include Mitigation Measures GHG-2 or GHG-3 which would require the adoption of a GHG threshold and Climate Action Plan (CAP) to meet the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG emissions goals.
American Canyon’s existing General Plan does not outline how the City would meet State-mandated goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the California Executive Order B55-18 goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and would not include a qualified GHG reduction plan to guide progress towards State goals. Consequently, impacts related to generation of GHG emissions and consistency with State GHG reduction plans under the No Project Alternative would be potentially significant. Under the No Project Alternative, the CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance and updated Climate Action Plan would not be implemented. As such, the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts on GHG emissions compared to the proposed project, because CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance and an updated Climate Action Plan would not be implemented.
f. Land Use and Planning
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no changes to land use designations, zoning, or policies in the General Plan. The No Project Alternative would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Like the proposed project, future development under existing zoning would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, including Plan Bay Area 2050, as discussed in Impact LU-2 in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning.. Overall, impacts regarding land use and planning would be less than significant, like the proposed project. g. Noise
Buildout under the No Project Alternative would result in the same amount of development as the proposed project. Therefore, similar levels of construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from the No Project Alternative, compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction noise under the No Project Alternative could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise-sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to implement construction noise reduction measures. However, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the proposed project. Adherence to American Canyon Municipal Code noise limits for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under the No Project Alternative is less than significant. However, the No Project Alternative would not include 551
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-8
2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce operational noise impacts such as proposed Policies S-8.1, S-8.3, and S-8.12 which include requirements for considering noise in land use compatibility and site design.
Policy S-8.1: Land Use Compatibility. Use the land use-noise compatibility matrix in Table S-1 to guide the siting of future land uses.
Policy S-8.2: Sensitive Facilities. Ensure appropriate noise mitigation is incorporated into the design of noise- sensitive facilities.
Policy S-8.3: Site Design. Minimize noise impacts to adjacent noise-sensitive land uses in site planning and project design.
Stationary source noise impacts due to the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project because the proposed policies and programs listed above would not be implemented.
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise. The No Project Alternative would result in an increase in VMT compared to existing conditions and it is anticipated that a significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact would occur.
Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to prepare a construction vibration control plan. Operation of future development under the No Project Alternative would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise would be similar to the impacts of the proposed project.
Residents and businesses facilitated by the No Project Alternative would not be served by the Napa County Airport. Thus, development facilitated under this alternative would not result in significantly increased airport or airstrip activity. Continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Napa County Airport. Impacts would be less than significant, like the proposed project.
Overall, the No Project Alternative would not have the benefits associated with implementing the updated policies in the 2040 General Plan. As such, for the purposes of this analysis, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be greater than to the impacts from the proposed project. h. Paleontological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, portions of the city are underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Under the No Project Alternative, ground disturbance could still result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to minimize impacts on paleontological resources. The No Project Alternative would involvesimilar impacts to paleontological resources as compared to the proposed project. i. Population and Housing
Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, implementation of the No Project Alternative would accommodate the same amount of housing units and residents as the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would result in similar population growth and would not induce substantial 552
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-9
unplanned population growth. The displacement of people or housing units under the No Project Alternative would be minimal, as development in American Canyon would continue in accordance with the existing General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. When compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would have equal impacts to population and housing. j. Public Services and Recreation
Development allowed by existing land use and zoning regulations would occur under the No Project Alternative, which would result in an increase to emergency calls in the area, as well as an increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services.
Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, the No Project Alternative would add approximately 11,590 which is the same as the proposed project. Thus, impacts to public services and recreation would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project. k. Transportation
The No Project Alternative would result in development that follows the existing land use and zoning regulations. Goals and policies within the existing General Plan would apply under this alternative. Given the compliance with existing General Plan goals and policies that pertain to provision of “complete streets,” increased connectivity, adequate emergency access, and safety design, the No Project Alternative would have a less than significant impact regarding conflict with circulation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies. The No Project Alternative would also have a less than significant impact regarding substantially increased transportation hazards and inadequate emergency access. Nonetheless, the proposed project prioritizes the provisions of “complete streets” to a greater extent than the No Project Alternative since the proposed project includes proposed Goal MOB-1 and its corresponding policies, which would provide a citywide network of complete streets. As such, the No Project Alternative would have greater impacts related to consistency with plans and safety, compared to the project.
In addition, the No Project Alternative would result in similar buildout as compared to the proposed project. As described in Section 4.11, Transportation, American Canyon currently has fewer jobs than employed residents. As such, the No Project Alternative would result in similar per capita VMT compared to the proposed project. However, the No Project Alternative would not include proposed 2040 General Plan policies MOB-1.17 and MOB-6.1 that support VMT reduction, which would ultimately reduce VMT per capita.
Overall, because the No Project Alternative would not include the proposed policies in the 2040 General Plan, the impacts from the No Project Alternative would be slightly greater compared to the proposed project.
l. Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.12, Tribal Cultural Resources, impacts on tribal cultural resource (TCR) are highly dependent on the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed activity, including level of ground disturbance. Under the No Project Alternative, existing land use designations and zoning would continue to define the type of development that occurs throughout American Canyon. Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative may involve excavation, which could potentially impact previously unidentified TCRs. The No Project Alternative would not include updated General Plan policies designed to preserve and protect TCRs, which were developed in part through consultation with Native American Tribes, such as proposed Goal ENV-4 and Policy ENV-4.3, which requires the implementation of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation 553
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-10
Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Overall, because these policies would not be included in the No Project Alternative, impacts, the severity of the impact on TCRs for the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project.
m. Utilities and Service Systems
Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative would create additional demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication, and stormwater drainage facilities.
Any utility expansion within City limits would be subject to existing General Plan policies, which are intended to reduce potential impacts of utility expansion. Although the No Project Alternative would not include 2040 General Plan proposed policies that require implementation of low impact development, energy conservation, and energy efficiency strategies, there are existing regulations that would require similar measures. Impacts involving utility expansion under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the City’s Public Works Department would have adequate water supply to service the City’s anticipated growth under the proposed project. Considering that development under the No Project Alternative would be the same as the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would also be accommodated by the City’s existing water system. Although development under the No Project Alternative would increase water demand, the City would continue to have sufficient water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
Development facilitated under the No Project Alternative would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Like the proposed project, the timing, intensity, and location of an expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is unknown at this time. Like the proposed project, wastewater expansion for the No Project Alternative would require additional CEQA review, would be advanced when the wastewater expansion is advanced, and impacts would be less then significant.
Considering the No Project Alternative would add the same number of residents as the proposed project(assuming a maximum buildout scenario), demand for wastewater and overall wastewater impacts of the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would generate solid waste from construction and operation of development (including typical residential, commercial, and office solid waste). As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the Devlin Road Recycling & Transfer Facility (DRRTF) would have adequate capacity to serve the population growth under the proposed project.
Considering the No Project Alternative would result in the same number of residents as the proposed project (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), the DRRTF would also accommodate population growth under this alternative. Like the proposed project, impacts involving solid waste under the No Project Alternative would be less than significant. n. Wildfire
Under the No Project Alternative, development could still occur within or near fire risks in an LRA. In addition, under the No Project Alternative, development could still occur near fire risks in an SRA, which are located east of the city limits. Although the No Project Alternative would not include 2040 General Plan proposed policies S-2.7, S-2.8, and S-2.14, which include measures to reduce the risk of wildfire on persons and property, it would still be subject to the same regulations as described for the proposed project, including the American Canyon City Code. 554
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-11
Policy S-2.7: Building and Fire Code Compliance. Require new development to meet or exceed structural hardening requirements in the most current version of the California Building Codes and California Fire Code.
Policy S-2.8: Development Standards Update. Incorporate relevant new legislative requirements and best practices into the City's development standards. Policy S-2.14: Community Fire Breaks. Coordinate with the American Canyon Fire Protection District to encourage property owners to maintain fire breaks and fuel modification/reduction zones on their property.
Similar to the proposed project, mitigation may be applied to individual projects that require CEQA review to reduce construction and design wildfire risk. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have a similar impact on wildfire than the proposed project.
6.2 Alternative 2: Watson Ranch Natural Alternative
6.2.1 Description
Alternative 2 would assume maximum density on the Watson Ranch property which would result in an additional 596 dwelling units. Alternative 2 assumes that the General Plan would be updated like for the proposed project, (including the updated policies that make the General Plan consistent with State law). . Overall Alternative 2 assumes increased residential densities (3, units total) when compared to the proposed project (3,975 total units). In addition, because Alternative 2 would maintain the same designations as the General Plans for non-residential spaces, the buildout of nonresidential space would be the same as the proposed project. Buildout under Alternative 2, assuming a maximum buildout scenario, would allow for 3,975 housing units and approximately 5,704,000 square feet of additional non-residential land uses. Alternative 2 would meet the objectives of the proposed project as it would increase residential buildout while accommodating the same amount of non-residential buildout as the proposed project.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Development under Alternative 2 would continue the land use pattern that currently exists in American Canyon. Impacts to scenic vistas under this alternative would be increased when compared to the proposed project, as this alternative would involve more development.
Development under Alternative 2 could affect aesthetics and would be required to comply with the same American Canyon City Code regulations as the proposed project. Impacts to aesthetics, including light and glare would be increased when compared to the proposed project, as Alternative 2 would entail more overall residential development.
b. Air Quality
Like the proposed project, buildout under Alternative 2 would not preclude planned transit or bike pathways and would not disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce VMT and meet federal and State air quality standards. Alternative 2 would be consistent with applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. Impacts regarding conflict with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.
555
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-12
Buildout from Alternative 2 would accommodate approximately 596 additional housing units than under the proposed project. Construction of these additional units could result in increased shortterm emissions. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, which would reduce construction impacts to air quality. Like the proposed project, air quality impacts from construction of Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation; however, Alternative 2 would have more overall construction-related impacts to air quality due to the increased buildout.
As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the greatest source of criteria pollutants in American Canyon is from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway traffic. Considering 596 additional residential units would be constructed in American Canyon under this alternative, the long-term on-site emissions from vehicle use would be increased when compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, updates to the 2040 General Plan, including the new proposed policies to be consistent with State law would reduce operational impacts to air quality. These policies would ultimately reduce VMT per capita. Overall, like the proposed project, operational air quality impacts for Alternative 2 would be less than significant.
Overall, Alternative 2 would result in more development than the proposed project and would result in higher TAC near sensitive receptors when compared to the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would include the 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to promote clean air quality, protect public health and safety, and mitigate adverse air quality impacts.
Alternative 2 would implement these policies and would also require Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Like the proposed project, construction activities under Alternative 2 would generate odors, which would be temporary and limited to the constructed period. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-4 which would further reduce operational odor impacts. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact regarding creation of objectionable odors.
Overall, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
c. Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, potential habitat suitable for special-status species occurs in streams, grasslands, riparian woodland, and forests within the Planning Area. Alternative 2 would result in overall increased development when compared to the proposed project.
Development under Alternative 2 may potentially impact special-status species or their habitat, including riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Like the proposed project, Mitigation Measures BIO1 (Biological Resources Screening and Assessment), BIO-2 (Special-status Plant Species Surveys), BIO-3 (Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation), BIO-4 (Habitat Restoration Plan), BIO-5 (Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys ), BIO-6 (Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization), BIO-7 (Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification), BIO-8 (Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal), and BIO-9 (Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures)), would be implemented for Alternative 2 and would help reduce associated biological resource impacts. Overall, impacts to biological resources under Alternative 2 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, like the proposed project. Impacts from Alternative 2 would be slightly increased compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
556
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-13
d. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 2, more residential development would occur compared to the proposed project.
Individual projects would have the potential to impact historic and archaeological resources.
Alternative 2 would have potentially significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources.
Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include Mitigation Measures CUL-1 (Historic Built Environment) and CUL-2 (Archaeological Resources Assessment), which require project applicants to investigate the potential to disturb historic or archaeological resources. Additionally, Alternative 2 would include Mitigation Measures CR-3 (Unanticipated Discoveries) and CR-4 (Human Remains) which would require applicants to pause work and investigate subsurface discoveries. Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to preserve and protect historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon. Impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased as compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would result in more development, as well as more temporary construction-related GHG emissions (from grading and construction of new development) and long-term GHG emissions resulting (from building operations such as energy use, maintenance, and traffic), compared to the proposed project.
Under existing conditions, American Canyon’s General Plan does not outline how the City would meet State-mandated goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2, which would require the City to implement a CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance; and Mitigation Measure GHG-3, which would require the City to update American Canyon’s Climate Action Plan to meet State goals of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure development under Alternative 2 would be consistent with State emissions goals; however, individual projects that occur prior to adoption of the Climate Action Plan may not be consistent.
Overall GHG emissions impacts under Alternative 2 would be increased when compared to the proposed project, and such impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. f. Land Use and Planning
Under the Alternative 2, there would be no changes to land use designations, zoning, or policies in the General Plan. Alternative 2 would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Like the proposed project, future development under existing zoning would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, including Plan Bay Area 2050, as discussed in Impact LU-2 in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning. Alternative 2 would provide 596 more housing units than the proposed project. Overall, impacts regarding land use and planning would be less than significant, like the proposed project. g. Noise
Buildout under the Alternative 2 would result in increased development compared to the proposed project. Therefore, more construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from the Alternative 2, compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction noise under Alternative 2 could temporarily increase noise levels, potentially affecting nearby noise557 City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-14
sensitive land uses and leading to a significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Conduct Construction Noise Analysis), which would reduce construction noise. However, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the proposed project. Adherence to American Canyon Municipal Code noise limits for HVAC units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under Alternative 2 is less than significant.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in increased buildout, which would generate new vehicle trips that could incrementally increase the exposure of land uses along roadways to traffic noise. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures) which would reduce operational traffic noise. Alternative 2 would result in an increase in noise compared to existing conditions and a significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact would occur.
Development facilitated under Alternative 2 could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 (Construction Vibration Control Plan) would require implementation of measures to reduce vibration impacts during construction. Operation of future development under Alternative 2 would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, like the proposed project, impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Residents and businesses facilitated by Alternative 2 would not be served by the Napa County Airport. Thus, development facilitated under this alternative would not result in significantly increased airport or airstrip activity. Continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Napa County Airport. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce noise from the Napa County Airport through disclosure, attenuation, and studies. Impacts would be the same under this alternative as the proposed project.
Overall, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased, compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
h. Paleontological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, portions of the city are underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Alternative 2 would increase development by approximately 596 residential units on one site with high paleontological sensitivity [Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) (Qpf)] based on the mapping provided in Figure 4.8-1 in Section
4.8, Paleontological Resources. Under Alternative 2, ground disturbance elsewhere could still result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Alternative 2 would implement Mitigation Measure PAL-1 (Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist) which would reduce effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 2 would involve more overall development than the proposed project, and thus would be more likely to impact paleontological resources.
558
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-15
i. Population and Housing
Under Alternative 2, existing General Plan land use designations would continue to define American Canyon’s development pattern. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, implementation of Alternative 2 would accommodate approximately 2,056 additional residents and 596 additional housing units than would be accommodated by implementation of the proposed project (refer to Table 6-1). Thus, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in more population growth, however, this alternative would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Displacement impacts for Alternative 2 would be the same as the impacts for the proposed project.
Overall, when compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have similar, but slightly increased impacts to population and housing.
j. Public Services and Recreation
Increased development would occur under Alternative 2, which could result in an increase to emergency calls in the area, as well as an increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, Alternative 2 would add approximately 12,790 new residents to American Canyon, which is 2,056 more residents than the proposed project’s 10,734 new residents. Thus, the increased demand for public services under Alternative 2 would be more than the proposed project’s increase in demand. Impacts to public services and recreation would be increased as compared to the proposed project. k. Transportation
For the same reasons as the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact regarding conflict with circulation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies; substantially increased transportation hazards; and inadequate emergency access. In addition, the Alternative 2 would result in an increase in residential growth by 596 units. This increase would likely result in increased per capita VMT because Watson Ranch is on the edge of the city center and adding additional units here would result in the need for more residents to make trips into the city center.
Additionally, American Canyon currently has fewer jobs than employed residents, therefore it is likely additional residents will need to make trips outside the city for employment opportunities compared to the proposed project. As such, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased compared to the proposed project and the impacts from Alternative 2 could be significant. l. Tribal Cultural Resources
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 2 may involve excavation, which could potentially impact previously unidentified TCRs. Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed Goal ENV-5 and its corresponding policies, which protect cultural and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of these policies would reduce potential impacts to TCRs from development facilitated by this alternative by requiring avoidance and monitoring in areas identified as sensitive for TCRs (Policy ENV-5.3). Alternative 2 would include the same mitigation as the proposed project’ therefore, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation. Overall because Alternative 2 would result in more development than the proposed project, the severity of impacts would be slightly increased as compared to the proposed project. 559
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-16
m. Utilities and Service Systems
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 2 would create additional demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication, and stormwater drainage facilities. Any utility expansion would be subject to 2040 General Plan proposed policies and mitigation measures identified throughout the Alternative 2 analysis, which would reduce potential impacts from utility expansion. Thus, impacts involving utility expansion under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the City would have adequate water supply to service the City’s anticipated growth under the proposed project. Considering that development under Alternative 2 would result in 2,056 additional residents (assuming a maximum buildout scenario) than the proposed project, growth under Alternative 2 would not be accommodated by the City’s existing water system. Development under Alternative 2 would increase water demand, and the City would not have sufficient water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts to water supply would be significant and unavoidable.
Development facilitated under Alternative 2 would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Like the proposed project, the timing, intensity, and location of an expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is unknown at this time. Like the proposed project, any expansion of wastewater facilities would require additional CEQA review and would be advanced when the wastewater expansion is advanced. Considering Alternative 2 would add 2,056 additional residents to American Canyon (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), demand for wastewater and overall wastewater impacts would be increased under Alternative 2 than for the proposed project.
Implementation of Alternative 2 would generate solid waste from construction and operation of development (including typical residential, commercial, and office solid waste). As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the American Canyon Transfer Station would have adequate capacity to serve the population growth under the proposed project. While Alternative 2 would result in 2,056 additional residents, the DRRTF could still accommodate the increased population growth under this alternative. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would include the proposed goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan. Impacts involving solid waste would be slightly more than the proposed project.
Overall, impacts from Alternative 2 would be increased, compared to the proposed project due to the increase in buildout.
n. Wildfire
Under Alternative 2, development could still occur within or near fire risks in an LRA. In addition, under Alternative 2, development could still occur near fire risks in an SRA, which are located east of the city limits. Alternative 2 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies that include measures to reduce the risk of wildfire. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would include Mitigation Measures WF-1 (Wildfire Risk Reduction During Construction) and WF-2 (Fire Resistant Vegetation and Landscaping) which would reduce the impacts of wildfires to a less than significant level.
Additionally, like proposed project, Alternative 2 would still be subject to the same regulations as described for the proposed project, including the American Canyon City Code. Overall, impacts of Alternative 2, like the proposed project, would be less than significant with mitigation. 560
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-17
6.3 Alternative 3: Limited Growth
6.3.1 Description
The Limited Growth Alternative (Alternative 3) was developed to identify an alternative that would reduce potential construction impacts and operational impacts from a reduced buildout. Alternative 3 assumes that the General Plan would be updated to include the updated policies that make the General Plan consistent with State law. However, under Alternative 3, buildout would be limited to pipeline projects (i.e., project already identified by the City to be constructed in the future) and other projects that have already been approved or for which General Plan amendments have already been approved (e.g., Watson Ranch Specific Plan, Broadway District Specific Plan). As such, buildout would be reduced in the following ways:
Residential buildout would be reduced by 408 dwelling units compared to the proposed project because (1) the land use designations for the two NVUSD would remain as Recreation and Public and would not be changed to Residential Medium, reducing the number of residential units by 175 units and (2) the buildout identified in the City’s Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Nexus Study would be reduced by 233 residential units.
Non-residential area would be reduced by 65,000 square feet based on the buildout identified in the City’s TIF Nexus Study.
Overall Alternative 3 assumes decreased residential densities (2,971 units total) when compared to the proposed project (3,379 total units), as well as decreased non-residential area (5,639,000 square feet) when compared to the proposed project (5,704,000 square feet).
Overall, Alternative 3 would require the City to limit growth to those projects that have already been approved by the City or identified as planned projects. While Alternative 3 would meet the objective of updating the General Plan so that it’s consistent with State law, this alternative would not help meet the vision of American Canyon to the same extent as the proposed project.
Alternative 3 would reduce the residential and non-residential buildout; therefore, compared to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce the ability for the City to meet its vision of accommodating a residential population with a range of uses; creating a center of employment and commerce; and capturing visitors to the Napa Valley. Overall, Alternative 3 would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a. Aesthetics
Development under Alternative 3 would continue the land use pattern that currently exists in American Canyon. Alternative 3 would reduce the residential and non-residential buildout compared to the proposed project. Impacts to scenic vistas under this alternative would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, as this alternative would involve less overall development.
Impacts to aesthetics, including light and glare would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, as Alternative 3 would entail less overall development. Nonetheless, development under Alternative 3 could affect aesthetics and would be required to comply with the same American Canyon City Code regulations as the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include the updates to the 2040 General Plan, including the new policies to be consistent with State law.
Therefore, because Alternative 3 would involve less overall development and include the updates to 561
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-18
the 2040 General Plan, the severity of the impact for Alternative 3 would be less than for the proposed project.
b. Air Quality
Like the proposed project, buildout under Alternative 3 would not preclude planned transit or bike pathways and would not disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce VMT and meet federal and State air quality standards. Alternative 3 would be consistent with applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. Impacts regarding conflict with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.
Buildout from Alternative 3 would accommodate approximately 408 fewer housing units and a reduction of approximately 65,000 square feet of non-residential area than under the proposed project. Short-term emissions that would occur from construction of the 408 housing units and nonresidential area would be reduced by Alternative 3. Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, which would further reduce construction impacts to air quality. Alternative 3 would have fewer overall construction-related impacts to air quality. Like the proposed project, air quality impacts from construction of Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation; however, Alternative 3 would have fewer overall construction-related impacts to air quality due to the reduced buildout.
As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, the greatest source of criteria pollutants in American Canyon is from transportation sources, specifically mobile emissions from roadway traffic. Considering 408 fewer residential units and a reduction of 65,000 square feet of non-residential area would be constructed in American Canyon under this alternative, the long-term on-site emissions from vehicle use would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. An overall reduction in VMT would result in less operational emissions associated with mobile sources. Like the proposed project, updates to the 2040 General Plan, including the new proposed policies to be consistent with State law would further reduce operational impacts to air quality. These policies would ultimately reduce VMT per capita. Overall, like the proposed project, operational air quality impacts for Alternative 3 would be less than significant.
Overall, Alternative 3 would result in less development than the proposed project and would result in lower TACs near sensitive receptors when compared to the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include the 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to promote clean air quality, protect public health and safety, and mitigate adverse air quality impacts.
Alternative 3 would implement these policies and would also require Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (Conduct Construction Health Risk Assessment) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Like the proposed project, construction activities under Alternative 3 would generate odors, which would be temporary and limited to the constructed period. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-4 which would further reduce operational odor impacts. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have a less than significant impact regarding creation of objectionable odors.
Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced, compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout.
c. Biological Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, potential habitat suitable for special-status species occurs in streams, grasslands, riparian woodland, and forests within the Planning Area. Alternative 3 562
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-19
would result in overall reduced development when compared to the proposed project; however, development under Alternative 3 may potentially impact special-status species or their habitat, including riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Like the proposed project, Mitigation Measures BIO1 (Biological Resources Screening and Assessment), BIO-2 (Special-status Plant Species Surveys), BIO-3 (Special-status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation), BIO-4 (Habitat Restoration Plan), BIO-5 (Endangered/Threatened Special-status Species Habitat Assessments and Protocol Surveys ), BIO-6 (Endangered/Threatened Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization), BIO-7 (Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification), BIO-8 (Roosting Bat Surveys and Avoidance Prior to Removal), and BIO-9 (Conduct Pre-construction Crotch’s Bumblebee Surveys and Implement Avoidance Measures), would be implemented for Alternative 3 and would help reduce associated biological resource impacts.. Overall, impacts to biological resources under Alternative 3 would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, like the proposed project. Impacts from Alternative 3 would be less compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout. d. Cultural Resources
Under Alternative 3, less residential and non-residential development would occur compared to the proposed project; however, individual projects would have the potential to impact historic and archaeological resources. Alternative 3 would have reduced, but still potentially significant impacts to historic and archaeological resources. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include Mitigation Measures CUL-1 (Historic Built Environment) and CUL-2 (Archaeological Resources Assessment), which require project applicants to investigate the potential to disturb historic or archaeological resources. Additionally, Alternative 3 would include Mitigation Measures CR-3 (Unanticipated Discoveries) and CR-4 (Human Remains), which would require applicants to pause work and investigate subsurface discoveries. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed goals and policies designed to preserve and protect historic and archaeological resources in American Canyon. Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be less, compared to the proposed project, due to the reduction in residential and non-residential area buildout.
e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would result in less development, as well as less temporary construction-related GHG emissions (from grading and construction of new development) and long-term GHG emissions resulting (from building operations such as energy use, maintenance, and traffic), compared to the proposed project.
Under existing conditions, American Canyon’s General Plan does not outline how the City would meet State-mandated goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-2, which would require the City to implement a CEQA GHG emissions threshold of significance; and Mitigation Measure GHG-3, which would require the City to update American Canyon’s Climate Action Plan to meet State goals of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure development under Alternative 3 would be consistent with State emissions goals; however, individual projects that occur prior to adoption of the Climate Action Plan may not be consistent.
Overall, buildout under Alternative 3 would be less than the proposed project, which would result in a reduction of GHG emissions. However, while overall GHG emissions impacts under Alternative 2 563
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-20
would be reduced when compared to the proposed project, such impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, for the same reasons as the proposed project. f. Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative 3, there would be no changes to land use designations or zoning in the existing General Plan. Alternative 3 would not alter connectivity with adjacent areas or divide established communities. Like the proposed project, future development under existing zoning would be required to comply with regulatory goals and policies, including Plan Bay Area 2050, as discussed in Impact LU-2 in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning. Alternative 3 would provide 408 fewer housing units and a reduction of approximately 65,000 square feet of non-residential area in comparison to the proposed project. Overall, impacts regarding land use and planning would be less than significant, like the proposed project.
g. Noise
Buildout under Alternative 3 would result in reduced development compared to the proposed project. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur from Alternative 3, compared to the proposed project. Like the proposed project, construction noise under Alternative 3 could temporarily increase noise levels. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1 (Conduct Construction Noise Analysis), which would reduce construction noise. However, construction noise could still exceed the significance thresholds and like the proposed project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Noise generated by on-site stationary equipment for new development would be subject to the City’s noise limits, like the proposed project. Adherence to American Canyon Municipal Code noise limits for HVAC units and other stationary noise sources associated with future development would ensure that operational stationary noise under Alternative 3 is less than significant.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in less buildout than the proposed project, which would reduce the amount of new vehicle trips that would generate roadway traffic noise.
Additionally, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure NOI-2 (Implement Roadway Vehicle Noise Reduction Measures), which would reduce operational traffic noise. Although Alternative 3 would result in reduced overall operational noise compared to the proposed project, there would still be an increase in noise compared to existing conditions and a significant and unavoidable traffic noise impact would occur.
Development facilitated under Alternative 3 could temporarily generate groundborne vibration during construction, potentially affecting nearby land uses. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 (Construction Vibration Control Plan) would require implementation of measures to reduce vibration impacts during construction. Operation of future development under Alternative 3 would not involve substantial vibration or groundborne noise. Thus, like the proposed project, impacts involving groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Residents and businesses facilitated by Alternative 3 would not be served by the Napa County Airport. Thus, development facilitated under this alternative would not result in significantly increased airport or airstrip activity. Continued regulation of airport noise consistent with State and federal regulations would minimize disturbance to people residing or working within proximity of the Napa County Airport. Like the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies designed to reduce noise 564
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-21
from the Napa County Airport through disclosure, attenuation, and studies. Impacts would be the same under this alternative as the proposed project.
Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced, compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout.
h. Paleontological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources, portions of the city are underlain by geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Alternative 3 would reduce development by approximately 408 fewer residential units and 65,000 square feet of non-residential area on two sites located on geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity [Quaternary alluvial fan deposits (Pleistocene) (Qpf)] and undetermined paleontological sensitivity [Great Valley Complex, sandstone and shale (Ku)], based on the mapping provided in Figure 4.8-1 in Section 4.8, Paleontological Resources. Under Alternative 3, ground disturbance elsewhere could still result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources. Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure PAL-1 (Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist) which would reduce effects to paleontological resources and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 3 would involve less overall development than the proposed project, and thus would be less likely to impact paleontological resources.
i. Population and Housing
Under Alternative 3, existing General Plan land use designations would continue to define American Canyon’s development pattern. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, implementation of Alternative 3 would accommodate approximately 1,400 fewer residents and 408 fewer housing units than would be accommodated by implementation of the proposed project (refer to Table 6-1).
Thus, compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in less population growth, and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. Displacement impacts for Alternative 3 would be the same as the impacts for the proposed project. Overall, when compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts to population and housing. j. Public Services and Recreation
Development allowed by existing land use and zoning regulations would occur under Alternative 3, which could result in an increase to emergency calls in the area, as well as an increase in additional demand for schools, parks, libraries, recreational facilities, or other public services. Assuming a maximum buildout scenario, Alternative 3 would add approximately 10,190 new residents to American Canyon, which is 1,400 fewer residents than the proposed project’s 11,590 new residents.
Thus, the increased demand for public services under Alternative 3 would be less than the proposed project’s increase in demand. Impacts to public services and recreation would be less than the proposed project (both Alternative 3 and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact).
k. Transportation
For the same reasons as the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have a less than significant impact regarding conflict with circulation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies; substantially increased transportation hazards; and inadequate emergency access. In addition, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in residential growth by 408 units and 65,000 square feet of nonresidential area. As described in Section 4.11, Transportation, American Canyon currently has fewer 565
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-22
jobs than employed residents. Alternative 3 would reduce the number of jobs compared to the proposed project, due to the reduction in non-residential area. Alternative 3 would also reduce the amount of residential units compared to the proposed project. Overall, due to the amount of jobs that would be offered under Alternative 3, the per capita VMT impacts for Alternative 3 are expected to be similar to the impacts of the proposed project. Like the proposed project, VMT impacts would be less than significant.
l. Tribal Cultural Resources
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 3 may involve excavation, which could potentially impact previously unidentified TCRs. Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed Goal ENV-4 and its corresponding policies, which protect cultural and tribal cultural resources. Implementation of these policies would reduce potential impacts to TCRs from development facilitated by this alternative by requiring avoidance and monitoring in areas identified as sensitive for TCRs (Policy ENV-4.3). Alternative 3 would include the same mitigation as the proposed project’ therefore, impacts to TCRs would be less than significant with mitigation. Overall because Alternative 3 would result in less development than the proposed project, the severity of impacts would be less than the proposed project.
m. Utilities and Service Systems
Like the proposed project, development facilitated under Alternative 3 would create additional demand for water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, telecommunication, and stormwater drainage facilities. Any utility expansion would be subject to 2040 General Plan proposed policies and mitigation measures identified throughout the Alternative 3 analysis, which would reduce potential impacts from utility expansion. Thus, impacts involving utility expansion under Alternative 3 would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project.
As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the City would have adequate water supply to service the City’s anticipated growth under the proposed project. Considering that development under Alternative 3 would result in 1,400 fewer residents (assuming a maximum buildout scenario) than the proposed project, growth under Alternative 3 would also be accommodated by the City’s existing water system. Although development under Alternative 3 would slightly increase water demand, the City would continue to have sufficient water supply during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
Development facilitated under Alternative 3 would increase demand for wastewater treatment. Like the proposed project, the timing, intensity, and location of an expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is unknown at this time. Like the proposed project, any expansion of wastewater facilities would require additional CEQA review and would be advanced when the wastewater expansion is advanced. Considering Alternative 3 would add 1,400 fewer residents to American Canyon (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), demand for wastewater and overall wastewater impacts would be less under Alternative 3 than for the proposed project.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would generate solid waste from construction and operation of development (including typical residential, commercial, and office solid waste). As discussed in Section 4.13, Utilities and Service Systems, the American Canyon Transfer Station would have adequate capacity to serve the population growth under the proposed project. Considering Alternative 3 would result in 1,400 fewer people than the proposed project (assuming a maximum buildout scenario), the DRRTF would also accommodate population growth under this alternative. 566
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-23
Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include the proposed goals and policies in the 2040 General Plan.
Impacts involving solid waste would be slightly less than the proposed project.
Overall, impacts from Alternative 3 would be reduced, compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in buildout.
n. Wildfire
Under Alternative 3, development could still occur within or near fire risks in an LRA. In addition, under Alternative 3, development could still occur near fire risks in an SRA, which are located east of the city limits. However, Alternative 3 would result in a reduction of 408 residential units and 65,000 square feet of non-residential area, which would reduce the risk of development occurring near an LRA or SRA. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would include 2040 General Plan proposed policies that include measures to reduce the risk of wildfire. Alternative 3 would also include Mitigation Measures WF-1 (Wildfire Risk Reduction During Construction) and WF-2 (Fire Resistant Vegetation and Landscaping), which would reduce the impacts of wildfires to a less than significant level.
Additionally, like proposed project, Alternative 3 would be subject to the same regulations as described for the proposed project, including the American Canyon City Code. Overall, impacts of Alternative 3, like the proposed project, would be less than significant with mitigation.
6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
The following summarizes those alternatives considered, but ultimately rejected for inclusion in the analysis as they would not meet most of the project objectives, would not substantially reduce impacts compared to the proposed project, or were determined to be infeasible.
In its efforts to identify alternatives that would reduce impacts on the environment, the City considered alternatives that would reduce impacts due to a reduced buildout. As such, the City considered an alternative that would limit buildout and growth altogether, such that no additional buildout would be allowed in the City. While this alternative would in theory reduce environmental impacts, it was rejected because it was infeasible. The City has already approved projects such as the Broadway District Specific Plan and the Watson Ranch Specific Plan, which provide a substantial amount of the buildout in the City. It would be infeasible for the City to stop buildout on these already approved projects. In addition, this alternative would not meet most of the project objectives because it would not help implement the vision for American Canyon. If there were no growth, this alternative would not accommodate a residential population with a range of uses; create a center of employment and commerce; or capture visitors to the Napa Valley. For these reasons, this alternative has been considered bur rejected.
6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires identification of the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives to the proposed project. The environmentally superior alternative must be an alternative that reduces some of the project’s environmental impacts, regardless of the financial costs associated.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative may not be that which best meets the goals or needs of the proposed project. Table 6-2 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or equal to the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied.
567
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-24
Overall, none of the alternatives identified in this analysis changed the impact conclusions that were identified for the proposed project. However, some of the alternatives did reduce the severity of the impact; thus, this analysis considers the severity of the impact to identify the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project Alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative because the No Project Alternative would not include the updated proposed goals, policies, and programs in the 2040 General Plan.
Alternative 2 would not be the environmentally superior alternative because it would increase the severity of most of the proposed project impacts. This is because Alternative 2 would increase residential buildout and would result in 596 additional units compared to the proposed project.
Based on the analysis of alternatives in this section, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative as it lessens the severity of most impacts of the proposed project. Because Alternative 3 would reduce overall buildout by 408 units residential units and 65,000 square feet of nonresidential area compared to the proposed project, the overall impacts from construction would also be reduced due to the reduction in construction. For example, potential impacts on air quality construction emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, temporary noise, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources would be reduced due to less area being affected (i.e., excavated, graded, etc.) and due to less use of construction equipment. In addition, operationally there would be reduced aesthetic impacts because there would be fewer buildings; less air quality emissions because there would be less overall VMT; less operational noise because there would be less traffic and fewer HVAC units; and less demand for public services, recreation, and utilities.
Alternative 3 would meet the project objectives, as it would include updated to the General Plan so that it is consistent with State Law. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, Alternative 3 would be considered the environmentally superior alternative; however, the proposed project would offer benefits that would not be achieved by Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would require the City to limit growth to those projects that have already been approved by the City or identified as planned projects. Alternative 3 would reduce the residential and non-residential buildout; therefore, compared to the proposed project, this alternative would reduce the ability for the City to meet its vision of accommodating a residential population with a range of uses; creating a center of employment and commerce; and capturing visitors to the Napa Valley. Therefore, while Alternative 3 would be the environmentally superior alternative, it would not meet the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project.
Table 6-2 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
Reduced Buildout
Alternative 3:
Limited Growth
Aesthetics LTSM + + +
Air Quality LTSM + + +
Biological Resources LTSM + + +
Cultural Resources LTSM + + +
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU + + +
Land Use and Planning LTS = = =
Noise SU + + +
Paleontological Resources LTSM = + +
Population and Housing LTS = + +
Public Services and Recreation LTS = + +
568
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-25
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact Classification
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
Reduced Buildout
Alternative 3:
Limited Growth
Transportation LTS -+ + =
Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM + + +
Utilities and Service Systems LTS = + +
Wildfire LTSM = = =
NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than Significant; LTSM = Less than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed project
569
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
6-26
This page intentionally left blank.
570
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References
7.1 Bibliography
Project Description
City of American Canyon. 2015. Traffic Impact Fee Nexus Study. February 3. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6293/6371235424 44630000 (accessed December 2022).
______. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan. Final October 2018. https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=60611&repo=r-f53bdda4. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2020. Broadway District Specific Plan. September 1, 2020. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=65287&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed December 2022).
______. 2021. Oat Hill Multi-Family Residential Project Notice of Determination. September 22, 2021. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/267455-2/attachment/FfXTDdZnsVG3kJZC04Fl1xJiJTxyDdIy5N_dJQoyNLU6q0G2PYt7BrOJZg22BgUHKBptU3NdU2-i0FC0 (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. City of American Canyon Buildout Forecasts. ______. 2022b. Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project Notice of Preparation. September 7, 2022. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281435-1/attachment/-
J8qslGhsY4Bngt9fHpJYOnPORRUA64wkrrQ6IhIDxc_bnO9jSDLE3nAqhsANgFCFzuaQdWv-vXxSCW0 (accessed December 2022).
Environmental Setting
City of American Canyon. 2022. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project. https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281435-1/attachment/-
J8qslGhsY4Bngt9fHpJYOnPORRUA64wkrrQ6IhIDxc_bnO9jSDLE3nAqhsANgFCFzuaQdWv-vXxSCW0 (accessed January 2023).
Weatherbase. 2022. American Canyon, California.
https://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=85241&cityname=AmericanCanyon-California-United-States-of-America (accessed August 2022).
Aesthetics
American Canyon, City of. 1994a. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. November 3, 1994.
https://lf.Cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed November 2022).
571
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-2
______. 1994b. The City of American Canyon General Plan Land Use Element. November 3, 1994. https://lf.Cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed November 2022).
______. 2018. Watson Ranch Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2018. https://www.Cityofamericancanyon.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=17096 (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Finance. 2022. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5-population-andhousing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2008. Scenic Highway Guidelines. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/scenic-hwy-guidelines04-12-2012.pdf (accessed November 2022). ______. 2018. California State Scenic Highway System Map. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed November2022).
______.2022. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architectureand-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed November 2022).
Air Quality
Association of Bay Area Governments. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October _2021.pdf (accessed December 2022).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. December. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/permit-modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. Last Updated January 5, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-andattainment-status (accessed December 2022). ______. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines. May. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed December 2022). ______. 2017c. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed December 2022).
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2011. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/dieselhealth.htm (accessed December 2022). ______. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/aaqs2.pdf (accessed December 2022).
572
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-3
______. 2019a. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/national-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed December 2022).
______. 2019b. “California Ambient Air Quality Standards.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10).” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overviewdiesel-exhaust-and-health (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. “Top 4 summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed December 2022).
California Department of Conservation, 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California - Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. August.
GHD. 2022. Transportation Volumes for Model Scenarios. Watson Lane Project.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. https://oehha.ca.gov/air/crnr/noticeadoption-air-toxics-hot-spots-program-guidance-manual-preparation-health-risk-0. (accessed December 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. “NAAQS Table.” https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table (accessed December 2022). ______. 2020. “Health and Environmental Effects of Hazardous Air Pollutants.” https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-and-environmental-effects-hazardous-air-pollutants (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. “Health Effects of Ozone Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozonepollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022b. “Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution.” https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbon-monoxide-co-outdoorair-pollution#Effects (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. “Basic Information about NO2.” https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basicinformation-about-no2#Effects (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022d. “Sulfur Dioxide Basics.” https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxidebasics#effects (accessed December 2022).
Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. April 2019.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline (accessed December 2022).
573
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-4
______. 2022. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS (accessed November 28, 2022).
Napa, County of. 2007. 4.5 Biological Resources. February 2007. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/7957/45-Biological-ResourcesGeneral-Plan-DEIR-PDF (accessed December 2022). ______. 2019. Vegetation Public. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/napacounty::vegetationpublic/explore?location=38.162522%2C-122.244415%2C15.15 (accessed December 2022).
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2022. Protected Resources App. https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7514c71 5b8594944a6e468dd25aaacc9 (accessed December 2022).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022a. Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022b. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper.
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ (accessed November 2022).
Cultural Resources
Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Burns, G.R., S.C. Talcott, K. Demps, J.L. Edmonds, J.M. Lambert, A. Tremayne, and J.W. Eerkens. 2012. Isotopic Evidence for Changing Residence Patterns Through the Middle to Late Holocene in Central California. Society for California Archaeology Proceedings 26:164-171.
Byrd, Brian, Adrian Whitaker, Patricia Mikkelsen, Jeffrey Rosenthal, Todd Jaffke, Philip Kaijankoski, Jack Meyer, Randall Milliken, and Eric Wohlgemuth. 2017. San Francisco Bay-Delta Regional Context and Research Design for Native American Archaeological Resources, Caltrans District 4. Report on file with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
California Missions Foundation. n.d. “History of Mission San Rafael Arcangel”. Accessed August 2022 at http://californiamissionsfoundation.org/mission-san-rafael/ California Office of Historic Preservation. 2006. California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register),” California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 2006.
______. 1995. Instruction for Recording Historical Resources. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf
City of Vallejo. 2018. “History”. https://www.cityofvallejo.net/about_vallejo/history. Accessed August 2022.
City of Sonoma. n.d. “General Vallejo”. https://www.sonomacity.org/general-vallejo/. Accessed August 2022.
Cook, S.F. 1957. The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California.
Anthropological Records Vol. 16, No. 4. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
574
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-5
D’Oro, Stella. 2009. Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.
FirstCarbon Solutions. 2016. City of American Canyon ‐ Napa Airport Corporate Center Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of American Canyon. July 1, 2016. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=9881, accessed August 2022.
Gase, Thomas. 2019. “Mare Island once a thriving community for military, naval shipyard workers”, Vallejo Times Herald. 9 November. Accessed January 29, 2020 at https://www.timesheraldonline.com/2019/11/09/mare-island-once-a-thriving-communityfor-military-naval-shipyard-workers/ Gifford, Edward W. 1916. Composition of California Shellmounds. American Archaeology and Ethnology 12(1):1-29.
Hylkema, Mark G. 2002. Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233–262. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Lentz, Kari. 2012. Flaked and Groundstone Technology at CA-ALA-554: Mortar Bowls and Stockton Points. SCA Proceedings 26:192-211.
Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby. 2002. Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.263-281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Luby, Edward M. and Mark F. Gruber. 1999. The Dead Must be Fed: Symbolic Meanings of the Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Area. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):95-105.
Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.
Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A.
Fredrickson. 2007. Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.
Klar, pp. 99-124. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
National Park Service (NPS). 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreservation/upload/standards-guidelinesarcheology-historic-preservation.pdf, accessed August 2022.
NETR Online. 2021. Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed August 2022.
Presidio Trust. 2020. “History Experiences”. https://www.presidio.gov/activities/history-of-thepresidio Accessed August 2022.
Ragir, Sonia. 1972. The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.
Rolle, Andrew. 2003. California: A History. Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc. 575
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-6
Simons, Dwight and Tim Carpenter. 2009. Fish Remains from CA-MRN-44/H, Angel Island, Marin County, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21:69-81.
Shumway, Burgess McK. 2007. California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County.
Michael Burgess and Mary Wickizer Burgess, eds. Rockville, Maryland: Borgo Publishing Press.
Vallejo Chamber of Commerce. 2020. “History of Vallejo”. http://www.vallejochamber.com/aboutvallejo. Accessed August 2022.
Vallejo Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2019. “About Vallejo”. http://www.visitvallejo.com/aboutvallejo/history. Accessed August 2022.
Von Der Porten, Peter, Katherine Dixon, and Alex DeGeorgey. 2014. Seriation of Clam Shell Disk Beads in Central California. SCA Proceedings 28:267-281.
Vellanoweth, Rene L., Amira F. Ainis, Jon M. Erlandson, and Lisa D. Thomas-Barnett. 2014. An Olivella Grooved Rectangle Bead Cluster from San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology , 2014, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 229-246.
Electronic document available at http://www.jstor.com/stable/45154987, Accessed August 2022.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
American Canyon, City of. 2012. City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan.
December 2012.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5024/6371235410 56170000 (accessed December 2022).
California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.
December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2021. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.”
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000_2019_ghg_inventory_ trends_20220516.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022a. “2022 Scoping Plan Documents.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022b. “Regional Plan Targets.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainablecommunities-program/regional-plan-targets (accessed December 2022).
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptationlibrary/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf (accessed December 2022).
California Department of Water Resources. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climatechange/report/2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf (accessed December 2022). 576
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-7
California Energy Commission. 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary. August 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf (accessed December 2022).
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March 2009. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf (accessed December 2022).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
______. 2021. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.
https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg3/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Full_Report.pdf (accessed December 2022).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2022. “Global Climate Change – Vital Signs of the Planet – Sea Level.” https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ (accessed December 2022).
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy. https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy (accessed December 2022).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. “Global Climate Report for Annual 2019.” State of the Climate. January 2020. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813 (accessed December 2022).
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. August. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Parmesan_2006.p df (accessed December 2022).
State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUMCCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed December 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a. “Overview of Greenhouse Gases.” Last updated: May 18, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhousegases (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022b. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019.” February 2022. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks1990-2019 (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” April 25, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section202a (accessed December 2022).
World Meteorological Organization. 2013. WMO statement on the status of the global climate in 2013. https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=7862 (accessed December 2022). 577
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-8
Land Use and Planning
ALUC (Napa County Airport Land Use Commission). 1991. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Adopted April 22, 1991. Revised December 15, 1999.
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF (accessed December 2022).
American Canyon, City of. 1994a. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. November 3, 1994.
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46471&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed May 2022).
______. 1994b. The City of American Canyon General Plan. November 3, 1994. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed May 2022).
______. 2015. City of American Canyon Zoning Map. September 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/168/63712350084 5870000 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2020. Land Use Element American Canyon General Plan Existing Conditions StoryMap Series. August 20, 2020.
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/collections/25c8ec4f9c09494a9767468e3dcbfe1f?item=4. (accessed February 2023).
______. 2022. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project.
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/281435-1/attachment/-
J8qslGhsY4Bngt9fHpJYOnPORRUA64wkrrQ6IhIDxc_bnO9jSDLE3nAqhsANgFCFzuaQdWv-vXxSCW0 (accessed January 2023).
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2021. Play Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021. https://www.planbayarea.org/finalplan2050 (accessed April 2022).
Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. I-80 Davis OGAC Pavement Noise Study. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/davis-noise-study-12yr-report-may2011-a11y.pdf (accessed February 2023).
______.2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13- 069.25.2) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf (accessed December 2022).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.: https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf (accessed December 2022).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2008. Napa County Airport Master Plan Draft Environmental Assessment Napa, Napa County, California. January.
https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1981/Airport-Master-PlanEnvironmental-Assessment-NEPA-PDF (accessed February 2023). 578
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-9
Federal Rail Administration (FRA). 2022. Crossing Inventory Lookup. https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/crossing-and-inventory-data/crossing-inventorylookup (accessed February 2023).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
November. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed December 2022).
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2007. San Francisco Bay Area Regional Rail Plan.
September. https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/BARegionalRailReport-ExSum.pdf (accessed February 2023).
Napa County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 1991. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF?bidId= (accessed December 2022).
Napa, County of. 2007. Napa County Airport Master Plan. March. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1985/Napa-County-Airport-MasterPlan-PDF (accessed February 2023).
Paleontological Resources
California Geological Survey. 2002. Note 36 – California Geomorphic Provinces. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/CGS-Note-36.pdf.
Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb. 2002. Geologic map and map database of northeastern San Francisco Bay region, California. [map.] United States Geological Survey. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2403, scale 1:100,000.
Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172.
Paleobiology Database (PBDB). 2022. The Paleobiology Database, http://paleobiodb.org/ (accessed November 2022).
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf.
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2022. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 2022).
Population and Housing
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2019. Plan Bay Area 2040 forecasts. [tabular dataset].
San Francisco, CA. May 1, 2019. https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra (accessed December 2022). ______. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Pattern.
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/FinalBlueprintRelease_December2020_Gr owthPattern_Jan2021Update.pdf (accessed December 2022). 579
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-10
______. 2022. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023- 2031. March 2022. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022- 04/Final_RHNA_Methodology_Report_2023-2031_March2022_Update.pdf (accessed April 2022).
California Department of Finance. 2000. Historical City, County, and State Population Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 and 2000 Census Counts.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-revised-historical-city-countyand-state-population-estimates-1991-2000-with-1990-and-2000-census-counts/ (accessed December 2022)
______. 2010a. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 4/1/2010. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed December 2022).
______. 2010b. E-8 County/State Population and Housing Estimates, 4/1/2010.https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e8-2000- 2010/(accessed December 2022).
______. 2020a. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2011-2020 with 2010 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2011-2020-with-2010-census-benchmarknew/(accessed December 2022). ______. 2020b. E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2020. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2020/ (accessed December 2022)
______. 2022a. E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and State 2021-2022 with 2020 Benchmark. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-4-populationestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2021-2022-with-2020-census-benchmark/ (accessed December 2022)
______. 2022b. Table E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed December 2022).
City of American Canyon. 2022. 30 Interesting Facts About American Canyon. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/30th-anniversary/30interesting-factsabout-americancanyon#:~:text=American%20Canyon%20was%20incorporated%20on,school%20with%20in credible%20sports%20facilities (accessed August 2022).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Subject Definitions. October 8, 2021. https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html#household (accessed April 2022).
Public Services and Recreation
American Canyon, City of. 2022a. District Information.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district/districtinformation (accessed April 2022). 580
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-11
______. 2022b. Fire Apparatus. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/publicsafety/fire-district/fire-apparatus (accessed May 2022). ______. 2022c. Wetlands & Napa River Bay Trail.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/parks-trails-open-space/wetlands (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022d. Newell Open Space Preserve.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/parks-trails-open-space/newell-openspace (accessed April 2022). ______. 2015. Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment. December 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17356 (accessed April 2022).
______. 1994. Public Services and Facilities Element.
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/PDF10/02c30c3d-64e0-490b-9bf7- af470795c5f8/46463 (accessed January 2023).
American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD). 2022a. Annual Report 2021. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district (accessed May 2022).
______. 2022b. Long-Range Master Plan. September 2022. https://legistarwebproduction.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/1622974/American_Canyon_FPD_ Master_Plan__FINAL_REPORT_.pdf (accessed January 2023). ______2015. American Canyon Fire Protection District 2015-2020 Strategic Plan. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9429/6371236845 12600000 (accessed July 2022)
American Canyon Police Department (ACPD). 2022. 2021 Annual Report. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/police (accessed April 2022).
Bay Area Open Space Council. 2014. We’re getting there—almost 1.4 million acres and counting! February 26.
https://conservationcorridor.org/cpb/Bay_Area_Open_Space_Council_2014.pdf (accessed January 2023).
California Department of Education. 2022. DataQuest.
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=2866266&agglevel=distr ict&year=2017-18&ro=y (accessed April 2022).
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2022. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed November 2022).
Napa, County of. 2022a. Contract Cities. https://www.countyofnapa.org/1471/ContractCities#:~:text=Service%20Support%20American%20Canyon%20has%20a%20minimum%20o f,Office%20Patrol%20deputies%20will%20respond%20for%20mutual%20aid. (accessed January 2023).
581
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-12
______. 2022b. American Canyon Library. https://www.countyofnapa.org/library/americancanyon/ (accessed April 2022).
Napa Valley Unified School District. 2022. Developer Fees. https://nvusdca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1515572431566&vdid=i32a1r8qa2 wo (accessed November 2022).
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2022a. Search for Public Schools. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_list.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Scho olPageNum=1 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022b. American Canyon High School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664012535 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022c. American Canyon Middle School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664007575 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022d. Canyon Oaks Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664010976 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022e. Donaldson Way Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664004017 (accessed April 2022).
______. 2022f. Napa Junction Elementary School Directory Information. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&Sc hoolPageNum=1&ID=062664004023 (accessed April 2022).
Transportation
GHD. 2024. American Canyon Travel Demand Model, July 2024.
Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation impacts in CEQA. April 2018. https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
Tribal Cultural Resources
Elliott, Evan. 2011. “Bringing the Hill Patwin into the North Coast Ranges Cultural Region.” SCA Proceedings 25: 1–10.
Johnson, Patti. 1978 . Patwin. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California, Robert F.
Heizer, editor, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kroeber, Alfred. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications Inc., New York.
McKern, Will. C. 1922. “Functional Families of the Patwin.” American Archaeology and Ethnology 13(7): 235–258.
582
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-13
Utilities and Service Systems
American Canyon, City of. 2012. Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/5024/6371235410 56170000#:~:text=Ultimately%2C%20the%20EECAP%20provides%20the,reliability%20and% 20sea%20level%20rise. (accessed April 2022)
______. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17856/637123637 363600000. (accessed November 2022).
______. 2016a. Sewer Master Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9733/6371236386 34130000 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2016b. Potable Water Master Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/17957/637123637 178300000 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2016c. Recycled Water Master Plan.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9735/6371236375 60170000 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2019. Broadway District Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report - Table 3.13-3. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/9733/6371236386 34130000 (accessed December 2022).
______. 2023. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Final Draft. https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=77716&repo=r-f53bdda4. (accessed June 2024).
______. 2024. Recycled Water. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/maintenanceand-utilities/recycled-water. (accessed June 2024).
The California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions (CALAFCO). 2022. Introduction to SB 610 and SB 221.
https://calafco.org/sites/default/files/resources/CALAFCO_U/Introduction%20to%20SB%20 610%20and%20SB%20221.pdf (accessed April 2022)
______. 2008. Amended Countywide Non-Disposal Facility Element for The County of Napa. https://services.countyofnapa.org/AgendaNet/DownloadDocument.aspx?type=BOS&doctyp e=ATTACHMENT&id=10840 (Accessed April 2022)
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2022a. What we do. https://water.ca.gov/ (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022b. Urban Water Management Plans. https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-AndEfficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Management-Plans (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022c. SB X7-7. https://water.ca.gov/programs/water-use-and-efficiency/sb-x7-7 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022d. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bpdashboard/final/ (accessed November 2022). 583
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-14
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).2022. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. January 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf (accessed April 2022)
______2018. Regulations Related to Recycled Water.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawboo k/RWregulations_20181001.pdf (accessed April 2022)
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1194?siteID=3591 (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022b. About CalRecycle https://calrecycle.ca.gov/aboutus/ (accessed April 2022) ______. 2022c. Mandatory Commercial Recycling. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/ (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022d. Jurisdiction Disposal Tonnage Trend.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022e. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports (accessed November 2022).
California Legislative Information. 1989. AB-939 Solid waste management, source reduction, recycling, composting, and market development.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=198919900AB939 (accessed April 2022)
______ 2008. SB-1016 Diversion: compliance: per capita disposal rate.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080SB1016 (accessed April 2022)
______ 2020. SB-1388 State Water Resources Control Board: powers. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB1388 (accessed April 2022)
Napa, County of. 2008. Amended Countywide Non-Disposal Facility Element. file:///C:/Users/adavetas/Downloads/205499.pdf (accessed November 2022). ______. 2015. American Canyon Single Use Plastic Carryout Bag Reduction Ordinance. https://services.countyofnapa.org/AgendaNet/DownloadDocument.aspx?type=BOS&doctyp e=ATTACHMENT&id=37073 (accessed April 2022)
______. 2022a. What Groundwater Basins are Located In Napa County? https://www.countyofnapa.org/Faq.aspx?QID=856 (accessed April 2022) ______. 2022b. Stormwater. https://www.countyofnapa.org/1351/Stormwater-Program (accessed April 2022)
584
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-15
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2022a. Summary of the Clean Water Act. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-wateract#:~:text=The%20Clean%20Water%20Act%20(CWA,quality%20standards%20for%20surfa ce%20waters. (accessed April 2022)
______2022b. Clean Water Act, Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-402-national-pollutant-dischargeelimination-system (accessed April 2022) ______2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-12/documents/ca2-sanfrancisco-basin.pdf (accessed April 2022)
______2022c. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/regulations#cfr (accessed April 2022) Wildfire
American Canyon, City of. 2022a. Long-Range Master Plan. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/19513/638084122 376770000. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. City of American Canyon Fire Apparatus.
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/public-safety/fire-district/fireapparatus. (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022c. Evacuation Procedures. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/publicsafety/emergency-preparedness/evacuation-procedures (accessed November 2022).
American Canyon Fire Protection District (AFPCD). 2019. Annual Report. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=48911&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon&cr=1 (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022. 2021 Fire District Annual Report.
https://issuu.com/cityofamericancanyon/docs/2021_acfpd_annual_report_- _final_web?e=36519011/91429500. (accessed December 2022).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2018. 2018 California Strategic Fire Plan for California. August 22, 2018. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5590/2018-strategicfire-plan-approved-08_22_18.pdf (accessed December 2022). ______. 2019. American Fire Incident. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2019/10/6/american-fire/ (accessed November 2022).
______. 2022a. 2022 Fire Season Outlook. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2022/ (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. Fire and Fuels Treatment. https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/resourcemanagement/resource-protection-improvement/wildfire-resilience/forest-stewardship/fireand-fuels-treatment/ (accessed December 2022).
California Energy Commission. 2022. California Electric Transmission Lines. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/260b4513acdb4a3a8e4d64e69fc84fee_0/explore?location =37.202012%2C-118.629288%2C7.00 (accessed December 2022). 585
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-16
California Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4- 2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed December 2022).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. Disaster Mitigation ACT of 2000. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigationplanning/regulationsguidance#:~:text=The%20Disaster%20Mitigation%20Act%20of,of%20non%2Demergency%2 0disaster%20assistance. (accessed December 2022)
Green Valley Fire Safe Council. 2022. About Us. https://gvfsc.org/about-us/. (accessed December 2022).
Napa, County of. 2020. Napa County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. December 2020. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/20613/EOP-Napa-County_Dec-2020 (accessed December 2022).
State’s Office of the Attorney General. 2022. Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects under the California Environmental Quality Act. October
10. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-guidance-localgovernments-mitigate-wildfire-risk (accessed December 2022).
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. TopoView. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.00/-100.00 (accessed December 2022).
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Dutton’s Landing, California Monthly Climate Record. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2580 (accessed December 2022). ______. 2022. Climate of California. https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php (accessed December 2022).
Effects Found To Be Less Than Significant
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
American Canyon, City of. 2015. City of American Canyon Zoning Map. September 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/168/63712350084 5870000 (accessed December 2022).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed December 2022).
Napa, County of. 2022a. Williamson Act & Agricultural Preserve Contracts. https://www.countyofnapa.org/1893/Williamson-Act-Agricultural-PreserveCon#:~:text=The%20California%20Land%20Conservation%20Act%20of%201965%20is,purpo se%20of%20restricting%20specific%20parcels%20to%20agricultural%20use. (accessed December 2022).
______. 2022b. Napa County Online Public Map.
https://gis.countyofnapa.org/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0bbafe490c58430d a719ff851c78b7fa (accessed December 2022).
______ 2018. Napa Co. Agricultural Contracts. May 24, 2018. https://gis.napa.ca.gov/giscatalog/viewXML.asp?Name=planning.gis.ag_contracts_public& meta_style=fgdc (accessed October 2022).
586
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-17
______. 2009. Agricultural Preservation and Land Use. June 23, 2009. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3331/Agricultural-Preservationand-Land-Use-Element-PDF (accessed December 2022).
Geology and Soils
American Canyon, City of. 1994. American Canyon General Plan: Geology Element.
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed November 2022).
United States Geological Survey. 2006. Liquefaction Hazard Maps. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/liquefaction/sfbay/ (accessed January 2023).
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
American Canyon, City of. 2015. Encroachment Permit Application Instructions. July 23, 2015. https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/home/showpublisheddocument/18367 (accessed November 2022).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1998. Regulation 11 Hazardous Pollutants Rule 2 Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. October 7, 1998. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-11-rule-2-asbestos-demolitionrenovation-andmanufacturing/documents/rg1102.pdf?la=en&rev=bac2a923da314dc893aa7e5bd61366b7 (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. March 30, 2021. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/ca-mutcd/rev6/camutcd2014-rev6.pdf (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). 2022a. Evaluating & Cleaning-Up School Sites. https://dtsc.ca.gov/evaluating-cleaning-up-school-sites/ (accessed November 2022). ______. 2022b. EnviroStor.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=American+Canyon (accessed November 2022).
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2022. Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. https://calepa.ca.gov/hazardous-materials-business-plan-program/ (accessed November 2022).
County of Napa. 2016. Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). September 2016. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=52412&dbid=1&repo=Amer icanCanyon&cr=1 (accessed November 2022).
Napa County Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. April 22, 1991. https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1980/Airport-Land-UseCompatibility-Plan-PDF?bidId= (accessed November 2022). 587
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-18
Napa Valley Unified School District. 2022. School Registration. https://www.nvusd.org/schoolregistration (accessed November 2022).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=American+Cany on (accessed November 2022).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2022. Overview of the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/overview-asbestos-national-emission-standards-hazardousair-pollutants-neshap (accessed November 2022).
Hydrology and Water Quality
American Canyon, City of. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of American Canyon.
June 14, 2016.
https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/5211026847/1568037_AmCanyo n_UWMP_Final_June2016.pdf (accessed November 2022).
Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). 2019. BASMAA PostConstruction Manual Design Guidance for Stormwater Treatment and Control for Projects in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties. January 2019. https://basmaa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/basmaa_post_construction_manual_2019.pdf (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2022. California Tsunami Maps and Data. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps (accessed November 2022).
California Department of Water (DWR). 2022. SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed November 2022).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=American%20Canyon#searchresultsanc hor (accessed November 2022).
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan.
November 5, 2019.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html#:~:text=The%20Wa ter%20Quality%20Control%20Plan%20for%20the%20San,programs%20of%20implementati on%20to%20achieve%20water%20quality%20objectives. (accessed November 2022).
Mineral Resources
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1983. Mineral Land Classification Map Aggregate Resources Only Napa County. March 1, 1983.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/#datalist (accessed December 2022).
Other CEQA Related Discussions
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). April 7, 2016. 588
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-19
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. American Community Survey (ACS) and Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS), 5-Year Estimates. Persons Per household, 2014-2018. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/venturacountycalifornia/HSD310218#HSD31 0218 (accessed November 2020).
7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of American Canyon, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Matt Maddox, Principal
Darcy Kremin, Director
Gianna Meschi, Project Manager
Hannah Bireschi, Assistant Project Manager
Leo Mena, Senior Environmental Planner
Jesse Voremberg, Environmental Planner
Ethan Knox, Environmental Planner
Matthew Gonzalez, Senior Archaeologist
Samantha Kehr, Biologist
Andrew McGrath, Paleontologist
Jen DiCenzo, Paleontological Program Manager
Josh Carman, Director – Noise, Air Quality & GHG
Jesse McCandless, Noise Environmental Planner
Hayley Rundle, Noise Environmental Planner
589
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
7-20
This page intentionally left blank.
590
591
CITY OF
flfTlERiCfin
canyon
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Date: July 5, 2022
To: Reviewing Agencies, Interested Parties, and Organizations Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Subject:
The City of American Canyon (City) is preparing an update to the City's General Plan. The City has determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be necessary to evaluate environmental impacts of the General Plan Update pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In compliance with CEQA, the City will be the Lead Agency and will prepare the Program EIR. The City is requesting comments and guidance on the scope and content of the Program EIR from responsible and trustee agencies, interested public agencies, organizations, and the general public (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082).
This Notice of Preparation (NOP) provides a summary of the General Plan Update;includes the City's preliminary identification of the potential environmental issues to be analyzed in the EIR;and provides information on how to comment on the scope of the EIR.
Notice of Preparation Public Review Period:July 5, 2022 to August 4, 2022 The City requests your careful review and consideration of this notice, and it invites any and all input and comments from interested agencies, persons, and organizations regarding the preparation of the Program E(R.
Comments and responses to this notice must be in writing and submitted to the Lead Agency Contact through August 4, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. If applicable, please indicate a contact person for your agency or organization. If your agency is a responsible agency as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, your agency may use the environmental documents prepared by the City when considering permits or approvals for action regarding the proposed project.
Lead Agency Contact:
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
City of American Canyon Community Development Department 4381Broadway Street,Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
bcoopertScitvofamericancanvon.org
592
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Written Comments:Please submit written comments within 30 days of the date of this notice to any of the below by 4:00 p.m. on August 4, 2022:
Email: [email protected]
Regular Mail: Nicolle Jones, Community Development Department, City of American Canyon, 4381 Broadway Street,Suite 201, American Canyon, California 94503
Public Scoping Meeting:The City will hold a virtual scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for agency staff and interested members of the public to submit written and oral comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting will be held on July 28, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. To attend the scoping meeting, go to https://zoom.us/ioin.
Webinar ID: 884 4514 1942
Passcode: 038881
Dial:(408) 638 0968
The scoping presentation will be available to view after July 28, 2022 on https://www.citvofamericancanvon.org/government/citv-hall/citv-clerk/meetings-agendas.
Project Background: The City must undertake a technical update to its General Plan to ensure the General Plan is internally consistent and maintains a balance of land uses;maintains and supports quality-of-life, community satisfaction, and safety for all residents; and meets new State requirements. A Regional Location map is included as Figure 1.
Project Location: The General Plan Update will encompass the City of American Canyon city limits, the Sphere of Influence, Urban Limit Line, and historic water service area (Figure 2).
Proposed Project:The American Canyon General Plan update will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development. The General Plan represents the community's view of its future and contains the goals and polices upon which the City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and the entire community will base land use and resource decisions. To provide a contemporary plan that will guide the community through the next 20 years, the General Plan update will reflect recent development decisions and changes in State law. Major components of the comprehensive technical General Plan Update include:
Land Use Element.This element will resolve inconsistencies between existing and General Plan land uses, expand the Urban Limit Line to include the "Hess/Laird Property," and accommodate land use amendments for certain properties owned by the Napa Valley Unified School District. Proposed land use amendments are depicted in Figure 3. The proposed Urban Limit Line is shown in Figure 4.
Circulation Element. This element will incorporate Vehicle Miles Travelled policies consistent with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743); update street standards for all modes, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit consistent with the California Complete Streets Act;include two new Industrial Collector roadways: 1) a new "West Side Connector" roadway segment and 2) a Newell Drive roadway segment between Paoli Loop and S. Kelly Drive and delete former planned connection between Commerce Court and Eucalyptus Drive. See Figure 5.
Community Services Element. This element will focus on goals and policies related to public services, including police,fire, and emergency services.
593
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
• Open Space and Recreation Element. This element will address the wide variety of parks, trails, and open spaces serving the diverse recreation needs of American Canyon residents, particularly youth, and emphasize the unique features of the City's natural environment-from the Newell Open Space to the east to the wetlands and trails to the west.
• Conservation Element. This element will consider the effects of existing and planned development on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations, consistent with Government Code Section 65302(d). This Element will address 5tate law requirements, including air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change adaptation. • Safety Element. This element will cover seismic activity, other geologic hazards,fire hazards,hazardous materials, flooding, and other potential hazards,consistent with Government Code Section 65302(g). It will also address resiliency and risks from natural hazards in American Canyon, pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 379. This element update will require a vulnerability analysis to comply with State law. • Noise Element. This element will require, consistent with Government Code Section 65302(f), the inclusion of new existing noise contours as well as projected noise contours based on future traffic volumes projected to arise from improvements planned for in the Circulation Element. • Housing Element. This element will be an update for the 2023-2031RHNA cycle to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community, consistent with Government Code Section 65S83.
Due to State-Mandated deadlines, the Housing Element update is anticipated to be completed earlier than the rest of the comprehensive technical General Plan update. • Implementation. This chapter will be a comprehensive implementation strategy with discrete,tangible actions that the City will undertake to carry out all the Plan's goals, policies, and objectives. It will also highlight goals, policies, and programs related to administration of the General Plan. The chapter will detail timing, potential funding sources, and the responsible parties for each implementation measure.
Project Alternatives:The EIR will evaluate a reasonable range of proposed project alternatives that, consistent with CEQA,meet most of the proposed project objectives and reduce or avoid potential environmental effects, including a required No Project Alternative.
Potential Environmental Effect Areas: The EIR will describe the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse effects of the proposed project (both direct and indirect). The EIR also will evaluate the cumulative impacts of the proposed project when considered in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The City preliminarily anticipates that the proposed project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts in the following topic areas, which will be further evaluated in the EIR.
594
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Aesthetics Population and Housing
Public Services and Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
Cumulative Effects
Growth Inducing Effects
When the Draft EIR is completed,it will be available for review at the City's offices located at 4381Broadway Street,Suite 201, American Canyon, California 94503 and online at:
https://www.citvofamericancanvon.org/government/communitv-development/planning-zoning/general-planupdate. The City will issue a Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR at that time to inform the public and interested agencies, groups, and individuals of how to access the Draft EIR and provide comments.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use and Planning
Noise
If you have questions regarding this NOP or the scoping meeting, please contact Brent Cooper at (707) 647-4335 or via email at [email protected]
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
595
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Figure 1 Regional Location
Basemap provided by Microsoft Bing, Esri and their licensors © 2022.
Additional data provided by the City of American Canyon, 2022.
I
City of American Canyon
Boundary
]General Plan Area
Y / } 2030 Urban Limit
FldoiacJo
National
Forest
N
A Roseville
Sacramento
Project Location Santa Rosa
@
Elk Grove Vacaville
^
Fairfield
VaTleio
Stockton
Antioch
S3
^
an Livermorem
Francisco Modesto
Fremont
San Jose
596
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Figure 2 Project Location
Additional data provided by the City of American Canyon, 2022.
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Figure 3 Area of Proposed Land Use Element Amendments
598
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Figure 4 Proposed Urban Limit Line
Basemap provided by Microsoft Bing, Bsri and their '
licensors © 2022.
Additional dota provided by the City of American Canyon, 2021; Hess/Laird Property digitizedfrom the Proposed Urban Limit LineAddition,2022
599
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon General Plan Update
Figure 5 Proposed Circulation Element Amendments
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
August 4, 2022 SCH #: 2022070038
GTS #: 04-NAP-2022-00282
GTS ID: 26948
Co/Rt/Pm: NAP/29/VAR
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Re: City of American Canyon General Plan Update – Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Brent Cooper:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the City of American Canyon General Plan Update project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the July 2022 NOP.
Project Understanding
The proposed project consists of an update to the City’s General Plan which will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development. State Route (SR)-29 runs through the City of American Canyon.
Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).
610
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
August 4, 2022
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the VMT analysis in the DEIR, which should include the following:
● VMT analysis pursuant to the City’s guidelines. Projects that result in automobile VMT per capita above the threshold of significance for existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use types may indicate a significant impact. If necessary, mitigation for increasing VMT should be identified. Mitigation should support the use of transit and active transportation modes. Potential mitigation measures that include the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments under the control of the City.
● A schematic illustration of walking, biking and auto conditions at the project site and study area roadways. Potential traffic safety issues to the State Transportation Network (STN) may be assessed by Caltrans via the Interim Safety Guidance (link). ● The project’s primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicycles, travelers with disabilities and transit performance should be evaluated, including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. Access to pedestrians, bicycle, and transit facilities must be maintained.
Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the Cit of American Canyon is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected].
Sincerely,
MARK LEONG
District Branch Chief
Local Development Review
c: State Clearinghouse
611
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
July 8, 2022
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Re: 2022070038, City of American Canyon General Plan Update Project, Napa County Dear Mr. Cooper:
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code § 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(1) (CEQA Guidelines §15064 (a)(1)).
In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).
CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, “tribal cultural resources” (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).
Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.
The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC’s recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.
Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.
AB 52
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan
COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki
COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño
COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.
Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
612
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:
1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of an Application/Decision to Undertake a Project:
Within fourteen (14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.
Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A “California Native American tribe” is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).
2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe’s Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1(b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, “consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).
3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
4. Discretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).
5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).
6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency’s environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)). 613
7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).
8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).
9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (e)).
10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That, If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)). e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)). f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991).
11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).
The NAHC’s PowerPoint presentation titled, “Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices” may be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AB52TribalConsultation_CalEPAPDF.pdf 614
SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09_14_05_Updated_Guidelines_922.pdf.
Some of SB 18’s provisions include:
1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a “Tribal Consultation List.” If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).
2. No Statutory Time Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.
3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).
4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).
Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and “Sacred Lands File” searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.
NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:
1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.
2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.
615
3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project’s APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.
4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
Sincerely,
Cameron Vela
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse
616
Appendix B
Supporting Biological Resources Information
617
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum
Franciscan onion
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Clay, Serpentinite
(often), volcanic. Elevations: 170-1000ft. (52-305m.)
Blooms (Apr)May-Jun.
Amorpha californica var.
napensis
Napa false indigo
None/None
G4T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial deciduous shrub. Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland. Openings in
forest or woodland or in chaparral. 30-735 m.
Elevations: 165-6560ft. (50-2000m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
None/None
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb. Playas, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Alkaline. Elevations: 5-195ft. (1-60m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.
Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Vernal pools. Alkaline vernal pools.
Elevations: 35-375ft. (10-115m.) Blooms Jun-Oct.
Balsamorhiza macrolepis
big-scale balsamroot
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Serpentinite
(sometimes). Elevations: 150-5100ft. (45-1555m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.
Blennosperma bakeri
Sonoma sunshine
FE/SCE
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Vernal pools and swales. Elevations: 35-360ft.
(10-110m.) Blooms Mar-May.
Blepharizonia plumosa
big tarplant
None/None
G1G2/S1S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Clay
(usually). Elevations: 100-1655ft. (30-505m.) Blooms
Jul-Oct.
Brodiaea leptandra
narrow-anthered brodiaea
None/None
G3?/S3?
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill
grassland. Volcanic. Elevations: 360-3000ft. (110-
915m.) Blooms May-Jul.
19-08673: American Canyon
Plants and Lichens
618
Calochortus pulchellus
Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. On wooded and brushy slopes. Elevations:
100-2755ft. (30-840m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.
Carex lyngbyei
Lyngbye's sedge
None/None
G5/S3
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps.
Elevations: 0-35ft. (0-10m.) Blooms Apr-Aug.
Castilleja affinis var. neglecta
Tiburon paintbrush
FE/SCT
G4G5T1T2/S1S2
1B.2
Perennial herb (hemiparasitic). Valley and foothill
grassland. Rocky serpentine sites. Elevations: 195-
1310ft. (60-400m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.
Ceanothus confusus
Rincon Ridge ceanothus
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest.
Serpentinite (sometimes), volcanic (sometimes).
Elevations: 245-3495ft. (75-1065m.) Blooms Feb-Jun.
Ceanothus purpureus
holly-leaved ceanothus
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland. Rocky, volcanic. Elevations: 395-2100ft.
(120-640m.) Blooms Feb-Jun.
Ceanothus sonomensis
Sonoma ceanothus
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral. Sandy,
serpentine or volcanic soils. Elevations: 705-2625ft.
(215-800m.) Blooms Feb-Apr.
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
None/None
G3T1T2/S1S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline
soils, sometimes described as heavy white clay.
Elevations: 0-755ft. (0-230m.) Blooms May-Oct(Nov).
Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi
pappose tarplant
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, coastal prairie, marshes and
swamps, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline (often). Elevations: 0-1380ft. (0-
420m.) Blooms May-Nov.
Chloropyron molle ssp. molle
soft salty bird's-beak
FE/SCR
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Marshes and swamps. In
coastal salt marsh with Distichlis, Salicornia,
Frankenia, etc. Elevations: 0-10ft. (0-3m.) Blooms JunNov. 619
Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi
Bolander's water-hemlock
None/None
G5T4T5/S2?
2B.1
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. In fresh or
brackish water. Elevations: 0-655ft. (0-200m.) Blooms
Jul-Sep.
Cirsium hydrophilum var.
hydrophilum
Suisun thistle
FE/None
G2T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. Grows with
Scirpus, Distichlis near small watercourses within
saltmarsh. Elevations: 0-5ft. (0-1m.) Blooms Jun-Sep.
Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial deciduous shrub. Broadleafed upland
forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, closed-cone
coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest, riparian woodland. On brushy slopes,
mesic sites; mostly in mixed evergreen and foothill
woodland communities. Elevations: 80-1395ft. (25-
425m.) Blooms Jan-Mar(Apr).
Downingia pusilla
dwarf downingia
None/None
GU/S2
2B.2
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Vernal lake and pool margins with a variety of
associates. In several types of vernal pools.
Elevations: 5-1460ft. (1-445m.) Blooms Mar-May.
Erigeron greenei
Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral. Serpentine and volcanic
substrates, generally in shrubby vegetation.
Elevations: 260-3295ft. (80-1005m.) Blooms May-Sep.
Eriogonum truncatum
Mt. Diablo buckwheat
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Dry, exposed clay or sandy
substrates. Elevations: 10-1150ft. (3-350m.) Blooms
Apr-Sep(Nov-Dec).
Eryngium jepsonii
Jepson's coyote-thistle
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Clay. Elevations: 10-985ft. (3-300m.) Blooms
Apr-Aug.
Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
playas, valley and foothill grassland. In seasonal alkali wetlands or alkali sink scrub with Distichlis spicata,
Frankenia, etc. Elevations: 5-2740ft. (1-835m.) Blooms
Apr-Oct.
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Cismontane woodland,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Often on serpentine; various soils reported
though usually on clay, in grassland. Elevations: 10-
1345ft. (3-410m.) Blooms Feb-Apr.
620
Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Azonal soils,
Partial shade (often), rocky (usually). Elevations: 195- 4265ft. (60-1300m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.
Hemizonia congesta ssp.
congesta
congested-headed hayfield
tarplant
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Grassy
valleys and hills, often in fallow fields; sometimes
along roadsides. Elevations: 65-1835ft. (20-560m.)
Blooms Apr-Nov.
Hesperolinon bicarpellatum
two-carpellate western flax
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral. Serpentine barrens at edge of
chaparral. Elevations: 195-3295ft. (60-1005m.)
Blooms (Apr)May-Jul.
Hesperolinon breweri
Brewer's western flax
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Often in rocky serpentine soil
in serpentine chaparral and serpentine grassland.
Elevations: 100-3100ft. (30-945m.) Blooms May-Jul.
Horkelia tenuiloba
thin-lobed horkelia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
valley and foothill grassland. Sandy soils; mesic
openings. Elevations: 165-1640ft. (50-500m.) Blooms
May-Jul(Aug).
Isocoma arguta
Carquinez goldenbush
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial shrub. Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline soils, flats, lower hills. On low benches near drainages and on tops and sides of mounds in swale habitat.
Elevations: 5-65ft. (1-20m.) Blooms Aug-Dec.
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, playas, valley
and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Vernal pools,
swales, low depressions, in open grassy areas.
Elevations: 0-1540ft. (0-470m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.
Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii
Delta tule pea
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. In freshwater
and brackish marshes. Often found with Typha, Aster
lentus, Rosa californica, Juncus spp., Scirpus, etc.
Usually on marsh and slough edges. Elevations: 0-
15ft. (0-5m.) Blooms May-Jul(Aug-Sep).
Legenere limosa
legenere
None/None
G2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Vernal pools. In beds of vernal pools. 1-.
Elevations: 5-2885ft. (1-880m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.
621
Leptosiphon jepsonii
Jepson's leptosiphon
None/None
G2G3/S2S3
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Open to partially shaded grassy slopes. On volcanics or the periphery of serpentine
substrates. Elevations: 330-1640ft. (100-500m.)
Blooms Mar-May.
Lilaeopsis masonii
Mason's lilaeopsis
None/SCR
G2/S2
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps,
riparian scrub. Tidal zones, in muddy or silty soil
formed through river deposition or river bank
erosion. In brackish or freshwater. Elevations: 0-35ft. (0-10m.) Blooms Apr-Nov.
Limosella australis
Delta mudwort
None/None
G4G5/S2
2B.1
Perennial stoloniferous herb. Marshes and swamps,
riparian scrub. Usually on mud banks of the Delta in
marshy or scrubby riparian associations; often with
Lilaeopsis masonii. Elevations: 0-10ft. (0-3m.) Blooms
May-Aug.
Lomatium repostum
Napa lomatium
None/None
G2G3/S2S3
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland.
Rocky areas in volcanic and serpentine soils with
mixed chaparral and black oak woodland
communities. Elevations: 295-3380ft. (90-1030m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.
Lupinus sericatus
Cobb Mountain lupine
None/None
G2?/S2?
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest. In stands of knobcone pine-oak woodland, on
open wooded slopes in gravelly soils; sometimes on
serpentine. Elevations: 900-5005ft. (275-1525m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.
Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
bakeri
Baker's navarretia
None/None
G4T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools. Vernal pools and
swales; adobe or alkaline soils. Elevations: 15-5710ft. (5-1740m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.
Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
None/None
G3/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Alkaline,
vernally mesic. Sinks, flats, and lake margins.
Elevations: 5-3050ft. (2-930m.) Blooms Mar-May.
Rhynchospora californica
California beaked-rush
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Bogs and fens, lower
montane coniferous forest, marshes and swamps,
meadows and seeps. Freshwater seeps and open
marshy areas. Elevations: 150-3315ft. (45-1010m.)
Blooms May-Jul.
Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
None/None
G3/S2
2B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub. Drying alkaline flats. Elevations: 50-
2625ft. (15-800m.) Blooms Jan-Apr(May).
622
Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. napensis
Napa checkerbloom
None/None
G3T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral. Rhyolitic substrates.
Elevations: 1360-2000ft. (415-610m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.
Spergularia macrotheca var.
longistyla
long-styled sand-spurrey
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps, meadows and
seeps. Alkaline. Elevations: 0-835ft. (0-255m.) Blooms
Feb-May.
Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina
northern slender pondweed
None/None
G5T5/S2S3
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic). Marshes and
swamps. Shallow, clear water of lakes and drainage
channels. Elevations: 985-7055ft. (300-2150m.)
Blooms May-Jul.
Symphyotrichum lentum
Suisun Marsh aster
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps.
Most often seen along sloughs with Phragmites,
Scirpus, blackberry, Typha, etc. Elevations: 0-10ft. (0- 3m.) Blooms (Apr)May-Nov.
Trichostema ruygtii
Napa bluecurls
None/None
G1G2/S1S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Often in open, sunny areas.
Also has been found in vernal pools. Elevations: 100-
2230ft. (30-680m.) Blooms Jun-Oct.
Trifolium amoenum
two-fork clover
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Sometimes on serpentine soil, open sunny
sites, swales. Most recently cited on roadside and
eroding cliff face. Elevations: 15-1360ft. (5-415m.)
Blooms Apr-Jun.
Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline sites.
Elevations: 0-985ft. (0-300m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.
Viburnum ellipticum
oval-leaved viburnum
None/None
G4G5/S3?
2B.3
Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous forest.
Elevations: 705-4595ft. (215-1400m.) Blooms MayJun.
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
None/None
G2/S1S2
Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera include
Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, Dendromecon,
Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.
Invertebrates
623
Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
None/None
G2G3/S1
Once common and widespread, species has declined
precipitously from central CA to southern B.C.,
perhaps from disease.
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT/None
G3/S3
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley,
Central Coast mountains, and South Coast mountains,
in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth
slump, or basalt-flow depression pools.
Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle
FT/None
G3T2T3/S3
Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in
association with blue elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2-8
inches in diameter; some preference shown for
"stressed" elderberries.
Speyeria callippe callippe
callippe silverspot butterfly
FE/None
G5T1/S1
Restricted to the northern coastal scrub of the San
Francisco peninsula. Hostplant is Viola pedunculata.
Most adults found on E-facing slopes; males
congregate on hilltops in search of females.
Syncaris pacifica
California freshwater shrimp
FE/SE
G2/S2
Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma counties.
Found in low elevation, low gradient streams where
riparian cover is moderate to heavy. Shallow pools
away from main streamflow. Winter: undercut banks
with exposed roots. Summer: leafy branches touching
water.
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
green sturgeon - southern DPS
FT/None
G3T1/S1
Spawning site fidelity. Spawns in the Sacramento,
Feather and Yuba Rivers. Presence in upper Stanislaus
and San Joaquin Rivers may indicate spawning. Nonspawning adults occupy marine/estuarine waters.
Delta Estuary is important for rearing juveniles.
Spawning occurs primarily in cool (11-15 C) sections
of mainstem rivers in deep pools (8-9 meters) with
substrate containing small to medium sized sand,
gravel, cobble, or boulder.
Hypomesus transpacificus
Delta smelt
FT/SE
G1/S1
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Seasonally in Suisun
Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay. Seldom
found at salinities > 10 ppt. Most often at salinities < 2ppt.
Fish
624
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 8
steelhead - central California
coast DPS
FT/None
G5T2T3Q/S2S3
DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of
steelhead (and their progeny) in streams from the
Russian River to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz County,
California (inclusive). Also includes the drainages of
San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus
Sacramento splittail
None/None
GNR/S3
SSC
Endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central Valley,
but now confined to the Delta, Suisun Bay and
associated marshes. Slow moving river sections, dead
end sloughs. Requires flooded vegetation for
spawning and foraging for young.
Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
FC/ST
G5/S1
Euryhaline, nektonic and anadromous. Found in open
waters of estuaries, mostly in middle or bottom of
water column. Prefer salinities of 15-30 ppt, but can
be found in completely freshwater to almost pure
seawater.
Dicamptodon ensatus
California giant salamander
None/None
G3/S2S3
SSC
Known from wet coastal forests near streams and
seeps from Mendocino County south to Monterey
County, and east to Napa County. Aquatic larvae
found in cold, clear streams, occasionally in lakes and ponds. Adults known from wet forests under rocks
and logs near streams and lakes.
Rana boylii pop. 1
foothill yellow-legged frog -
north coast DPS
None/None
G3TNRQ/S3
SSC
Northern Coast Ranges north of San Francisco Bay
Estuary, Klamath Mountains, and Cascade Range
including watershed subbasins (HU 8) Lower Pit,
Battle Creek, Thomes Creek, and Big Chico Creek in
Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, and Butte Counties. Partly
shaded shallow streams and riffles with a rocky
substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying and at least 15
weeks to attain metamorphosis.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources
of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval development. Must have
access to estivation habitat.
Amphibians
625
Taricha rivularis
red-bellied newt
None/None
G2/S2
SSC
Coastal drainages from Humboldt County south to
Sonoma County, inland to Lake County. Isolated
population of uncertain origin in Santa Clara County.
Lives in terrestrial habitats, juveniles generally
underground, adults active at surface in moist
environments. Will migrate over 1 km to breed,
typically in streams with moderate flow and clean,
rocky substrate.
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields)
upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egglaying.
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake
FT/ST
G4T2/S2
Typically found in chaparral and scrub habitats but
will also use adjacent grassland, oak savanna and
woodland habitats. Mostly south-facing slopes and
ravines, with rock outcrops, deep crevices or
abundant rodent burrows, where shrubs form a
vegetative mosaic with oak trees and grasses.
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal
type. Nest sites mainly in riparian growths of
deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on river floodplains; also, live oaks.
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
None/ST
G1G2/S1S2
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central
Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to California.
Requires open water, protected nesting substrate,
and foraging area with insect prey within a few km of
the colony.
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
None/None
G5/S3
FP
WL
Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting
habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in
open areas.
Reptiles
Birds
626
Asio flammeus
short-eared owl
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Found in swamp lands, both fresh and salt; lowland
meadows; irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule patches/tall
grass needed for nesting/daytime seclusion. Nests on
dry ground in depression concealed in vegetation.
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts,
and scrublands characterized by low-growing
vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon
burrowing mammals, most notably, the California
ground squirrel.
Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
None/None
G4/S3S4
WL
Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low
foothills and fringes of pinyon and juniper habitats.
Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels, and mice.
Population trends may follow lagomorph population
cycles.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
None/ST
G5/S3
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, junipersage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires
adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover
FT/None
G3T3/S2
SSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large
alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting.
Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Nest and forage in
grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain
cienagas. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation,
usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of
sticks in wet areas.
Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
None/None
G4/S1S2
SSC
Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in Mono
County. Freshwater marshlands.
Cypseloides niger
black swift
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Coastal belt of Santa Cruz and Monterey counties;
central and southern Sierra Nevada; San Bernardino
and San Jacinto mountains. Breeds in small colonies
on cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep
canyons and sea-bluffs above the surf; forages widely.
627
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
None/None
G5/S3S4
FP
Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered
oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to
deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or
marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped
trees for nesting and perching.
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
FD/SD
G4T4/S3S4
FP
Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water; on cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds; also, human-made structures.
Nest consists of a scrape or a depression or ledge in
an open site.
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
None/None
G5T3/S3
SSC
Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and
salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover
down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule
patches, willows for nesting.
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail
None/ST
G3T1/S1
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and
shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering
larger bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that
do not fluctuate during the year and dense vegetation
for nesting habitat.
Melospiza melodia maxillaris
Suisun song sparrow
None/None
G5T3/S3
SSC
Resident of brackish-water marshes surrounding
Suisun Bay. Inhabits cattails, tules and other sedges,
and Salicornia; also known to frequent tangles
bordering sloughs.
Melospiza melodia samuelis
San Pablo song sparrow
None/None
G5T2/S2
SSC
Resident of salt marshes along the north side of San
Francisco and San Pablo bays. Inhabits tidal sloughs in the Salicornia marshes; nests in Grindelia bordering
slough channels.
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Ocean shore, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger
streams. Large nests built in tree-tops within 15 miles of a good fish-producing body of water.
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway's rail
FE/SE
G3T1/S1
FP
Salt water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal
sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay.
Associated with abundant growths of pickleweed, but
feeds away from cover on invertebrates from mudbottomed sloughs.
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
None/ST
G5/S2
Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other
lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical
banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near
streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole.
628
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus
yellow-headed blackbird
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands with dense
vegetation and deep water. Often along borders of
lakes or ponds. Nests only where large insects such as
Odonata are abundant, nesting timed with maximum
emergence of aquatic insects.
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Found in a variety of habitats including deserts,
grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting. Roosts in crevices of rock outcrops, caves,
mine tunnels, buildings, bridges, and hollows of live
and dead trees which must protect bats from high
temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Occurs throughout California in a wide variety of
habitats. Most common in mesic sites, typically
coniferous or deciduous forests. Roosts in the open,
hanging from walls & ceilings in caves, lava
tubes, bridges, and buildings. This species is
extremely sensitive to human disturbance.
Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Low-lying arid areas in Southern California. Need high
cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds
principally on large moths.
Reithrodontomys raviventris
salt-marsh harvest mouse
FE/SE
G1G2/S1S2
FP
Only in the saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco
Bay and its tributaries. Pickleweed is primary habitat, but may occur in other marsh vegetation types and in
adjacent upland areas. Does not burrow; builds
loosely organized nests. Requires higher areas for
flood escape.
Sorex ornatus sinuosus
Suisun shrew
None/None
G5T1T2Q/S1S2
SSC
Tidal marshes of the northern shores of San Pablo and
Suisun bays. Require dense low-lying cover and
driftweed and other litter above the mean hightide
line for nesting and foraging.
Mammals
629
Taxidea taxus
American badger
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils.
Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents.
Digs burrows.
Coastal Brackish Marsh None/None
G2/S2.1
Northern Claypan Vernal Pool None/None
G1/S1.1
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh None/None
G3/S3.2
Coastal salt marshes, alkaline flats. The USFWS
Wetland Inventory (1996 national list) recognizes
Sarcocornia pacifica as an OBL plant.
Northern Vernal Pool None/None
G2/S2.1
Serpentine Bunchgrass None/None
G2/S2.2
All topographic locations. Soils may be deep with high
clay content, loamy, sandy, or silty derived from
mudstone, sandstone, or serpentine substrates.
Sensitive Natural Communities
630
Appendix C
Supporting Noise Information
631
Roadway Location Facility Type
Number
of Lanes
Speed
Limit
Existing
2022 Count Facility Type
Number of
Lanes
Speed
Limit
Future
2040
Forecast
Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 110,006 Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 117,514 s/o American Canyon Road Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 109,042 Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 121,991 s/o Red Top Road Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 112,650 Nine-Lane Freeway 8 65 128,806 s/o SR 12 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 97,782 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 113,977 n/o SR 12 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 136,706 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 155,682 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 24,051 Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 26,059 n/o SR 37 Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 43,483 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 40,444 s/o Mini Drive Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 37,492 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 37,666 n/o Mini Drive Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 43,469 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 43,575 n/o American Canyon Road Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 49,579 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 51,132 s/o Napa Junction Road Six-Lane Arterial 6 50 to 55 40,762 Six-Lane Arterial 6 50 to 55 36,053 n/o Napa Junction Road Four-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 59,044 Six-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 60,310 n/o Green Island Road Four-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 60,263 Four-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 62,189 s/o SR 12 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 59,200 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 62,560 n/o SR 12 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 88,600 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 106,300 Airport Blvd. w/o SR 29 Four-Lane Collector 4 45 10,500 Four-Lane Collector 4 45 10,341 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road Four-Lane Highway 3 55 35,033 Four-Lane Highway 3 55 36,038 w/o Red Top Road Two-Lane Highway 2 55 37,179 Four-Lane Highway 2 55 38,106 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 39,980 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 39,074 e/o SR 29 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 62,495 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 63,592 e/o Fairgrounds Road Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 69,800 Four-Lane Freeway 0 50 to 55 69,800 e/o I-80 Six-Lane Freeway 6 50 to 55 42,000 Six-Lane Freeway 6 50 to 55 47,776 American Cyn Rd. w/o SR 29 Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 15,330 Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 10,935 e/o Flosden Road Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 10,771 Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 14,194 w/o I-80 Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 4,076 Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 7,610 Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 Two-Lane Collector 2 40 6,023 Two-Lane Collector 2 40 6,943 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 21,510 Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 29,362 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road Four-Lane Arterial 4 35 9,685 Four-Lane Arterial 4 35 28,072 s/o Napa Junction Road - - - - Four-Lane Arterial 4 35 21,790 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 Two-Lane Collector 2 50 1,602 Two-Lane Collector 2 50 11,310 Devlin Road n/o Green Island Road Two-Lane Collector - - - Two-Lane Collector 2 40 5,224 Existing and Forecast Volumes
Existing Network Build-Out Network
632
Roadway Location Auto
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Existing
2022
Count Auto
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Future
2040
Forecast
Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 103,087 3,460 3,460 110,006 110,122 3,696 3,696 117,514 s/o American Canyon Road 102,881 3,080 3,080 109,042 115,099 3,446 3,446 121,991 s/o Red Top Road 106,037 3,306 3,306 112,650 121,245 3,780 3,780 128,806 s/o SR 12 92,042 2,870 2,870 97,782 107,287 3,345 3,345 113,977 n/o SR 12 125,441 5,632 5,632 136,706 142,854 6,414 6,414 155,682 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 23,544 254 254 24,051 25,509 275 275 26,059 n/o SR 37 41,357 1,063 1,063 43,483 38,466 989 989 40,444 s/o Mini Drive 35,689 902 902 37,492 35,854 906 906 37,666 n/o Mini Drive 41,448 1,011 1,011 43,469 41,549 1,013 1,013 43,575 n/o American Canyon Road 47,402 1,088 1,088 49,579 48,887 1,122 1,122 51,132 s/o Napa Junction Road 37,966 1,398 1,398 40,762 33,580 1,237 1,237 36,053 n/o Napa Junction Road 54,415 2,315 2,315 59,044 55,582 2,364 2,364 60,310 n/o Green Island Road 54,176 3,043 3,043 60,263 55,908 3,141 3,141 62,189 s/o SR 12 54,553 2,324 2,324 59,200 57,649 2,455 2,455 62,560 n/o SR 12 82,761 2,919 2,919 88,600 99,295 3,503 3,503 106,300 Airport Blvd. w/o SR 29 9,899 300 300 10,500 9,749 296 296 10,341 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 31,284 1,874 1,874 35,033 32,182 1,928 1,928 36,038 w/o Red Top Road 33,312 1,933 1,933 37,179 34,143 1,982 1,982 38,106 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 37,861 1,059 1,059 39,980 37,003 1,035 1,035 39,074 e/o SR 29 59,370 1,562 1,562 62,495 60,412 1,590 1,590 63,592 e/o Fairgrounds Road 66,108 1,846 1,846 69,800 66,108 1,846 1,846 69,800 e/o I-80 41,013 494 494 42,000 46,653 561 561 47,776
American Cyn Rd. w/o SR 29 14,930 200 200 15,330 10,650 143 143 10,935 e/o Flosden Road 10,684 44 44 10,771 14,079 57 57 14,194 w/o I-80 3,648 214 214 4,076 6,811 400 400 7,610
Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 5,858 83 83 6,023 6,753 95 95 6,943 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 20,884 313 313 21,510 28,508 427 427 29,362 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 9,485 100 100 9,685 27,491 291 291 28,072 s/o Napa Junction Road - - - - 21,339 226 226 21,790
South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 1,586 8 8 1,602 11,197 57 57 11,310 Devlin Road n/o Green Island Road - - - - 261 2,481 2,481 5,224 Vehicle Mix: Existing and Forecast Volumes
Existing 2022 Future 2040
633
Roadway Location
7 a.m.-7
p.m.
7 p.m. - 10
p.m.
10 p.m. - 7
a.m.
Existing
2022
Count
7 a.m.-7
p.m.
7 p.m. - 10
p.m.
10 p.m. - 7
a.m.
Future
2040
Forecast
Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 85,166 14,686 10,154 110,006 90,979 15,688 10,847 117,514 s/o American Canyon Road 84,420 14,557 10,065 109,042 94,445 16,286 11,261 121,991 s/o Red Top Road 87,213 15,039 10,398 112,650 99,721 17,196 11,890 128,806 s/o SR 12 75,702 13,054 9,026 97,782 88,240 15,216 10,521 113,977 n/o SR 12 105,837 18,250 12,619 136,706 120,528 20,784 14,371 155,682 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 19,692 3,110 1,249 24,051 21,336 3,369 1,353 26,059 n/o SR 37 34,302 5,783 3,398 43,483 31,904 5,379 3,161 40,444 s/o Mini Drive 29,794 4,881 2,816 37,492 29,932 4,904 2,829 37,666 n/o Mini Drive 35,449 5,512 2,508 43,469 35,535 5,525 2,514 43,575 n/o American Canyon Road 40,432 6,287 2,861 49,579 41,698 6,484 2,950 51,132 s/o Napa Junction Road 33,241 5,169 2,352 40,762 29,401 4,572 2,080 36,053 n/o Napa Junction Road 48,150 7,487 3,407 59,044 49,183 7,647 3,480 60,310 n/o Green Island Road 49,144 7,641 3,477 60,263 50,715 7,886 3,588 62,189 s/o SR 12 48,278 7,507 3,416 59,200 51,018 7,933 3,610 62,560 n/o SR 12 72,253 11,234 5,112 88,600 86,688 13,479 6,134 106,300 Airport Blvd. w/o SR 29 8,831 462 1,207 10,500 8,697 455 1,189 10,341 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 25,912 2,831 6,291 35,033 26,655 2,912 6,471 36,038 w/o Red Top Road 27,499 3,004 6,676 37,179 28,185 3,079 6,842 38,106 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 31,180 5,397 3,402 39,980 30,474 5,275 3,325 39,074 e/o SR 29 48,740 8,437 5,318 62,495 49,595 8,585 5,412 63,592 e/o Fairgrounds Road 54,437 9,423 5,940 69,800 54,437 9,423 5,940 69,800 e/o I-80 32,756 5,670 3,574 42,000 37,261 6,450 4,066 47,776 American Cyn Rd. w/o SR 29 12,528 1,722 1,080 15,330 8,937 1,228 770 10,935 e/o Flosden Road 8,803 1,210 759 10,771 11,600 1,594 1,000 14,194 w/o I-80 3,331 458 287 4,076 6,219 855 536 7,610
Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 4,757 771 495 6,023 5,484 888 571 6,943 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 17,605 2,381 1,524 21,510 24,032 3,250 2,080 29,362 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 8,220 1,045 420 9,685 23,825 3,029 1,218 28,072 s/o Napa Junction Road - - - - 18,494 2,351 945 21,790
South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 1,417 123 62 1,602 10,004 871 435 11,310 Devlin Road n/o Green Island Road - - - - 5,133 0 91 5,224 Time of Day Distribution
Existing 2022 Future 2040
634
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime % Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
1 80.3 83.0 83.6 404 870 1874 Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 110,006 65 0.0% 93.7% 3.1% 3.1% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 2 80.2 82.8 83.4 394 849 1829 Interstate 80 s/o American Canyon Road109,042 65 0.0% 94.4% 2.8% 2.8% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 3 80.4 83.0 83.6 405 873 1881 Interstate 80 s/o Red Top Road 112,650 65 0.0% 94.1% 2.9% 2.9% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 4 79.8 82.4 83.0 369 795 1712 Interstate 80 s/o SR 12 97,782 65 0.0% 94.1% 2.9% 2.9% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 5 81.6 84.3 84.9 492 1059 2282 Interstate 80 n/o SR 12 136,706 65 0.0% 91.8% 4.1% 4.1% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 6 70.8 72.4 73.2 82 176 378 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 24,051 55 0.0% 97.9% 1.1% 1.1% 81.9% 12.9% 5.2% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 7 74.1 76.4 77.1 148 319 688 State Route 29 n/o SR 37 43,483 55 0.0% 95.1% 2.4% 2.4% 78.9% 13.3% 7.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 73.4 75.7 76.3 132 285 614 State Route 29 s/o Mini Drive 37,492 55 0.0% 95.2% 2.4% 2.4% 79.5% 13.0% 7.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 74.0 75.8 76.6 137 295 636 State Route 29 n/o Mini Drive 43,469 55 0.0% 95.4% 2.3% 2.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 74.5 76.3 77.1 148 319 687 State Route 29n/o American Canyon Road49,579 55 0.0% 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 11 74.5 76.3 77.1 148 318 685 State Route 29 s/o Napa Junction Road40,762 55 0.0% 93.1% 3.4% 3.4% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 12 76.1 77.9 78.6 188 405 874 State Route 29 n/o Napa Junction Road59,044 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 13 76.6 78.5 79.2 205 441 950 State Route 29 n/o Green Island Road 60,263 55 0.0% 89.9% 5.1% 5.1% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 14 76.4 78.2 78.9 196 421 908 State Route 29 s/o SR 12 59,200 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 15 77.8 79.6 80.4 245 528 1139 State Route 29 n/o SR 12 88,600 55 0.0% 93.4% 3.3% 3.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 16 66.2 69.3 69.5 46 100 215 Airport Blvd w/o SR 29 10,500 45 0.0% 94.3% 2.9% 2.9% 84.1% 4.4% 11.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 17 74.3 78.5 78.8 193 415 894 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 35,033 55 0.0% 89.3% 5.4% 5.4% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 3 Soft 50 0.5 32 18 74.5 78.7 78.9 197 424 914 State Route 12 w/o Red Top Road 37,179 55 0.0% 89.6% 5.2% 5.2% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 19 73.8 76.3 77.0 146 314 675 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 39,980 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.7% 2.7% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 20 75.7 78.2 78.8 194 418 900 State Route 37 e/o SR 29 62,495 55 0.0% 95.0% 2.5% 2.5% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 21 76.2 78.7 79.4 211 454 979 State Route 37 e/o Fairgrounds Road 69,800 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.6% 2.6% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 22 73.5 76.0 76.6 138 298 642 State Route 37 e/o I-80 42,000 55 0.0% 97.7% 1.2% 1.2% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 23 66.8 68.9 69.5 46 100 216 American Canyon Rd w/o SR 29 15,330 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.3% 1.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 24 64.4 66.5 67.1 32 69 148 American Canyon Rd e/o Flosden Road 10,771 45 0.0% 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 25 63.3 65.4 66.0 27 58 125 American Canyon Rd w/o I-80 4,076 45 0.0% 89.5% 5.3% 5.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 26 61.4 63.9 64.5 21 46 100 Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 6,023 40 0.0% 97.3% 1.4% 1.4% 79.0% 12.8% 8.2% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 27 68.4 70.5 71.1 59 128 275 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 21,510 45 0.0% 97.1% 1.5% 1.5% 81.8% 11.1% 7.1% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 28 61.9 63.4 64.0 20 43 93 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 9,685 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 29 57.4 58.7 59.2 10 21 44 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 1,602 50 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 88.5% 7.7% 3.9% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 Auto Inputs
Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 19-08673 American Canyon General Plan EIR - Existing 2022 dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs
635
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime % Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
1 80.6 83.3 83.9 422 909 1958 Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 117,514 65 0.0% 93.7% 3.1% 3.1% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 2 80.7 83.3 83.9 425 915 1971 Interstate 80 s/o American Canyon Road121,991 65 0.0% 94.4% 2.8% 2.8% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 3 81.0 83.6 84.2 443 955 2057 Interstate 80 s/o Red Top Road 128,806 65 0.0% 94.1% 2.9% 2.9% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 4 80.4 83.0 83.7 408 880 1896 Interstate 80 s/o SR 12 113,977 65 0.0% 94.1% 2.9% 2.9% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 5 82.2 84.8 85.5 536 1155 2489 Interstate 80 n/o SR 12 155,682 65 0.0% 91.8% 4.1% 4.1% 77.4% 13.4% 9.2% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 6 71.1 72.8 73.5 86 185 399 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 26,059 55 0.0% 97.9% 1.1% 1.1% 81.9% 12.9% 5.2% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 7 73.8 76.1 76.8 141 304 656 State Route 29 n/o SR 37 40,444 55 0.0% 95.1% 2.4% 2.4% 78.9% 13.3% 7.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 73.4 75.7 76.4 133 286 616 State Route 29 s/o Mini Drive 37,666 55 0.0% 95.2% 2.4% 2.4% 79.5% 13.0% 7.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 74.0 75.9 76.6 137 296 637 State Route 29 n/o Mini Drive 43,575 55 0.0% 95.4% 2.3% 2.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 74.7 76.5 77.2 151 325 701 State Route 29n/o American Canyon Road51,132 55 0.0% 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 11 74.0 75.8 76.5 136 293 631 State Route 29 s/o Napa Junction Road36,053 55 0.0% 93.1% 3.4% 3.4% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 12 76.2 78.0 78.7 191 411 886 State Route 29 n/o Napa Junction Road60,310 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 13 76.8 78.6 79.3 209 450 970 State Route 29 n/o Green Island Road 62,189 55 0.0% 89.9% 5.1% 5.1% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 14 76.6 78.4 79.1 203 437 942 State Route 29 s/o SR 12 62,560 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 15 78.6 80.4 81.2 277 597 1286 State Route 29 n/o SR 12 106,300 55 0.0% 93.4% 3.3% 3.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 16 66.2 69.2 69.4 46 99 213 Airport Blvd w/o SR 29 10,341 45 0.0% 94.3% 2.9% 2.9% 84.1% 4.4% 11.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 17 74.4 78.6 78.9 196 423 911 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 36,038 55 0.0% 89.3% 5.4% 5.4% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 3 Soft 50 0.5 32 18 74.6 78.8 79.0 200 431 930 State Route 12 w/o Red Top Road 38,106 55 0.0% 89.6% 5.2% 5.2% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 19 73.7 76.2 76.9 143 309 665 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 39,074 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.7% 2.7% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 20 75.8 78.2 78.9 196 422 910 State Route 37 e/o SR 29 63,592 55 0.0% 95.0% 2.5% 2.5% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 21 76.2 78.7 79.4 211 454 979 State Route 37 e/o Fairgrounds Road 69,800 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.6% 2.6% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 22 74.1 76.5 77.2 151 325 699 State Route 37 e/o I-80 47,776 55 0.0% 97.7% 1.2% 1.2% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 23 65.3 67.5 68.1 37 80 172 American Canyon Rd w/o SR 29 10,935 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.3% 1.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 24 65.6 67.7 68.3 38 83 178 American Canyon Rd e/o Flosden Road 14,194 45 0.0% 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 25 66.0 68.1 68.7 41 88 190 American Canyon Rd w/o I-80 7,610 45 0.0% 89.5% 5.3% 5.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 26 62.1 64.5 65.1 24 51 110 Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 6,943 40 0.0% 97.3% 1.4% 1.4% 79.0% 12.8% 8.2% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 27 69.7 71.9 72.5 73 157 339 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 29,362 45 0.0% 97.1% 1.5% 1.5% 81.8% 11.1% 7.1% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 28 66.6 68.0 68.7 41 88 189 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 28,072 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 29 65.5 66.9 67.6 34 74 160 Newell Drive s/o Napa Junction Road21,790 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 30 65.9 67.2 67.7 35 75 163 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 11,310 50 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 88.5% 7.7% 3.9% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 31 71.2 71.7 71.8 65 141 304 Devlin Road n/o Green Island Road 5,224 40 0.0% 5.0% 47.5% 47.5% 98.3% 0.1% 1.6% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 Auto Inputs
Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 19-08673 American Canyon General Plan - Future 2040 dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs
636
Roadway Segment Existing ADT 2040 Buildout ADT Existing Traffic Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA CNEL)
2040 Traffic Noise Level
at 50 feet (dBA CNEL)
Traffic Noise
Increase (dBA
CNEL)
Significant?
(Y/N)
I-80 South of SR 37 110,006 117,514 83.6 83.9 0.3 N
I-80 South of American Canyon Road 109,042 121,991 83.4 83.9 0.5 N I-80 South of Red Top Road 112,650 128,806 83.6 84.2 0.6 N I-80 South of SR 12 97,782 113,977 83.0 83.7 0.7 N
I-80 North of SR 12 136,706 155,682 84.9 85.5 0.6 N
SR 29 South of SR 37 24,051 26,059 73.2 73.5 0.3 N
SR 29 North of SR 37 43,483 40,444 77.1 76.8 -0.3 N
SR 29 South of Mini Drive 37,492 37,666 76.3 76.4 0.0 N SR 29 North of Mini Drive 43,469 43,575 76.6 76.6 0.0 N SR 29 North of American Canyon Road 49,579 51,132 77.1 77.2 0.1 N SR 29 South of Napa Junction Road 40,762 36,053 77.1 76.5 -0.5 N SR 29 North of Napa Junction Road 59,044 60,310 78.6 78.7 0.1 N SR 29 North of Green Island Road 60,263 62,189 79.2 79.3 0.1 N SR 29 South of SR 12 59,200 62,560 78.9 79.1 0.2 N
SR 29 North of SR 12 88,600 106,300 80.4 81.2 0.8 N
Airport Boulevard West of SR 29 10,500 10,341 69.5 69.4 -0.1 N SR 12 East of North Kelly Road 35,033 36,038 78.8 78.9 0.1 N SR 12 West of Red Top Road 37,179 38,106 78.9 79.0 0.1 N SR 37 West of SR 29 39,980 39,074 77.0 76.9 -0.1 N
SR 37 East of SR 29 62,495 63,592 78.8 78.9 0.1 N
SR 37 East of Fairgrounds Road 69,800 69,800 79.4 79.4 0.0 N SR 37 East of I-80 42,000 47,776 76.6 77.2 0.6 N
American Canyon Road West of SR 29 15,330 10,935 69.5 68.1 -1.5 N American Canyon Road East of Flosden Road 10,771 14,194 67.1 68.3 1.2 N American Canyon Road West of I-80 4,076 7,610 66.0 68.7 2.7 Y Hiddenbrook Parkway East of I-80 6,023 6,943 64.5 65.1 0.6 N Flosden Road South of American Canyon Road 21,510 29,362 71.1 72.5 1.4 N Newell Drive North of American Canyon Road 9,685 28,072 64.0 68.7 4.6 Y Newell Drive South of Napa Junction Road - 21,790 - 67.6 - N South Kelly Road South of SR 12 1,602 11,310 59.2 67.7 8.5 Y Devlin Road North of Green Island Road - 5,224 - 71.8 - N 637
Noise Model
Noise Model Based on Federal Transit Adminstration General Transit Noise Assessment Developed for Chicago Create Project
Copyright 2006, HMMH Inc.
Case:
Noise Source
All Sources
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Enter noise receiver land use category below.
2 Enter data for up to 8 noise sources below - see reference list for source numbers.
NOISE SOURCE PARAMETERS
Parameter
Source Num. Freight Locomotive 9 Freight Cars 10
Distance (source to receiver) distance (ft) 35 distance (ft) 35 Daytime Hours speed (mph) speed (mph)
(7 AM - 10 PM) trains/hour trains/hour
locos/train length of cars (ft) / train
Nighttime Hours speed (mph) 10 speed (mph) 10
(10 PM - 7 AM) trains/hour 0.45 trains/hour 0.45
locos/train 1 length of cars (ft) / train 900
Wheel Flats? % of cars w/ wheel flats 0.00%
Jointed Track? Y/N n Y/N n
Embedded Track? Y/N n Y/N n
Aerial Structure? Y/N n Y/N n
Barrier Present? Y/N n Y/N n
Intervening Rows of of Buildings number of rows number of rows Source Number
Commuter Electric Locomotive 1
Commuter Diesel Locomotive 2
Commuter Rail Cars 3
RRT/LRT 4
AGT, Steel Wheel 5
AGT, Rubber Tire 6
Monorail 7
Maglev 8
Freight Locomotive 9
Freight Cars 10
Hopper Cars (empty) 11
Hopper Cars (full) 12
Crossover 13
Automobiles 14
City Buses 15
Commuter Buses 16
Rail Yard or Shop 17
Layover Tracks 18
Bus Storage Yard 19
Bus Op. Facility 20
Bus Transit Center 21
Parking Garage 22
Park & Ride Lot 23
RESULTS
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
54 57
59 Leq - nighttime (dB)
LAND USE CATEGORY
Noise receiver land use category (1, 2 or 3)
0 0
Leq - daytime (dB)
41 41
24 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 CFNR - Calistoga to Vallejo
0 SOURCE REFERENCE LIST
Ldn (dB)
65 63
60 0
0 0
638
Noise Model
Noise Model Based on Federal Transit Adminstration General Transit Noise Assessment Developed for Chicago Create Project
Copyright 2006, HMMH Inc.
Case:
Noise Source
All Sources
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Enter noise receiver land use category below.
2 Enter data for up to 8 noise sources below - see reference list for source numbers.
NOISE SOURCE PARAMETERS
Parameter
Source Num. Freight Locomotive 9 Freight Cars 10
Distance (source to receiver) distance (ft) 50 distance (ft) 50 Daytime Hours speed (mph) speed (mph)
(7 AM - 10 PM) trains/hour trains/hour
locos/train length of cars (ft) / train
Nighttime Hours speed (mph) 25 speed (mph) 25
(10 PM - 7 AM) trains/hour 0.6 trains/hour 0.6
locos/train 1 length of cars (ft) / train 900
Wheel Flats? % of cars w/ wheel flats 0.00%
Jointed Track? Y/N n Y/N n
Embedded Track? Y/N n Y/N n
Aerial Structure? Y/N n Y/N n
Barrier Present? Y/N n Y/N n
Intervening Rows of of Buildings number of rows number of rows Source Number
Commuter Electric Locomotive 1
Commuter Diesel Locomotive 2
Commuter Rail Cars 3
RRT/LRT 4
AGT, Steel Wheel 5
AGT, Rubber Tire 6
Monorail 7
Maglev 8
Freight Locomotive 9
Freight Cars 10
Hopper Cars (empty) 11
Hopper Cars (full) 12
Crossover 13
Automobiles 14
City Buses 15
Commuter Buses 16
Rail Yard or Shop 17
Layover Tracks 18
Bus Storage Yard 19
Bus Op. Facility 20
Bus Transit Center 21
Parking Garage 22
Park & Ride Lot 23
CFNR - Ignacio to Fairfield/Suisun
0 SOURCE REFERENCE LIST
Ldn (dB)
65 63
60 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
Leq - daytime (dB)
38 38
21 0
0 0
RESULTS
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
55 57
59 Leq - nighttime (dB)
LAND USE CATEGORY
Noise receiver land use category (1, 2 or 3)
639
User Input Noise Situation Shielding Ldn 65 Contours Numeric Output (in feet) Noise Situation (Pick from List) 1 Horns Existing and Future 1 Dense Urban 1 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 199 Horn Lmax (dBA) @ 100 feet 104 Horns in Future Only 2 Light Urban 2 Future 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 199 Horn Location on Locomotive(Pick from List) 1 No Horns Existing and Future 3 Dense Suburban 3 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 149 Non Train Noise Environment (pick from list) 2 Light Suburban 4 Future 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 149 Shielding (Pick from List) 3 Horn Location on Locomotive Rural 5 Zone Length 1320 Length of Impact Area (pick from list) 1 National Average (50% front, 50% middle) 1 No Shielding 6 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Train Speed (mph) 10 All Front Mounted 2
Future Train Speed (mph) 10 All Middle Mounted 3 Length of Impact Area Impact Zones Numeric Output (in feet) Number of Existing Trains in one Direction 2 User Defined 80 % front mounted horns 4 1/4 mile 1 Impact Distance at X-ing 0 Number of Future Trains in one Direction 2 20 seconds 2 Severe Impact Distance at X-ing 0 Existing Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.) 1.25 Non Train Noise Environment 15 seconds 3 Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 0 Future Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.) 1.25 Urban 1 Severe Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 0 Existing Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am) 0.75 Suburban 2 Zone Length 1320 Future Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am) 0.75 Rural 3 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Average Number of Cars 15 User Defined Ldn = 50 dBA 4 Future Average Number of Cars 15
Existing Average Number of Locomotives 1
Future Average Number of Locomotives 1
FRA Grade Crossing Noise Model
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0 500
1000
1500
2000
1320
660
0 660
Distance (ft)
1320
Distance (ft)
Ldn 65 Contours
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0 500
1000
1500
2000
1320
660
0 660
Distance (ft)
1320
Distance (ft)
Impact Zones
640
User Input Noise Situation Shielding Ldn 65 Contours Numeric Output (in feet) Noise Situation (Pick from List) 1 Horns Existing and Future 1 Dense Urban 1 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 218 Horn Lmax (dBA) @ 100 feet 104 Horns in Future Only 2 Light Urban 2 Future 65 Ldn Contour at X-ing 218 Horn Location on Locomotive(Pick from List) 1 No Horns Existing and Future 3 Dense Suburban 3 Existing 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 163 Non Train Noise Environment (pick from list) 2 Light Suburban 4 Future 65 Ldn Contour at 1/2 zone length 163 Shielding (Pick from List) 3 Horn Location on Locomotive Rural 5 Zone Length 1320 Length of Impact Area (pick from list) 1 National Average (50% front, 50% middle) 1 No Shielding 6 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Train Speed (mph) 25 All Front Mounted 2
Future Train Speed (mph) 25 All Middle Mounted 3 Length of Impact Area Impact Zones Numeric Output (in feet) Number of Existing Trains in one Direction 2.5 User Defined 80 % front mounted horns 4 1/4 mile 1 Impact Distance at X-ing 0 Number of Future Trains in one Direction 2.5 20 seconds 2 Severe Impact Distance at X-ing 0 Existing Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.) 1.5625 Non Train Noise Environment 15 seconds 3 Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 0 Future Number of Day Trains (7 am to 10 p.m.) 1.5625 Urban 1 Severe Impact Distance at 1/2 zone length 0 Existing Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am) 0.9375 Suburban 2 Zone Length 1320 Future Number of Night Trains (10 p.m. to 7 am) 0.9375 Rural 3 1/2 Zone Length 660 Existing Average Number of Cars 15 User Defined Ldn = 50 dBA 4 Future Average Number of Cars 15
Existing Average Number of Locomotives 1
Future Average Number of Locomotives 1
FRA Grade Crossing Noise Model
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0 500
1000
1500
2000
1320
660
0 660
Distance (ft)
1320
Distance (ft)
Ldn 65 Contours
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0 500
1000
1500
2000
1320
660
0 660
Distance (ft)
1320
Distance (ft)
Impact Zones
641
American Canyon
2040 General Plan Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2022070038
prepared by
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
Contact: Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
March 2025
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT C
642
Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Final EIR Contents...........................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process......................................................................................1-1
1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval ..............................................................1-2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR..................................................................................2-1
2.1 Comment Letters and Responses...................................................................................2-1 3 Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR ................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR................................................................................................3-1 4 Recirculation Not Warranted......................................................................................................4-1 Appendices
Revised Appendix B Special Status Species
643
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
644
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
1.1 Final EIR Contents
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of American Canyon (City) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed 2040 General Plan Update Project (hereafter also referred to as “project”).
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the City of American Canyon, as the lead agency, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This document together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference) comprise the Final EIR for the project. This Final EIR includes individual responses to each letter received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.
The City has provided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. The Final EIR also includes minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR suggested by certain comments. The Final EIR includes the following contents:
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Section 3: Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
Section 4: Recirculation Not Warranted
1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process
Pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies with jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.
The City of American Canyon filed a notice of completion (NOC) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to begin a minimum of a 45-day public review period (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21161), which began on September 27, 2024, and ended on December 27, 2024. The Draft EIR was made available on the City’s website.1 In addition, the Draft EIR was made available for review at the City’s offices at 4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201; the City Library at 300 Crawford Way; and the Active Adults Center at 2185 Elliot Drive. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was published on September 27, 2024. As a result of these notification efforts, the City received eight written comments on the content of the Draft EIR. Section 2, “Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “significant new information” by CEQA standards (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). 1 Draft EIR for the project is available here: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=232476&repo=r-f53bdda4 645
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update
1-2
1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval
Before adopting the project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.
Upon certification of an EIR, the lead agency makes a decision on the project analyzed in the EIR. 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 (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).
In approving a project, for each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes to the project are within another agency's jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Pursuant to PRC Section 21061.1, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
While the information in the EIR does not constrain the City’s ultimate decision under its land use authority, the City must respond to each significant effect and mitigation measure identified in the EIR as required by CEQA by making findings supporting its decision. If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision and explains why the project’s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).
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 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[d]). 646
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during public circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update project. The comment letters included herein were submitted to the City of American Canyon by public agencies, an organization, and individuals. The City prepared these responses to written comments received to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the Draft EIR addresses pertinent environmental issues. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 111-day public review period that began on September 27, 2024, and ended on December 27, 2024. The City of American Canyon received nine comment letters on the Draft EIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.
1 Napa Climate NOW! 2-2
2 Maia Medalle 2-10
3 Jodi Cruz 2-12
4 Caltrans 2-14
5 Yvonne Baginski 2-22
6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-38
7 Napa County Bicycle Coalition 2-67
8 Clark Morrison 2-77
9 Napa Valley Transportation Authority 2-79
2.1 Comment Letters and Responses
Written responses to each comment letter received on the Draft EIR are provided in this section. All letters received on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response 1-1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter 1).
Revisions made to the text of the Draft EIR are provided in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, including corrected information, data, or intent. Where a comment results in a revision to the Draft EIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Within the Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, revisions in text are signified by strikeouts (strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text is added.
Following public review of an EIR, lead agencies are directed to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and prepare a written response” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)). Some of the comments that were received on the Draft EIR did not address specific environmental issues or effects associated with the project or the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No additional analysis or response is required for these types of comments. All comments, however, will be noted and made available to applicable decision-makers as they consider the project. 2-1
647
2 Dear Planning Commissioners,
The website eComment portal can accommodate part of our comment Please accept our complete comment, including reference materials, below.
Thank you for all you are doing to develop a General Plan to guide the development of American Canyon through 2040.
The goals and policies you adopt are crucial to safeguarding the lives and livelihoods of American Canyon residents and, in the process, helping all of Napa County and beyond in becoming more climate resilient.
We are writing this letter today to weigh in on this important General Plan workshop discussion; namely, whether American Canyon should retain its 2030 net-zero focus as a firm commitment. Current drafts of the General Plan Policy Document and Draft EIR do not specify this goal. On behalf of residents throughout Napa County, we urge you to stand strong in support of the 2030 goal, along with each of the other jurisdictions in Napa County, Napa Valley Unified School District, Napa RCD, and surrounding communities.
American Canyon has been a leader in the county, inspiring other jurisdictions with its climate-positive initiatives – water savings, residential energy efficiency scoring requirements above minimum building code levels, solar installations, no new gas stations, open space commitments, new bike lanes, and more. These initiatives are serving the vital interests of American Canyon residents and are important building blocks toward climate resilience. They are also in line with the 2030 net zero climate pollution goal.
Pulling back from a firm 2030 commitment could easily undermine these initiatives in the coming years, which face recurring challenges from interested parties. Pulling back could also delay or prevent the adoption of additional measures needed to protect city residents and environs, and discourage collective Countywide Climate Action Committee efforts. As guardians of the public trust, elected government officials and agencies, and committees and commissions established in the public interest, such as the Planning Commission, are in a unique position to weigh the benefits and costs of development from a holistic community perspective. And now, more than ever, there is a need for this kind of leadership as climate change continues to accelerate unabated.
The science is clearly on the side of 2030. In the latest intergovernmental consensus report (IPCC AR6), the world’s climate scientists agreed that the earth is very likely to exceed the dangerous threshold of 1.5°C above normal on a sustained basis by the early 2030s, and as early as 2030. (The planet has already surpassed this threshold, first in 2015 and again this year.) As you know, record heat waves, hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires have put communities across the country at extreme risk, along with whole ecosystems vital to our environment and economy. Smoke blanketing large parts of the county are another stark reminder of what we have lived through in recent years, with clear respiratory and other health consequences for American Canyon residents.
Community resources, such as Napa County Resource Conservation District, are committed to 2030 and stand ready to support cities in making the transition to net zero by 2030 through innovative farm, forest, urban and wild lands management. Our schools are committed to 2030. And state and federal resources, including millions in infrastructure and other climate funds made available through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, are now available to help American Canyon meet its 2030 goal.
In short, the 2030 goal post is not an artificial date established for aspirational or political purposes, but rather is grounded in unfortunate changes in climate that we simply cannot afford to ignore. Decisions and delays of the past several decades have put today’s elected officials, residents, corporations, and youth in the untenable position of having to make extremely hard choices. And every single year we delay taking decisive action to make our home more climate resilient, climate scientists remind us that our opportunity to do so diminishes. That’s because as the globe warms, devastating feedback loops are being set into motion that are accelerating the change.
At the same time, it is helpful to consider that the changes we make now can still make a difference, and indeed, support a thriving economy. In addition, it is crucial to recognize that the cost of working to achieve net zero will ultimately pay off, while the cost of inaction or delay will be much, much greater — not only in dollars and cents, but in the devastating impacts on people’s lives.
Please support the retention of 2030 as a firm net zero goal in all planning and development, for our children’s sake. 1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
Letter 1
2-2
648
3 Sincerely,
Napa Climate NOW! Steering Committee:
Lynne Baker – nurse, grandmother
Chris Benz – retired winemaker, grandmother
Linda Brown – environmental standards and climate accounting professional, mother Marilyn Knight-Mendelson – retired educator, grandmother Jim Wilson – retired quality assurance professional, grandfather Addendum - References to commitment to a goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030 The City of American Canyon website, Climate & Sustainability, states in its Overview:
The City of American Canyon prides itself on being leaders in environmental action, responsible growth and a sustainable future.
It refers to the RCAAP Project Website
In 2021, each local government adopted Resolutions or Proclamations regarding the "Countywide Commitment to Address Climate Change." The resolutions include efforts to:
A climate emergency exists and threatens our region, state, country, and world. Each jurisdiction commits to a goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030 and to implement both immediate and sustained actions to achieve the goal.
Each jurisdiction recognizes the need to work with community organizations, businesses, schools, regional partners, and jurisdictions to support comprehensive, immediate, and sustained action to achieve collaboratively with each other and alongside community organizations, businesses, schools, and regional partners goals of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030.
Napa County's Procurement Website outlines the specific requirements for the Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (RCAAP), and stipulates the shared goal of the regional GHG reduction effort is to achieve net zero GHG emissions by 2030.
Napa County RFP - Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan ConsultantRFP No. PBES092301 The purpose of the RCAAP is to prepare a comprehensive plan for the Cities of American Canyon, Calistoga, Napa, and St. Helena, the Town of Yountville, and the County of Napa to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality (net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) by the year 2030.
It also notes the date that each of the cities adopted climate emergency resolutions with 2030 net zero emissions commitments, including American Canyon’s:
City of American Canyon adopted Resolution No. 2022-07 on February 1, 2022, which set a goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030.
The City of Napa, a partner in the Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (RCAAP), has a newly adopted General Plan that incorporates a Climate Change and Sustainability Element. It establishes goals and policies consistent with its Climate Emergency Resolution's 2030 net zero goal:
Policy CCS 1-1 which seeks to achieve net zero climate pollutants from public and private operations within the City by 2030. It references its April 5, 2022 Climate Emergency Resolution R2022-030, and lists 57 climate actions in support of the 2030 goal.
During preparation of the Draft General Plan, on April 5, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution R2022-030,
a resolution declaring a climate emergency, furthering
the City’s commitment to combating Climate Change. This 1-9
1-10
2-3
649
4 resolution added the City of Napa to a growing list of communities committed to a goal of Net Zero Climate pollution by 2030 and demonstrates the City’s commitment to implementing goals and policies in the General Plan
through actionable tasks and projects. Additionally, the resolution calls upon the City to evaluate all planning and policy decisions with the lens of this commitment to climate change initiatives.
Allison Bencsik, American Canyon High School student and Co-President, Napa Schools for Climate Action, presents during a hearing on Napa's proposed General Plan:
On behalf of Napa Schools for Climate Action, we wanted to thank you for listening to our concerns and for proceeding with the Climate Emergency Resolution! It has been incredible to see all the other cities and the county pass a Climate Emergency Resolution and, most importantly, commit to achieving net zero climate pollution by or before 2030. It would be amazing to see the Napa City Council make this same level of commitment in its General Plan. You, along with our schools and cities who have set the same goal, would send the message that we are in a true emergency and that you take your responsibility to our younger generation seriously.
American Canyon City Council:
made a Climate Emergency Proclamation on 11/16/21
passed a Climate Emergency Resolution on 2/1/22, resolving that o NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby declares the following:
1. That a Climate Emergency exists, and that it threatens our city, state, country, and the planet;
2. That the City of American Canyon joins a growing list of communities committed to a goal of Net Zero Climate Pollution, measured in terms of net contribution to excess trapped heat, by or before 2030, and further commits to evaluate all planning and policy decisions through the lens of this pledge, and to implement both immediate and sustained actions in support of its achievement; and
3. That the City Council recognizing the need for full community participation and support, commits to providing leadership and services in working with community organizations, businesses, schools, and regional partners and jurisdictions to educate, mobilize, expand, and accelerate local, regional and statewide support for comprehensive, immediate, and sustained action to achieve its goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030; and
4. That the City Council will consider amendments to its General Plan and its 2012 Energy Efficiency/Climate Action Plan, consistent with its commitment to net zero climate pollution by or before 2030. 1-10
2-4
650
5 o BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs its Ad Hoc Climate Action Committee to complete the following:
1. Develop specific recommendations and measurable outcomes to achieve the goal of Net Zero Climate Pollutants by 2030 in the following areas:
a. Transportation
b. Buildings
c. Renewable Energy and Storage
d. Other Environmental issues, including but not limited to, water conservation, urban agriculture and food composting, and recycling
e. Carbon Sequestration
f. Public Awareness and Education regarding individual actions, including individual lifestyles and business operations
g. Climate Resiliency Efforts
2. Work with City staff, stakeholders and community leaders and organizations and the public at large.
3. Identify funding sources and grant opportunities.
4. Present its findings and recommendations within six months.
Napa Valley Register Top Story, 2/6/22: American Canyon declares climate emergency American Canyon has declared a climate change emergency and set the goal of net-zero climate pollution by 2030. “Our work has just begun,” Mayor Leon Garcia said after the City Council took action on Feb. 1.
American Canyon City Council Ad Hoc Climate Action Committee was commissioned in response to the Climate Emergency Resolution. Two student members from Schools for Climate Action served on the committee.
Interim CAP report was received by the City Council on 9/6/22, including:
Develop specific recommendations and measurable outcomes to achieve the goal of Net Zero Climate Pollutants by 2030 in the following areas: a. Transportation; b. Buildings; c.
Renewable Energy and Storage; d. Other Environmental issues, including but not limited to, water conservation, urban agriculture and food compos0ng, and recycling; e. Carbon Sequestration; f. Public Awareness and Education regarding individual ac0ons, including individual lifestyles and business operations; and g. Climate Resiliency Efforts Napa Valley Unified School District adopted a Climate Emergency Resolution on 5/23/19 that states, in part:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Napa Valley Unified School District Board of Education support local climate mobilization efforts to reduce the sources of excess trapped heat that are responsible for climate change, and to increase resiliency for all residents, with special attention to the needs of marginalized and vulnerable communities, in order to achieve the goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030 The City of American Canyon partnered with NVUSD/American Canyon High School to initiate public outreach. 864 students participated in the Climate Challenge.
Climate Challenge Rally was attended by NVUSD and City of American Canyon officials on 2/8/23 when climate goals were presented:
NVUSD commitment to achieve the goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030.
City of American Canyon commitment to achieve its goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030.
All jurisdictions acknowledged a Climate Emergency and committed to achieving net zero climate pollutants by 2030 Open Space, Alternative Transportation and Sustainability Commission:
Hand-off of the Ad Hoc Climate Action Committee's Draft CAP to OSATS on 4/5/23, with 34 actions to support the goal as presented by Ad Hoc Climate Action Committee members Mark Joseph and Pierre Washington:
1. Net Zero Climate Pollutants by 2030
2. Evaluate Planning and Policy decisions
through the lens of this pledge; and
3. Established an Ad Hoc Climate Action
Committee to develop an action plan
1-10
2-5
651
6 Allison Bencsik served as OSATS Youth Commissioner. She spoke repeatedly during her tenure in support of emergencylevel climate action, consistent with American Canyon's Climate Emergency Resolution and Draft CAP. 1-10 2-6
652
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 1
COMMENTER: Napa Climate NOW!
DATE: October 23, 2024
Response 1-1
The commenter requests that attached reference material be included as part of the comment and expresses appreciation for the development of an updated General Plan.
This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response 1-2
The commenter states that current drafts of the General Plan Policy Document and Draft EIR do not retain a 2030 net-zero focus as a firm commitment. The commenter states that the City should stand in support of the 2030 goal, along with the jurisdictions in Napa County, Napa Valley Unified School District, Napa RCD, and surrounding communities.
The commenter expresses support for the City Council’s approved Climate Emergency Resolution (Resolution 2022-07) which recognizes the need to provide leadership and services in working with community organizations, businesses, schools, and regional partners and jurisdictions to educate, mobilize, expand, and accelerate local, regional, and statewide support for comprehensive, immediate, and sustained action to achieve its goal of net zero climate pollution by or before 2030.
The Climate Emergency Resolution serves as a guiding framework and a statement of intent on future actions, but it does not have the legal authority to mandate compliance within the Draft EIR.
The threshold for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA assesses whether the project would conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As discussed on Page 4.5-22 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure GHG-3 requires that the City draft and adopt the American Canyon qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP) by the end of 2025.
This plan will outline how American Canyon will meet the State’s 2030 goal of 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality. As discussed on Page 4.5-23 of the Draft EIR, individual projects that may occur prior to adoption and implementation of the CAP may not 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 greenhouse gas (GHG) thresholds are adopted and the CAP is updated, implementation of the project during this interim period would not be consistent with State GHG reduction plans and impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-3
The commenter notes American Canyon's various climate-positive initiatives, including water savings, enhanced residential energy efficiency, solar installations, a ban on new gas stations, commitments to open space, and new bike lanes. These efforts contribute to the community's climate resilience and align with the 2030 net zero climate pollution goal.
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. Therefore, no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-7
653
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 1-4
The commenter states that retreating from a firm 2030 commitment could undermine current initiatives, delay or prevent new protective measures, and discourage collective climate action efforts.
The commenter supports the City Council’s approved Climate Emergency Resolution (Resolution 2022-07). As discussed under Response 1-3, above, CEQA assesses whether a project conflicts with existing plans, policies, or regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2030 Net Zero goal is a policy decision, not the CEQA standard. As discussed under Response 1-3, Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025.
Because this interim period would not be consistent with State GHG reduction plans, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-5
The commenter highlights that elected officials and public interest committees, like the Planning Commission, are uniquely positioned to evaluate development holistically, especially as climate change accelerates.
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-6
The commenter states that scientific consensus supports the 2030 climate goal, warning that the earth is likely to exceed the 1.5°C threshold by the early 2030s. They highlight recent extreme weather events and their health impacts on American Canyon residents as evidence of the urgent need for action.
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-7
The commenter notes that community resources, like the Napa County Resource Conservation District, and schools are committed to the 2030 net zero goal. They also mention that state and federal funds from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act are available to support American Canyon in achieving this goal.
The threshold for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA involves assessing whether the project would conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note that the 2030 Net Zero goal is a policy decision and not the standard used for CEQA evaluations. Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025. Because this interim period would not be consistent with State GHG reduction plans, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-8
654
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 1-8
The commenter argues that the 2030 goal is essential due to unavoidable climate changes. They stress that past delays have forced difficult decisions on current officials and residents and that each year of inaction reduces the chance to enhance climate resilience, as warming triggers accelerating feedback loops. They also note that proactive changes can support a thriving economy and that the cost of achieving net zero will be less than the cost of inaction.
The threshold for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA involves assessing whether the project would conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions or if the project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. As discussed under Response 1-7, above, the 2030 Net Zero goal is a policy decision and does not serve as the standard for CEQA evaluations. Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025. Because this interim period would not be consistent with State GHG reduction plans, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.
Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 1-9
The commenter urges support for maintaining the 2030 net zero goal in all planning and development, emphasizing its importance for future generations.
As discussed under Response 1-7, above, CEQA assesses if a project conflicts with existing plans, policies, or regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2030 Net Zero goal is a policy decision, not the CEQA standard. Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025. Because this interim period would not be consistent with State GHG reduction plans, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are needed in response to this comment.
Response 1-10
The commenter provides an addendum which references mentions of Net Zero 2030 by the City of American Canyon website and City Council resolutions and proclamations, Napa County Procurement website, the City of Napa Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, American Canyon City Council Ad Hoc Climate Action Committee, Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD), Open Space, and Alternative Transportation and Sustainability Commission.
As discussed in Responses 1-7 through 1-9, the threshold for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA involves assessing whether the project would conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025.
Because this interim period would not be consistent with State GHG reduction plans, impacts related to GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-9
655
1 New eComment for Planning Commission
Maia Medalle submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission
Item: 3.) General Plan Technical Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Public Review Workshop
eComment: Good evening American Canyon Planning Commissioners, My name is Maia Medalle, I am a Junior at American Canyon High School, and alongside other high school students, I have worked tirelessly as a representative of Napa Schools 4 Climate Action. Napa Schools for Climate Action is a group composed of passionate students, teachers, staff, local government officials, and citizens all across Napa County & the NVUSD. Our motto is that no Letter 2
2-1
a 2030 net-zero focus in our General Plan. In the past year, Napa Schools 4 Climate Action has put endless amounts of energy into drafting and fighting for the adoption of our “ Call To Climate Restoration Action” within NVUSD and successfully were able to have it adopted this past April.
This resolution acknowledges the importance of restoring atmospheric carbon levels to preindustrial levels and aiming for net-zero climate pollution, by or before the decisive year of 2030.
The adoption of our resolution in our school district solidified the commitment of our community to our future, the youth’s future. I recognize this same commitment made by the leaders of our town, my hometown. Your dedication to the future of our earth has been seen through the declaration of a climate emergency and the ban on new and expanding gas stations, yet past actions aren’t enough to guarantee our future. We must continue to work toward progress, and this is why I urge you to consider the 2030 net-zero focus as a commitment, instead of just a goal. As the bearers of my generation’s future, I strongly compel you to recognize the urgency of including this commitment in the draft of your General Plan. Our future is in your hands, and my generation looks to you, trusting you will make the right decisions. I thank you for your time and consideration, Maia Medalle Napa Schools 4 Climate Action 2-3
2-4
school should be a silent witness to climate injustice. I write to you to acknowledge the need for 2-2 2-10
656
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Maia Medalle
DATE: October 24, 2024
Response 2-1
The commenter introduces themselves as a Junior at American Canyon High School, and mentions their work with Napa Schools 4 Climate Action, a group of students, teachers, staff, local government officials, and citizens from across Napa County and NVUSD.
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 2-2
The commenter states the need for a 2030 net zero focus within the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 2-3
The commenter describes how Napa Schools 4 Climate Action worked to draft and advocate for the "Call To Climate Restoration Action" resolution, which was adopted by NVUSD in April. This resolution aims to restore atmospheric carbon levels to pre-industrial levels and achieve net-zero climate pollution by 2030, solidifying the community's commitment to the future.
The approved Climate Emergency Resolution (Resolution 2022-07). Consistent with this resolution, Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 2-4
The commenter acknowledges the town leaders' commitment to climate action, citing the declaration of a climate emergency and the ban on new gas stations. They urge the leaders to treat the 2030 net-zero focus as a firm commitment rather than just a goal, emphasizing the urgency of including this in the General Plan for the sake of future generations.
As discussed under Response 1-7, above, CEQA assesses if a project conflicts with existing plans, policies, or regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2030 Net Zero goal is a policy decision, not the CEQA standard. However, Mitigation Measure GHG-3 seeks to bring the City into compliance with State carbon neutrality goals by the end of 2025.. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-11
657
1 New eComment for Planning Commission
Jodl Cruz submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission
Item: PUBLIC COMMENT
eComment: Good morning, We know that there will be a Planning Commission meeting tonight and as a representative and President of FilAm we are asking for help to request that the planning commission absolutely include Green Island as a study area. And we know that project is almost ready to proceed with the appropriate applications with the new city council, and will Letter 3
3-1
definitely improve and contribute to our city. Thank you very much 뛴뛵뛶뜌뛸뛹뜎뜍뛻뛼뛽뛾뛿뜀뜁뜂뜃뜄뜅뜏뛴뛵뛶뜌뛸뛹뜎뜍뛻뛼뛽뛾뛿뜀뜁뜂뜃뜄뜅뜏 Respectfully yours, Jod’l Cruz FilAm President
2-12
658
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Jodi Cruz
DATE: October 24, 2024
Response 2-1
The commenter introduces themselves as the President of FilAm and requests that the Planning Commission include the Green Island Vineyard property as a study area in their meeting. They mention that the project is nearly ready to proceed with the new City Council and will benefit the city.
The General Plan update scope of work which was evaluated by the Environmental Impact Report was described in the Notice of Preparation. The Notice of Preparation did not include consideration of adding the Green Island Vineyard property into the City’s urban limit line. Adding the Green Island Vineyard property into the City’s urban limit line may be considered in the future, but it is not part of the proposed General Plan project and therefore does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA.
Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-13
659
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
November 6, 2024 SCH #: 2022070038
GTS #: 04-NAP-2022-00452
GTS ID: 26948
Co/Rt/Pm: NAP/VAR/VAR
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Re: City of American Canyon General Plan Update ─ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Brent Cooper:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the City of American Canyon General Plan Update.
The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the September 2024 DEIR.
Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.
Project Understanding
The proposed project consists of an update to the City's General Plan which will serve as a long-term framework for future growth and development.
Travel Demand Analysis
The project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted VMT policy. Per the DEIR, this project is found to have significant and unavoidable VMT impact. Caltrans commends the City for implementing policies in the General Plan to increase multimodal transportation and reduce VMT. We encourage the City to document progress with annual monitoring reports to demonstrate effectiveness.
Letter 4
4-1
4-2
2-14
660
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Please also consider the measures listed below that are quantified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and shown to have different efficiencies reducing regional VMT:
• Increase Residential Density
• Increase Job Density
• Provide Transit-Oriented Development
• Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
• Locate Project/Developments in Area with High Destination Accessibility • Improve Destination Accessibility in Underserved Areas • Implement Shared Vehicle Program (car/bike/E-bike/scooter) • Create Urban Non-motorized zones
• Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours
• Increase Transit Service Frequency
• Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
• Provide Bus Rapid Transit
• Reduce Transit Fares
• Improve Transit Access, Safety, and Comfort
• Provide Bike Parking Near Transit
• Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
• Limit Residential Parking Supply
• Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street)
• Implement Area or Cordon Pricing
• Replace Traffic Controls with Roundabout
• Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement • Install Park-and-Ride Lots
Please consider exploring the following options to help further reduce the VMT impact if the implementation of applicable TDM measures is insufficient to mitigate the project VMT impact to a less-than-significant level: VMT based Transportation Impact Fee program, VMT Mitigation Exchange and VMT Mitigation Bank. Please note that Caltrans has funded several local/regional agencies to study the feasibility of a variety of VMT mitigation programs through the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant program (link). Caltrans welcomes the potential opportunities to work with the City.
The City may also consider encouraging fair share contributions from future development projects to multimodal projects that promote mode shift and reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel to mitigate VMT impacts. Caltrans suggest the following Regional Transportation Plan (Plan Bay Area 2050) projects for future fair share contribution considerations:
4-3
4-4
4-5
2-15
661
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” RTP ID Project Description
21-T06-049
511 Bay Area Program includes funding to support the 511Bay Area Program, which provides multi-modal traveler
information.
21-T07-052
Carpool/Vanpool Program includes funding to provide
carpool-matching tools and encourage carpool behavior
through outreach, education, rewards, incentives, and new technology.
21-T07-056
This program generally implements projects exempt from
regional air quality conformity, but it does include nonexempt local roadway widenings or extensions.
Improvements include local road extensions or new lanes, and intersection improvements such as channelization and signalization.
21-T10-067
This program includes funding to implement improvements to existing Napa VINE regional/local bus service. Improvements include frequency upgrades (30-minute peak headways);
expanded service hours (from 4am- 12am); and Sunday
service.
21-T10-070
This program includes funding to implement improvements to existing bus service in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) without existing high-frequency rail, ferry, or bus service.
Improvements include frequency upgrades (30-minute peak headways) and reorganization and/or expansion of bus
routes.
21-T12-118
This program includes funding to implement express bus
enhancements between Napa (Redwood Park-and-Ride)
and the Vallejo Ferry Terminal. Improvements include bus-onshoulder facilities.
Multimodal Transportation Planning
Please review and include the reference to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan (2021) and the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018) in the DEIR. These two plans studied existing conditions for walking and biking along and across the State Transportation Network (STN) in the nine-county Bay Area and developed a list of location-based and prioritized needs.
Please note that any Complete Streets reference should be updated to reflect Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (link) that highlights the importance of addressing the needs of non-motorists and prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, while also 4-5
cont.
4-6
4-7
2-16
662
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
November 6, 2024
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. This supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1, and further builds upon its goals of focusing on the movement of people and goods.
Equity and Public Engagement
We will achieve equity when everyone has access to what they need to thrive no matter their race, socioeconomic status, identity, where they live, or how they travel.
Caltrans is committed to advancing equity and livability in all communities. We look forward to collaborating with the City to prioritize projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities.
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected].
For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact [email protected].
Sincerely,
YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse
4-7
cont.
4-8
2-17
663
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 4
COMMENTER: Yunsheng Luo, Branch Chief – Local Development Review Office of Regional and Community Planning, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DATE: November 6, 2024
Response 4-1
The commenter thanks the City of American Canyon for involving Caltrans in the environmental review of the General Plan Update. They clarify that their comments are for informational purposes and do not represent an official Caltrans position. The commenter provides a summary of their understanding of the project which involves updating the City's General Plan to guide future growth and development.
This comment provides informational comments. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 4-2
The commenter notes that the project's vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis aligns with the City's adopted VMT policy and acknowledges the significant and unavoidable VMT impact identified in the DEIR. Caltrans commends the City for its policies to enhance multimodal transportation and reduce VMT, and encourages annual monitoring reports to track progress.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 4-3
The commenter suggests considering various measures quantified by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) to reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
As discussed on pages 4.11-9 through 4.11-11 of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on VMT. As included therein, the General Plan includes potentially self-mitigating policies which align with the CAPCOA measures provided by the commenter. These are outlined as follows:
Increasing residential and job density is a key strategy to reduce VMT by bringing people closer to their workplaces and amenities. The General Plan's MOB-1.1: Complete Streets policy supports this by ensuring streets are designed to accommodate all users, promoting higher density and mixed-use developments that reduce the need for long commutes. Additionally, Policy MOB-1.23: Pedestrian Connections to Employment Destinations, encourages the development of a network of continuous walkways within new commercial, town center, public, and industrial uses to improve workers' ability to walk safely around, to, and from their workplaces.
Providing transit-oriented development (TOD) and integrating affordable and below-market rate housing are crucial for creating accessible and inclusive communities. Policy MOB-1.4: Development Review, ensures that new developments prioritize the safety and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, which is essential for successful TOD and affordable housing projects.
Additionally, Policy MOB-1.6: Transportation Facility Construction and Modification, strives to provide for the movement of vehicles, commercial trucks, alternative and low energy vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians appropriate for the road classification and adjacent land use 2-18
664
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Locating projects in areas with high destination accessibility and improving destination accessibility in underserved areas are strategies that align with MOB-1.7: Promote Walking and Bicycling. By enhancing accessibility, more people are encouraged to walk or bike, reducing reliance on cars.
Implementing shared vehicle programs and creating urban non-motorized zones can significantly reduce VMT by offering alternatives to private car ownership. Policy MOB-1.17: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled aims to achieve this by improving alternate travel modes and providing more direct routes.
Providing bike parking near transit and electric vehicle charging infrastructure are essential for supporting sustainable transportation modes. Policy MOB-1.20: Bicycle Plan Funding supports this by ensuring that bikeway improvements are well-funded and integrated with the transit network Lastly, the General Plan is a guiding document which will allow the City to work closely with Caltrans on future development projects that impact roadways, ensuring that all changes are beneficial and well-coordinated. Additionally, policies such as Policy MOB-1.9: SR 29 Mobility and Policy MOB-1.28:
Coordination with Adjacent Jurisdictions ensure that transportation strategies are aligned with those of neighboring areas, creating a cohesive regional approach. This collaboration will help to streamline efforts, reduce redundancy, and promote a more efficient and effective transportation network for the entire region.
However, as discussed on page 4.11-11 of the Draft EIR, measures to reduce specific VMT per resident are challenging to implement and monitor in a meaningful way. Other than the selfmitigating measures and policies outlined above, it is infeasible that additional mitigation is likely to further reduce the citywide rate of VMT per resident. Further, because General Plan policies cannot realistically enforce mitigation programs or policies that might reduce VMT below the threshold, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 4-4
The commenter suggests exploring additional options to reduce VMT impact if current TDM measures are insufficient. These options include a VMT-based Transportation Impact Fee program, VMT Mitigation Exchange, and VMT Mitigation Bank. They note that Caltrans has funded studies on VMT mitigation programs and welcomes opportunities to collaborate with the City.
The feasibility of additional mitigation strategies are discussed above in Response 4-3. The suggested VMT mitigation programs, such as a VMT-based Transportation Impact Fee program, VMT Mitigation Exchange, and VMT Mitigation Bank, are infeasible due to the programmatic nature of the project and staffing and financial limitations to coordinate and fund Furthermore, this comment represents an opinion, and not the policy of Caltrans. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 4-5
The commenter suggests that the City encourage fair share contributions from future development projects to support multimodal projects, suggesting that this would promote mode shifts and reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel, helping to mitigate VMT impacts. The commenter provides Regional Transportation Plan (Plan Bay Area 2050) projects for future fair share contribution considerations.
As discussed on page 4.11-4 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is within the jurisdiction of Plan Bay Area 2050 and could be subject to consideration of potential fair share contributions. While the 2-19
665
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
City will consider these recommendations for future collaboration with Caltrans and for future projects, it is important to note that certain projects may face feasibility challenges at this time. For example, the 511 Bay Area Program (RTP ID 21-T06-049) involves extensive funding and coordination to provide comprehensive multi-modal traveler information, which may not be immediately feasible for all future developments. Similarly, the Carpool/Vanpool Program (RTP ID 21-T07-052) requires significant outreach, education, and incentives to encourage carpool behavior, which may not be practical for every project proposed under the General Plan. Additionally, projects like the express bus enhancements between Napa and the Vallejo Ferry Terminal (RTP ID 21-T12- 118) involve specific infrastructure improvements such as bus-on-shoulder facilities, which may not be applicable to all development areas. However, the City values the opportunity to collaborate with Caltrans and ABAG on future fair share contribution opportunities. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 4-6
The commenter suggests including references to the Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan and Bike Plan in the Draft EIR.
In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made to the Draft EIR Section 4.11, Transportation, Sub-Section 4.11.2, Regulatory Framework. The revision would not alter the impact analysis or findings of Section 4.11 and, as such, would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan
The Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan, released in 2021, is a comprehensive guide aimed at improving pedestrian infrastructure across the nine-county Bay Area. This plan identifies existing conditions and prioritizes location-based needs to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility. Developed in collaboration with local agencies, advocates, and the public, the plan serves as a crucial reference for planners and project designers. It promotes alternatives to driving, aiming to reduce congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage healthier lifestyles. The plan is part of the broader Bay Area Active Transportation Plan, which integrates pedestrian and bicycle needs into a cohesive strategy.
Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan
The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan, finalized in 2018, evaluates the bicycling needs across the Bay Area's state transportation network. This plan identifies and prioritizes infrastructure improvements to enhance bicycle safety, mobility, and accessibility. It builds on the 2017 California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and aims to create an integrated bicycle network that supports safe and convenient cycling for all ages and abilities. The plan was developed with input from the public and collaboration with local and regional partners, ensuring that proposed improvements align with local networks and address barriers to cycling.
Response 4-7
The commenter suggests updating Complete Streets references to reflect Caltrans Director’s Policy 37, which supersedes Deputy Directive 64-R1.
In response to this comment, the following revisions have been made to the Draft EIR Section 4.11, Transportation, Sub-Section 4.11.2, Regulatory Framework, Page 4.11-3. The revision would not 2-20
666
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
alter the impact analysis or findings of Section 4.11 and, as such, would not warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR.
Complete Streets Act
The California Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) adopted in 2008, requires that cities and other public agencies incorporate “Complete Street” policies when updating their General Plan Circulation Element. The term “Complete Streets” refers to a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, including bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors. A “Complete Street” is one that provides safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the local context. Complete Streets make travel safe for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, transit vehicles, and people of all ages and abilities.
Each street does not need to provide dedicated space to all users, but the network must accommodate the needs of all users.
In 2021, Caltrans adopted Director’s Policy 37, a policy directive related to non-motorized travel throughout the State. Director’s Policy 37 states:
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to our vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network. Additionally, Caltrans recognizes that streets are not only used for transportation but are also valuable community spaces. Accordingly, in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved. When decisions are made not to include complete streets elements in capital and maintenance projects, the justification will be documented with final approval by the responsible District Director. Opportunities for complete streets exist in all phases of project development from planning and design to construction, operations, and maintenance.
Complete streets projects should prioritize underserved communities that have been historically harmed and segmented by the transportation network and should serve people of all ages and abilities. Furthermore, Caltrans commits to removing unnecessary policy and procedural barriers and partnering with communities and agencies to ensure projects on local and state transportation systems improve the connectivity to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, and accessibility to existing and planned destinations, where possible.
Response 4-8
The commenter emphasizes Caltrans' commitment to achieving equity by ensuring everyone has access to what they need to thrive, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, identity, location, or mode of travel. They express eagerness to work with the City on projects that benefit historically underserved communities. They also thank the City for involving Caltrans in the environmental review process and provide contact information for further inquiries and future coordination.
This comment is noted and no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-21
667
Memo to William He, Planner, City of American Canyon
November 10, 2024
Comments on EIR for General Plan
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am a member of the Napa Solano Audubon Society, the Napa County Sierra Club, Napa Climate NOW! and have graduated from the iNaturalist program as a certified California Naturalist. I also represent Napa and Solano as the Senior Senator for the California Senior Legislature.
I have tracked and researched land use, environmental decline, and widespread loss of wildlife in the American Canyon Region for several years. As the lead for the Committee to Stop Measure J, and the writer of the oppositional narrative for the ballot, I also have become somewhat aware of the politics of this community. In 2022, I received the Climate Champion of Napa County, specifically for the work done to defeat Measure J.
There’s still so much left for us to consider. With projected economic growth and plans for this city, I see American Canyon’s west side growing into a diesel fume death zone.
Watching one of California’s most biologically diverse areas disappear, with the land being smothered with a blanket of cement, is devasting. It continues, unabated, no matter the concerns voiced by residents, environmental groups, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. No entity in American Canyon protects and speaks for the wildlife. There is no voice.
At the same time the land is being graded, vegetation stripped and trees cut down, the wine industry is facing a challenge. Interest in wine is dropping in the aging consumer base and changing preferences are reshaping the market. Reductions in wine consumption are most drastic with baby boomers, the largest population drinking wine. Predictions are that the wine industry is looking at a decades-long decline.
So, why continue to build more wine warehouses?
As the wine industry struggles with reduced demand, it also faces the struggles of a shrinking workforce.
Letter 5
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
2-22
668
We are also in a climate crisis changing how we live. Heat domes, heavier rains, changing weather patterns, and rising seas are now our reality. American Canyon is affected.
Everything planned in EIR for this General Plan should be decided through the lens of the Climate Crisis.
American Canyon is not going to stop all economic growth. But, perhaps, it’s time to consider doing things differently, with consideration to the environment, wildlife, and future of our children. Back, 30 years ago, when many of the land decisions were made between politicians and investors, the times were much different. The climate crisis was a speck in the distant future, the wineries were beginning to boom and American Canyon was incorporated to become a city and the development hub of Napa County. The stability of status quo reigned.
Now we’re in 2025 and it’s a different world. We cannot rely on agreements or plans made thirty years ago without acquiescing to the new reality. How will the city accommodate growth while conserving open space, wildlife, and natural resources? That is the real question of a General Plan.
Before land is permanently destroyed, the question thoroughly investigated should be the consequences of this action to all life. And, how can it be done with the least harm and highest good?
This General Plan should call for action in creating a baseline compilation and assessment of all private and public lands. There are at least 51 threatened/endangered/special plant species and 44 animal species with the potential to occur in American Canyon. The General Plan needs to create a database of baseline information to include detailed land cover maps, species accounts, species distribution models, land use data and estimates of what is located there and what is the activity. The goal is to find out what potential land needs to be set aside so there will be an open space, conserved area for wildlife. Where are the red-legged frogs, the Swainson Hawks, the Bald Eagles and White-Tailed Kites (to name a few), living? Should land be preserved for them? Who owns the land where critical habitats are located? Can conservation easements be considered and encouraged? Should American Canyon make plans to strategically purchase land and/or increase and promote voluntary conservation easements? Please consider adding these elements to the General Plan.
Also, consider the following suggestions:
Recognizing that people and wildlife don’t mix, access areas should be limited in riparian corridors, or where damage to habitat will occur.
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
2-23
669
Habitat connectivity needs to be a priority. Grading/cutting down trees and destroying soil by discing should be avoided until a biological assessment is completed on any land. All these activities should be especially prohibited in biologically diverse and riparian habitat.
Because so much land has already been destroyed, the city could look at reparations and restoration. All nonfunctional space, for example, and landscaping could be reverted to natural native plantings and trees. A native plant ordinance can be adopted by the city mandating that all residential planting contains at least 70% native plants.
Increase buffer zones around nests and wildlife use areas to .5 mile (as recommended by CDFW).
Increase mitigation for tree replacement from 1:1 to 5:1. This reflects a truer survival rate of 20% of new tree plantings. Also, require all trees/vegetation replacement to be watered and cared for at least one year after planting. Failed mitigations are to be replaced.
Require a one-year survival review, with failed plantings replaced as needed beforehand the year ends.
Develop a mitigation enforcement statute with accountability standards. Include consequences for failure to comply with mitigation. Require city review and final approval signoff on all mitigation efforts at completion.
Define vague statements such as “large” by actual numbers. One example: “If a qualified biologist determines a roost is used by a “large” number of bats. This is a subjective statement, and needs further clarification. Any development activity removing habitat need such as roosting treets, nesting trees, etc., needs to replace as close to the original site as possible.
Ban discing for weed control. It destroys habitat for animals living in the ground, including burrowing owls, lizards and snakes. (Yes, there have been sightings of burrowing owls in the American Canyon wetlands area.)
Prohibit capturing, killing or relocating animals without expressly written authorization from the CDFW or USFWS. Ban all killing of wildlife in construction zones. Place large signs at all the sites for wildlife injuries to be taken immediately to the Napa Wildlife Rescue Center.
Include a map with a phone number.
Ban pesticides and bait stations on property within 500 feet of wildlife habitat creeks, sloughs, watering sites. . No overnight lighting on buildings within 500 feet of a wildlife area.
5-16
5-17
5-18
5-19
5-20
5-21
5-22
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-26
5-15
5-14
2-24
670
Require mitigation measures for warehouse/urban park developers to include an expansion of the urban forest, including participating in soil or compost application to sequester carbon and incentivizing rooftop gardens.
Support a regional plan, with Napa and Solano Counties for open space and wildlife protection.
Ban plastic grass in schools, residential, and in industrial development lands.
When planners require EIR’s and Biological reviews, include data and information. from local environmental groups, i.e. the Audubon Society, Napa Plant Society, Beekeepers, ICare, etc.) Also include other recognized verification apps, including iNaturalist and ebird.org. Local bird watchers and regular walkers know more about what plants/animals are in an environment than outdated data in many other sites. Encourage the participation of local environmental groups in land use planning, especially in protecting critical habitat for special status species.
Ban diesel truck idling in the warehouse districts. Impose fines for any idling over 3 minutes.
American Canyon hire or assign dedicated staff to protect wildlife and preserve land for habitat.
Ban black asphalt in all new roads, developments, parking lots, and replace with permeable concrete.
And, finally, the 203 acres of what is currently Green Island Vineyard should be set aside as an area of study for a conservation easement.
Thank you for this opportunity for public comments. I hope these will considered and incorporated in the FEIR.
Yvonne Baginski
5-30
5-31
5-32
5-33
5-34
5-35
5-36
5-27
5-28
5-29
2-25
671
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter 5
COMMENTER: Yvonne Baginski
DATE: November 10, 2024
Response 5-1
The commenter introduces themselves as a member of several environmental organizations and a certified California Naturalist, citing that they have tracked land use and environmental decline in the American Canyon Region for years.
No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-2
The commenter expresses concern that projected economic growth and city plans could turn American Canyon's west side into a heavily polluted area. They lament the potential loss of one of California's most biologically diverse regions to urban development.
The General Plan accommodates thoughtful growth within the city while preserving areas of biological significance. Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR describes various biologically sensitive areas that occur or may occur in the planning area. While proposed General Plan and associated land use changes may result in impacts on biological resources, overall impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-9. Mitigation efforts implemented through federal, state, and local policies minimize environmental impacts and protect public health.
Development within the western portion of American Canyon was evaluated in the Draft EIR and will be subject to adopted mitigation measures. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-3
The commenter notes that despite concerns from residents, environmental groups, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, there is no entity in American Canyon advocating for wildlife protection.
The Draft EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts of future development proposed by the General Plan, as required by CEQA. Wildlife protection is addressed through implementation of applicable laws and standards. As discussed on page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan includes policies ENV-1.2 and ENV-1.3 which require new development and redevelopment located within sensitive habitats to provide a detailed assessment of the potential for impacts on these resources and supports habitat conservation efforts to set aside and preserve suitable habitats (with priority given for rare and endangered species) in accordance with state and federal resource agency requirements, respectively. Additionally, as discussed on page 4.3-21 of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan includes policy ENV-2.1 and ENV-2.2 which maintains American Canyon Creek within its natural waterway and requires 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. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-26
672
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5-4
The commenter highlights that while land is being developed and natural habitats are being destroyed, the wine industry is facing declining interest and a shrinking workforce. They question the rationale behind building more wine warehouses amid these challenges.
The proposed General Plan identifies a balance of land uses throughout the planning area. The Draft EIR evaluates proposed land uses, and provides programmatic mitigation measures to evaluate subsequent development projects, including wine warehouses. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-5
The commenter emphasizes that the climate crisis, with its heat domes, heavier rains, changing weather patterns, and rising seas, is affecting American Canyon. They argue that the General Plan should consider the climate crisis.
Pages 4.5-1 through 4.5-5 of the Draft EIR discuss the existing setting with regards to climate change in American Canyon, with specific attention to effects on the water supply, ecosystems, hydrology and sea level rise. As discussed on page 4.5-22 of the Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-2 and GHG-3 would ensure that development facilitated by the project would be consistent with State emissions goals. However, individual projects that may occur prior to adoption of a City Climate Action Plan (CAP) 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 during this interim period 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. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-6
The commenter suggests that while economic growth in American Canyon will continue, it might be time to adopt new approaches that consider the environment, wildlife, and the future of children.
The General Plan is a comprehensive, programmatic document designed to guide the future development of American Canyon. It considers various factors, including the environment, wildlife, economic growth, and the overall future growth of the city. The Draft EIR thoroughly evaluates the objectives, goals, policies, and programs outlined in the General Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-7
The commenter reflects on how, previously, land decisions were made in a different context, with American Canyon becoming a development hub.
As discussed above within Response 5-6, the General Plan is a comprehensive, programmatic document designed to guide the future development of American Canyon. The Draft EIR thoroughly evaluates the objectives, goals, policies, and programs outlined in the General Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-27
673
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5-8
The commenter questions how the city will balance growth with the conservation of open space, wildlife, and natural resources, emphasizing that this is the core issue for the General Plan.
As discussed above within Response 5-6, the General Plan is a comprehensive, programmatic document designed to guide the future development of American Canyon. The Draft EIR thoroughly evaluates the objectives, goals, policies, and programs outlined in the General Plan. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-9
The commenter urges that before any land is permanently altered, the consequences for all life should be thoroughly investigated. They ask how development can be done with the least harm and the greatest benefit.
The primary purpose of the Draft EIR is to ensure that the potential consequences of future development under the proposed General Plan are thoroughly considered in accordance with the CEQA. The Draft EIR identifies significant impacts and proposes mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-10
The commenter suggests that the General Plan should include a baseline assessment of all private and public lands. They note the presence of at least 51 threatened or special plant species and 44 animal species in American Canyon. They recommend creating a database with detailed land cover maps, species accounts, distribution models, land use data, and activity estimates, with the goal of determining what potential land needs to be set aside so there will be an open space, conserved area for wildlife.
The Draft EIR includes the USFWS’s IPaC, California Natural Diversity Database CNDDB, and CNPS’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (see Appendix B). As discussed within Response 6-34, an updated query was conducted in February 2025. Therein, it discusses that there are 52 plant species and 45 animal species with potential to occur within the planning area which meet at least one of the criteria for a special status species (see Revised Appendix B to this Final EIR). As discussed on pages 4.3-11 through 4.3-19 of the Draft EIR, the project could have the potential to have an adverse impact on special status species. However, implementation of federal, state, and local regulations and policies, as well as Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9, would ensure development facilitated by the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on candidate, sensitive, or special status species by requiring Biological Resources Screening and Assessments, avoidance and minimization, habitat restoration, and preconstruction surveys.
In response to this comment, Impact BIO-1 on page 4.3-11 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
2-28
674
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
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 THROUGH BIO-9, 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.
CEQA does not require a lead agency to prepare a baseline assessment of all private and public lands and create a detailed database for land conservation. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-11
The commenter questions the locations of critical habitats for species like red-legged frogs, Swainson Hawks, Bald Eagles, and White-Tailed Kites. They ask whether land should be preserved for these species and who owns the land where these habitats are found.
Appendix B to the Draft EIR includes supporting details regarding species found within the plan area, including their listed status and habitat requirements. This appendix item has been updated and is included as Revised Appendix B to this Final EIR. Therein, it includes the details of the status of redlegged frogs, Swainson Hawks, Bald Eagles, and White-Tailed Kites. The City, through the General Plan, aims to protect and preserve habitats through policy and implementation of feasible mitigation measures. For example, as discussed on page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR, 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. Further, as noted in Response 5.2 above, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would also reduce impacts to biological resources. The policies noted above and mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR are intended to avoid impacts to habitats and sensitive species within American Canyon and in certain instances would result in preservation of land that contains sensitive species or suggests methods to reduce or avoid an impact. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-12
The commenter asks if conservation easements can be considered and encouraged. They suggest that American Canyon should plan to strategically purchase land and promote voluntary conservation easements, recommending these elements be added to the General Plan.
As discussed on page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR, the proposed General Plan includes Policy ENV-1.3 which supports 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 2-29
675
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
federal resource agency requirements. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-13
The commenter suggests that access to riparian corridors should be restricted to prevent habitat damage, acknowledging that human presence can negatively impact wildlife.
Riparian corridors are protected areas which serve as habitats for a variety of wildlife within the city, as shown within Figure 4.3-1 of the Draft EIR which shows mapped riparian areas within the planning area. As discussed on page 4.3-20 of the Draft EIR, 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. Specifically, 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 and Section 19.24.040 restricts residential, commercial, and industrial uses in riparian corridors, limiting the potential for new development to substantially affect these areas. Further, as discussed under Impact BIO-1 and on page 4.3-21 of the Draft EIR, compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit and MS4 Storm Water Permit would ensure that potential impacts to riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands would be less than significant.
To the commenter’s second point regarding the impact of human presence in riparian corridors, it is important to note that while protecting these areas is crucial, the City cannot fully restrict human access to them, nor is that the purpose of the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-14
The commenter emphasizes the importance of prioritizing habitat connectivity. They argue that activities like grading, cutting down trees, and soil discing should be avoided until a biological assessment is conducted. These actions should be particularly prohibited in areas with high biological diversity and riparian habitats.
As discussed on pages 4.3-11 and 4.-3-12 of the Draft EIR, 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 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.
However, as discussed on page 4.3-12 of the Draft EIR, the Municipal Code is only applicable to “significant biological habitats” defined as riparian corridors, coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood 2-30
676
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
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. 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. Accordingly, the Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which requires projects on undeveloped parcels to perform a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-9 would be required, as applicable, to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Pending the results of the projectspecific 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. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-15
The commenter suggests that the city should consider reparations and restoration efforts through converting nonfunctional spaces and landscaping back to natural native plantings and trees.
Additionally, they recommend adopting a native plant ordinance requiring that at least 70 percent of residential plantings consist of native species.
The City Council has expressed interest in furthering the use of native plants in public and private landscaping. However, this would be a subsequent action to the General Plan and EIR. Therefore, this comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response 5-16
The commenter recommends increasing buffer zones around nests and wildlife use areas to 0.5 miles, following the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's (CDFW) guidelines.
As discussed on Page 4.3-1 of the Draft EIR, the City of American Canyon Municipal Code Section
19.24.060 includes requirements for development of areas designated as oak savannah, mixed hardwood forest, and coastal saltmarsh maintain a buffer from the edge of the designated habitat.
In addition, as outlined within Mitigation Measure BIO-1, for projects proposed within undeveloped parcels, the City shall require a baseline Biological Resources Screening and Assessment to determine whether projects proposed within undeveloped parcels have any potential to impact special-status biological resources. 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. Furthermore, buffers for nests are established within Mitigation Measure BIO-7.
Accordingly, these existing requirements are sufficient and meet the CDFW requirements and ensure that development projects would comply with both local and state regulations. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-31
677
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5-17
The commenter recommends increasing the tree replacement mitigation ratio from 1:1 to 5:1, reflecting a more accurate survival rate of 20 percent for new tree plantings.
The commenter’s suggestion to increase the tree replacement ratio from 1:1 to 5:1 is infeasible because such a high tree replacement ratio is not always necessary or feasible. Often, there is inadequate space available for planting multiple trees in close proximity. Planting trees too close together can lead to competition for resources such as sunlight, water, and nutrients, which can stress the trees and ultimately be detrimental to their health. Furthermore, overcrowding can also increase the risk of disease and pest infestations.
It is crucial to balance the goals of tree replacement with the practical considerations of space and tree health. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-18
The commenter suggests that all replacement trees and vegetation should be watered and maintained for at least one year after planting. They recommend replacing any failed mitigations and conducting a one-year survival review to ensure any unsuccessful plantings are replaced before the year ends.
The issue of landscape maintenance is addressed by the zoning code. According to American Canyon Municipal Code Section 19.22.040, trees and vegetation shall be continually maintained in good condition and kept clean and weeded. Good maintenance shall be interpreted to include:
watering and maintaining water efficiency, weeding, pruning, insect and disease control, and replacement of plant materials and irrigation equipment as needed to preserve the health and appearance of plant materials.. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-19
The commenter suggests creating a mitigation enforcement statute with clear accountability standards, including consequences for non-compliance and requiring city review and final approval of all mitigation efforts upon completion.
The City will prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to track the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures are implemented effectively and in a timely manner. The MMRP includes a detailed list of all mitigation measures, a timeline for their implementation, identification of responsible parties, specific monitoring actions, and procedures for documenting and reporting progress. This program serves as a tool to track and verify that the mitigation measures are carried out as intended, ensuring accountability and transparency throughout the process. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-32
678
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5-20
The commenter suggests defining vague terms like "large" with specific numbers.
It is unclear which areas of the Draft EIR the commenter is referring to. Nevertheless, due to the programmatic nature of the analysis and associated mitigation, it is not always possible to define terms more specifically. However, the Draft EIR does define terms wherever possible to provide clarity and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts and mitigation measures. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-21
The commenter suggests that any development activity removing habitat, such as roosting or nesting trees, should replace these habitats as close to the original site as possible.
As discussed within Mitigation Measure BIO-8, all future development under the 2040 General Plan that will require the removal of large trees 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.
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. Additionally, the qualified biologist shall determine compensatory mitigation for temporary or permanent habitat loss due to tree removal, in conjunction with CDFW. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-22
The commenter advocates for banning discing as a weed control method, highlighting that it destroys habitats for ground-dwelling animals like burrowing owls, lizards, and snakes. They note that burrowing owls have been spotted in the American Canyon wetlands area.
The Draft EIR is a programmatic document and does not analyze details and designs specific to individual development projects, such as the use of discing as a weed control method. Furthermore, discing is a site-specific activity, and its appropriateness must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-23
The commenter suggests prohibiting the capture, killing, or relocation of animals without explicit authorization from CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and banning all wildlife killings in construction zones.
As discussed within Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, projects must comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act, which prohibit the unauthorized capture, killing, or relocation of listed species. As discussed on Page 4.3-6 of the Draft EIR, the California Endangered Species Act allows for incidental take to otherwise lawful activities under CFGC Section 2081. The process of incidental take allows for the unintentional harm or harassment of these species during lawful activities, provided that specific permits are obtained.
These permits require the implementation of measures to minimize and mitigate impacts on the 2-33
679
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
species. 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, the Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-6 on page 4.3-16, which outlines the following requirements:
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, the biologist shall conduct daily pre-activity clearance surveys for endangered/threatened species. Alternatively, and upon approval of the CDFW and/or USFWS, the biologist may conduct site inspections at a minimum of once per week to ensure all prescribed avoidance and minimization measures are fully implemented.
No endangered/threatened species shall be captured and relocated without express permission from the CDFW and/or USFWS.
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 is safe for project activities to resume. 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 the start of construction (including staging and mobilization). The placement of the fence shall be at the discretion of the CDFW/USFWSapproved 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 maintain it in good working condition until all construction activities are complete.
These measures ensure that projects comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act, and provide necessary protections for endangered and threatened species. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-24
The commenter suggests placing large signs at all sites to direct wildlife injuries to the Napa Wildlife Rescue Center, including a map and phone number.
It is important to note that the Napa Wildlife Rescue Center has not indicated a desire for such signage. Additionally, the City does not have the authority to require the Napa Wildlife Rescue Center to take in injured animals from project sites. This comment is not related to the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-34
680
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5-25
The commenter recommends banning pesticides and bait stations within 500 feet of wildlife habitats, including creeks, sloughs, and watering sites.
The activities outlined in the General Plan do not include specific details related to pesticide use or control. This matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner's Office, which is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of pesticide regulations. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner's Office oversees the safe use of pesticides through various programs and regulations designed to protect people, wildlife, and the environment. This includes monitoring pesticide applications near sensitive areas such as creeks, sloughs, and watering sites to minimize potential harm to wildlife habitats. For further information on pesticide use and control measures, please contact the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner's Office. This comment is not related to the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-26
The commenter recommends no overnight lighting on buildings within 500 feet of a wildlife area.
As discussed on pages 4.1-12, impacts to light pollution would be less than significant with mitigation. While the project would increase nighttime light, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would reduce operational light spillage to the extent feasible. The City has adopted California Green Building Code into its municipal code, which includes requirements to reduce light pollution.
Overall, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-2 would ensure that lighting and glare is minimized during operation of future development facilitated by the project, and impacts would be less than significant. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-27
The commenter suggests that mitigation measures for warehouse and urban park developers should include expanding the urban forest, applying soil or compost to sequester carbon, and incentivizing rooftop gardens.
The Draft EIR is a programmatic document and does not analyze details and designs specific to individual development projects, such as development associated with warehouses and urban park developers. This comment is not related to the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-28
The commenter suggests supporting a regional plan with Napa and Solano Counties to protect open spaces and wildlife.
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. The City of American Canyon collaborates with Napa and Solano Counties on several regional plans to protect open space and wildlife. Most notably, development projects within the City must adhere to the General Plan, which includes policies for the protection of natural resources and open spaces. A prospective regional plan with Napa and Solano Counties would be a subsequent action that follows the General Plan and EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment. 2-35
681
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5-29
The commenter suggests banning plastic grass in schools, residential, and in industrial development lands.
The Draft EIR is a programmatic document and does not analyze details and designs specific to individual development projects, such as the use of plastic grass in development. Public schools are not subject to local regulation. Consideration of other circumstances where plastic grass may be subject to local regulation would be a subsequent action that follows the General Plan and EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-30
The commenter suggests that future EIRs and Biological Resource Studies should include data and information from local environmental groups, such as the Audubon Society, Napa Plant Society, Beekeepers, and ICare.
CEQA does not mandate the inclusion of data and information from local environmental groups.
Local environmental groups are encouraged to provide their input during the scoping and public review periods of future EIRs. During these times, they can submit relevant information from their sources to be considered in the environmental review process. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-31
The commenter suggests including data from verification apps like iNaturalist and eBird.org in planning processes, stating an opinion that local bird watchers and regular walkers often have more current knowledge of local flora and fauna than outdated data sources. They also encourage involving local environmental groups in land use planning to protect critical habitats for special status species.
This comment is similar to Comment 5-30, please see the response above. As described therein, local environmental groups are always encouraged to provide their input during the scoping and public review periods of future EIRs. During these times, they can submit relevant information from their sources to be considered in the environmental review process. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-32
The commenter suggests banning diesel truck idling in warehouse districts and imposing fines for idling over three minutes.
As stated in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the 5-minute idling time of nonworking vehicles would be consistent with the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations requirements. Adherence to these requirements for nonworking vehicles would reduce GHG emissions associated with idling. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-36
682
City of American Canyon
American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response 5-33
The commenter suggests that the City of American Canyon hire or assign dedicated staff to protect wildlife and preserve land for habitat.
Hiring new staff fall under the purview of the City's administrative and budgetary processes. This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-34
The commenter suggests banning black asphalt in all new roads, developments, parking lots, and replace with permeable concrete.
On page 4.3-11, the project would be subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 8, Rule 15 which dictates 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. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-35
The commenter suggests that the 203 acres of Green Island Vineyard should be set aside as an area of study for a conservation easement.
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. The Green Island Vineyard is not included as part of the General Plan scope of work. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
Response 5-32
The commenter expresses gratitude for the opportunity to provide public comments and hopes their suggestions will be considered and incorporated into the Final EIR.
This comment is appreciated and no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-37
683
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
November 20, 2024
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon, Community Development Director 4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
[email protected]
Subject: American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update, Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022070038, Napa County
Dear Mr. Cooper:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the City of American Canyon (City) for the American Canyon 2040 General Plan Update (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 CDFW
previously provided comments in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR in a letter dated July 28, 2022.
After receiving a two-week extension from the City, CDFW is submitting comments on the EIR to inform the City, as the Lead Agency, of potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the Project.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources. CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, or other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of American Canyon
Objective: The Project would adopt and implement the American Canyon 2040 General Plan update per California Government Code section 65300 and the City’s Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update will reflect recent development decisions and changes in State law. Major components will include the following elements: Land Use, Circulation, Community Services, Open Space and Recreation, Conservation, Safety, Noise, and Housing. The General Plan Update includes buildout estimates of 3,379 residential units and 5,704,000 square feet of nonresidential development. It will serve as the City’s primary guide for future land use and development decisions. Location: The general planning area includes approximately 6.1 square miles of the City, the urban limit line, historic water service area, and sphere of influence. The City is 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 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 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.
DocusignEnvelopeID:8C185B2E-85EE-4CA7-8AE5-74FD35178CF4 Letter 6
6-1
6-2
6-3
2-38
684
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon, Community Development Director November 20, 2024