NORTH AMERICA
| EUROPE | AFRICA |
AUSTRALIA
|
ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
Final
Initial Study
/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Browns Valley
Subdivision Project
City of Napa
,
Napa County
, California
S
tate Clearing House Number
2022090306
Prepared for:
City of Napa
1600 First Street
Napa, CA
94559
707.257.9530
Contact
:
Michael Allen, Senior Planner
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact:
Mary Bean
, Project Director
Tsui Li
, Project Manager
Date:
December
9 , 2022
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions
iii
H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec00
-
01 TOC.docx
Table of Contents
Section 1:
Introduction
................................
................................
................................
...............
1 -
1 Section 2:
Responses to Written Comments
................................
................................
................
2 -
1 2.1
-
List of Authors
................................
................................
................................
................
2 -
1 2.2
-
Responses to Comments
................................
................................
................................
2 -
1 Section 3:
Errata
................................
................................
................................
..........................
3 -
1 3.1
-
Changes to the Draft IS/MND
................................
................................
.........................
3 -
1 ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivis
ion
Project
Final
Initial Study
/
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions
1 -
1 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec01
-
00 Introduction.docx
SECTION 1:
INTRODUCTION
Although not required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City of Napa
has
prepared the following responses to significant environmental comments
received on the
Browns
Valley Su
bdivision
Project
Draft
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Draft IS/MND)
.
The
R
esponses to
C
omments
and Errata
, which are included in this document, together with the Draft
IS/MND, Draft IS/MND appendices, and the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP)
,
com
prise the Final
IS/MND
for use by the
City of Napa
in its review
and consideration of the
Browns
Valley Subdivision
Project
.
All public comments regarding the Draft IS/MND are included for consideration by the
City.
This document is organized into three se
ctions:
•
Section 1
—
Introduction.
•
Section
2 —
Responses to
Written
Comments:
Provides a list of the agencies, organizations,
and individuals who commented on the Draft IS/MND
.
Copies of all of the letters received
regarding the Draft IS/MND and responses thereto are included in this section.
•
Section
3 —
Errata
:
Includes an addendum
listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft
IS/MND, which have been incorporated.
The Final IS/MND includes the following contents:
•
Draft IS/MND (provided under separate cover)
•
Draft IS/MND appendices (provided under separate cover)
•
Responses to
W
ritten
Comments and
Errata
(Sections
2 and
3 of this document)
•
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover)
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
1 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
SECTION 2:
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
2.1 -
List of
Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (
Draft
IS/MND
)
is presented below
.
Each comment has
been
assigned a code
.
Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed
-
referenced with responses
.
Following this list, the text of the
communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response.
Author
Author Code
State Agencies
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife
................................
................................
....................
CDFW
Individuals
Morris, Michael
................................
................................
................................
.........................
MORRIS1
Morris, Michael
................................
................................
................................
.........................
MORRIS2
2.2 -
Responses to Comments
2.2.1 -
Introduction
Although a lead agency is not
required
to provide written responses to comments on proposed
Negative Declarations (NDs) or Mitigated Negative Declarations (MNDs) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City of
Napa
has evaluated the comments received on the
proposed
Browns V
alley
Subdivision
Project
(proposed project) Draft IS/MND and has elected to
provide responses to the following comments. None of the comments received results in the need to recirculate the Draft IS/MND or to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
2.2.2 -
Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of
Authors
.
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
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
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
October 1
2 , 2022
Michael Allen, Senior Planner
City of Napa
1600 First Street
Napa, CA 94559
Subject:
Browns Valley
Subdivision Project
,
Mitigated Negative Declaration
,
SCH
No.
2022090306
,
City and County of Napa
Dear Mr.
Allen
:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to
Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
from
the City
of Napa (City)
for the
Browns
Valley Subdivision Project (
Project
)
pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.
1 CDFW is submitting comments on the
MND
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),
the
Lake
and
Streamb
ed Alteration
(LSA)
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:
Edenbridge Homes
Objective:
Construct 11 new single
-
family homes with
landscaping and a new public
cul
-
de
-
sac street
with driveways on a 3.77
-
acre residential infill site.
Project activities
include
demolishing all existing
pavement and
structures
(barn, two residences and
sheds)
, some of which are within
the riparian zone,
adjacent to Browns Valley Creek.
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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
2 The Project will also install
a bioretention area and stormwater detention
that will empty
onto a rock energy dissipater within the edge of riparian vegetation.
Location:
The Project is located at 3090 Browns Valley Road,
Napa, CA 94558
. The
Assessor’s Parcel Number is 041
-
170
-
009.
Timeframe:
Construction is anticipated to
begin
January 2023 and
would last
approximately 14
-
18 months.
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
Please be advised that a CESA I
ncidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the
Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project
.
The Project has the potential to
impact
California
freshwater shrimp (
Syncaris pacifica
)
, a CESA listed as
endangered species, and
t
ricolored blackbird
(
Agelaius tricolor
)
and
Swainson’s
hawk (
Buteo swainsoni
),
both
CESA listed as threatened species, as further
described below.
Issuance of an ITP is subjec
t to CEQA documentation; the CEQA
document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Pr
oject and mitigation measures may be
required in order to obtain an ITP.
CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species. (Pub.
Res
ources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064, & 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant levels unless the
CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC).
The CEQA
Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the project proponent’s obligation to comply with CESA.
Lake and Streambed Alteration
CDFW will require an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections
1600
et. seq. for Project activities affecting lakes
or streams and associated riparian habitat.
Notification is required for any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or
deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake or stream.
The Project would impact Browns
Valley
Creek and therefore
an LSA Notification
would be
required, as
further
described below.
Work within
ephemeral streams, washes, watercourses
with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are
subject to notification requirements. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, will DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
3 consider the CEQA document for the Project. CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA as a
Responsible Agency.
Fully Protected Species
Fully Protected species, such as
white
-
tailed kite (
Elanus leucurus
)
and
golden eagle
(
Aquila chrysaetos
)
, may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515) except for
collecting these species for necessary scientific
research, relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock, or if they are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan.
COMMENT
S AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City
in
adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) res ources.
Attachment 1
Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
includes the below
recommended mitigation measures
.
Editorial comments or other suggestions may also
be
included
to improve the document
.
Based on
the Project's avoidance of significant
impacts on biological resources with implementation of mitigation measures,
including
those recommended below,
CDFW concludes that
an MND
is
appropriate for the
Project.
I.
Mandatory Findings of Significance: Does the Project have the potential to substantia
lly reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species?
Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measures
COMMENT 1:
Swainson’s Hawk
Issue:
The Project may impact nesting Swainson’s hawk, which occurs in Napa County.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
documents
a
Swainson’s hawk mating pair occurrence
less than 4
miles from the Project site
.
The proposed nesting bird survey mitigation measure would only survey for raptors present within
1 ,
0 00 feet of th
e Project, however nesting Swainson’s hawks may be
impacted up to 0.
2 5 miles from the Project
within urban areas
and may
not be
detect
ed
using
the proposed
nesting bird surveys
.
Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant:
If active
Swainso
n’s hawk nests are not detected by the proposed surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established
,
Swainson’s hawk could be disturbed by Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
4 activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young,
thereby substantially reducing the number of the species.
Swainson’s hawk is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380.
The estimated historical population of Swain
son’s hawk was nearly 17,000 pairs;
however, in the late 20
th
century, Bloom
(1980)
estimated a population of only 375
pairs. The decline was primarily a result of habitat loss from development
(CDFW
2016)
. The most recent survey conducted in 2009
estimated the population at 941
breeding pairs. The species is currently threatened by loss of nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., from agricultural shifts to less crops that provide less suitable habitat), urban development, environmental contaminants (e.
g., pesticides), and climate
change
(CDFW 2016)
.
Therefore, if an active Swainson’s hawk nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of S
ignificance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).
Recommend
ed Mitigation Measure
:
For an accurate environmental setting, to
reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less
-
than
-
significant, and to comply with
CESA, CDFW recommends
including an evaluation of Swainson’s hawk in the
impact analysis and adding the following mitigation measure :
Mitigation Measure
(MM)
BIO
-
13 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys and Avoidance:
If
Project activities are scheduled during the nesting season for Swainson’ s hawks
(March 1 to August 31), prior to beginning work on this Project, Swainson’s hawk
surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience surveying for and detecting the species pursuant to the
Recommended timing and methodology for
Swai
nson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk
(2000) survey protocol
2 , within 0.
2 5 mile of the Project site
each year
that Project
activities occur. Pursuant to the above survey protocol, surveys shall be completed
for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a Project’s initiation. For example, if the project is scheduled to begin on June 20, the qualified biologist shall complete three surveys in Period III and three surveys i n Period V. It is
recommended that surveys be completed in Periods II, III and V.
The Project shall
obtain CDFW’s written acceptance of the qualified biologist and survey report prior to Project construction occurring between March 1 and August 31 each yea r. If the
qualified biologist identifies nesting Swainson’s hawks, the Project shall implement a
0. 2
5 mile no disturbance buffer zone
around the nest, unless otherwise approved in
2 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83990&inline
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
5 writing by CDFW. Project activities shall be prohibited within the buffer zo ne
between March 1 and August 31, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.
COMMENT 2: Tricolored blackbird
Issue:
The project may imp
act tricolored blackbird, which occurs in Napa County.
The Project sites fall within the range and predicted habitat of tricolored blackbird.
CNDDB documents an occurrence
within 5 miles of the Project site
.
Specific impacts and why they may occur and be
significant:
If active tricolored
blackbird nests are not detected by the proposed surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established, tricolored blackbird could be disturbed by Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or redu ced health and
vigor and loss of young, thereby substantially reducing the number of the species.
Tricolored blackbird is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380.
Therefore, if an active tricolored blackbird nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sect
ion 15065, subdivision (a)(1).
Recommend
ed
Mitigation Measure
:
For an accurate environmental setting and to
reduce impacts to tricolored blackbird to less than significant, CDFW recommends including an impact analysis for tricolored blackbird and including
the following
mitigation measure:
MM BIO
-
14 : Tricolored Blackbird Avoidance.
If nesting tricolored blackbird or
evidence of their presence is found during nesting bird surveys within 500 feet of Project activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and w ork shall not occur
without written approval from CDFW allowing the Project to proceed. Project activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.
If take of tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, th
e Project
shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.
Mitigation Measures
COMMENT 3: California
f
reshwater
s
hrimp
Issue:
The proposed p
re
-
construction surveys
are insufficient
to
ensure impacts to
California freshwater shrimp are avoided
,
as surveys may not detect
this elusive
species
.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
6 Recommended Mitigation Measure:
MM BIO
-
15 :
California Freshwater Shrimp Avoidance.
No
P
roject activities shall
occur when standing or flowing water is present in the stream within 500 feet of the project are
a, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.
No streambanks
outside of the
P
roject footprint shall be impacted or disturbed. No sediment from the P
roject area shall be allowed to enter the stream channel. Flowing water and standing pools of water shall
be completely avoided. Silt fencing and any other
necessary erosion controls shall be installed between the work area and the stream channel to ensure sediment is prevented from entering the strea m
, unless otherwise
approved in writing by CDFW. The silt fence shall be checked daily by the Qualified Biologist, including during periods of inactivity, and any necessary repairs shall be made immediately.
If sediment or any other materials from the
P
roj
ect area enter the stream channel
,
P
roject activities shall immediately stop and the Qualified Biologist shall immediately notify CDFW. If
take of
California freshwater shrimp cannot be avoided,
the Project
shall
the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuan
t to CESA and obtain an ITP.
II.
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by CDFW
or
U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
?
Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measures
COMMENT
4 : Foothill Yellow
-
Legged Frog
Issue:
The MND does not consider impacts to foothill yellow
-
legged frog
(
Rana
boylii
,
northwest/north coast clade
).
The Project site is within the range and suitable
habitat for foothill yellow
-
legged frog
and there is a CNDDB documented occur
rence
in Redwood Creek, approximately 3.2 miles from the Project site.
Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant:
Foothill yellow
-
legged frogs
have been extirpated from about two
-
thirds of their historical range
since 1970
(U
.
S
.
F
orest Service (USF
S
)
2016)
and is a
California
S
pecies of
S
pecial
C
oncern (SSC)
.
The main risk factors for the
foothill yellow
-
legged frog
are water development and
diversion, climate change, habitat loss (including urbanization and fragmentation), and introduced species
(USFS 2016)
.
Project location can negatively affect
foothill
yellow
-
legged frog
based on proximity to suitable habitats. Many post
-
metamorphic
foothill yellow
-
legged frogs
move among a variety of stream habitats throughout the
year, including perennial mainstem reaches to highly ephemeral headwater streams
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
7 (Bourque 2008)
. This species is also documented in uplands near streams (< 300 m;
Twitty et al. 1967, Cook et al. 2012)
. Project
s
involving the alteration of the bed
and/or banks of any stream or adjacent upland habitats could have potentially significant
impacts on the species or its habitat.
Therefore,
if
foothill yellow
-
legged
frogs
are present on or adjacent to the Project site,
the Project
would
have
potential
ly
significant impacts on
the species
.
Recommended
Mitigation Measure
:
For an adequate enviro
nmental setting and to
reduce impacts to foothill yellow
-
legged frog to less
-
than
-
significant, CDFW
recommends including an impact analysis for foothill yellow -
legged frog and
including the following mitigation measure:
MM BIO
-
16 : Foothill Yellow
-
Legged Fr
og Surveys
. P
rior to
starting Project activities,
a
Qualified Biologist
shall conduct survey
s for foothill
yellow
-
legged frog
using a
CDFW
-
approved methodology
.
If foothill yellow
-
legged frogs, their eggs, or any
other special
-
status species are found, CDFW shall be notified immediately and construction shall not occur without written approval from CDFW allowing the Project activities to proceed. If foothill yello
w
-
legged frog egg masses are observed in a
stream that is scheduled for dewatering, dewatering shall not occur until an egg mass relocation plan is approved in writing by CDFW and implemented. In the event adult foothill yellow
-
legged frogs are observed, a
temporary wildlife exclusion fence
shall be installed, if requested by CDFW, to prevent frogs and/or other special -
status
species from entering the work site. The results of the survey shall be submitted to CDFW for written acceptance prior to starting Pr
oject activities. If the
Project
has
collected data that the stream has been completely dry for greater than 30 days prior to starting Project activities, and no water or moist areas within the streambed exist within 500 feet upstream and downstream of the
Project, then
the Project
may
request CDFW written approval that surveys for foothill yellow -
legged frogs are not
necessary.
Mitigation Measures
COMMENT
5 :
MM BIO
-
4:
Noise and Lighting Restrictions
Issue:
MM BIO
-
4 does not
provide specific guidance
regard
ing
how lighting
will
be
minimized.
Artificial
l
ighting
may adversely impact specials
-
status species.
Recommended
Mitigation Measure
:
To reduce impacts from
artificial
lighting
to
less
-
than
-
significant, CDFW recommends
replacing
MM BIO
-
4 with the
following
language
:
MM BIO
-
4:
Noise and Lighting Restrictions:
Construction noise shall be limited to
daylight hours.
All temporary Project lighting associated with construction staging areas, access routes and construction sites in natural lands must not spill into
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
8 natural areas. Temporary Project lighting on the surface of the road will be directed towards the road surface and will not be directed into natural areas outside of the road surface to prevent additional light pollution and disruption of noctur nal wildlife
activity. Baffles and shielding devices will be required on all temporary lighting systems within the Project limits. All temporary lighting shall be limited to 2 ,
700
kelvins. A photometer shall be used in and around the construction site to e nsure
light is not being exposed to natural areas.
COMMENT
6 :
MM BIO
-
7 : Construction Monitoring
Issue:
MM BIO
-
7 specifies that a
qualified biologist
may
be
on
-
site for daily
monitoring if an
aquatic
state or federally
listed species is present
within or near the
P
roject site
, depending on the species
.
It is unclear whether the Project is required
to consult with CDFW and/or USFWS in the event
a listed species is encountered
.
MM BIO
-
7 also does not account for species designated as SSC
.
Recommen
ded
Mitigation Measure
:
Revise MM BIO
-
7 to specify that a qualified
biologist
shall be on
-
site
daily
when work
occurring within
stream
or
riparian habitat
,
unless otherwise approved
in writing
by CDFW
. Additionally, if any special
-
status
species are
detected
,
the Project shall consult with
CDFW and/or USFWS regarding
appropriate steps before proceeding with
construction
.
III.
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in loca
l or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS?
Mitigation Measures
COMMENT 7:
Riparian Habitat
Issue:
T
he MND mentions the need to
obtain
an LSA Agreement from CDFW
;
however
,
this
is not included as a mitigation measure. Additionally, o n
page 65
, the
MND includes a list of Best Management Practices (BMP
s
). This includes a BMP
specifying that w
ork within the riparian zone would occur between April 15 to October 31
;
however
,
CDFW generally considers the dry season to be June 15 to October 15
in Napa County
.
Additionally, while the MND states no riparian vegetation will be removed, it is unclear whether the area where structures will be removed within the riparian zone will be restored with native plantings. If demolition areas are left barre n of
vegetation, this could result in erosion and sedimentation within Browns Valley Creek.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
9 Furthermore,
the MND states that
the BMPs listed on page 65 are included
to help
avoid and minimize potential impacts
to critical habitat and essential fish habitat
to
less than significant levels, yet these BMPs are not included as mitigation measures.
Recommended
Mitigation Measure
:
To reduce impacts to riparian habitat to less
-
than
-
significant, CDFW recommends
including a mitigation measure requiring the
P
roject
to
submit an LSA Notification
to CDFW
and comply with the
LSA Agreement
if issued by
CDFW
.
The LSA
Agreement
would
likely include measures
restricting
work within the riparian zone from June 15 to October 15, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW,
and requir
e
any areas within the riparian zone left
barren of vegetation be
restored and
planted with native trees, shrubs and
grasses
.
Additionally, permanent impacts, such as from installation of the storm drain outfall structure
sh
ould be restored
at a
3:1 ratio for acreage and linear feet impacted
and
temporary impacts should be restored on
-
site
, unless otherwise approved in writing
by CDFW
.
CDFW also recommends that all BMPs that are intended to reduce impacts to
riparian and stream habitat to
less
-
than
-
significant be clearly listed as mitigation
measure
s
.
IV.
Editorial Comments and Suggestions
COMMENT 8:
On page 65
of the MND it states
,
“No trees or other vegetation will be
removed in the riparian zone unless it poses a safety hazard as determined by an arborist (for trees).” CDFW recommends revising this sentence for clarity.
It is unclear if
hazardous vegetation, besides trees,
could
be
removed
.
If CDFW issues an LSA Agreement for the Project, the above recommended mitigation measures will likely be included in the Agreement, as applicable.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and n
egative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e))
.
Accordingly, please report any
special
-
status species and natural
communities
detected during Project surveys to the CNDDB.
The CNNDB field survey
form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting
-
Data
.
The types of information reported
to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants
-
and
-
Animals
.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
10 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of
environmental document
filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of e
nvironmental review by CDFW. Payment of the
environmental document filing
fee is
required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14,
§
753.5; Fish & G. Code,
§
711.4; Pub. Resources Code,
§
21 089)
.
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
MND
to assist
the City
in
identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.
Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Alicia Bird
,
E
nvironmental Scientist
,
at
(707) 980
-
5154 or
[email protected]
; or
Melanie Day, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 210 -
4415 or
[email protected]
.
Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
Attachment 1: Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ec:
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2022090306
)
REFERENCES
Bloom, P.
H. 1980. The status of the Swainson’s hawk in California, 1979. Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA, USA.
Bourque, R. M. 2008. Spatial ecology of an inland population of the foothill yellow -
legged frog (
Rana boylii
) in Tehama County, California. The
sis, Humboldt State
University, Arcata, CA, USA.
CDFW. 2016. Status review: Swainson’s hawk (
Buteo swainsoni
) in California. Report
to the California Fish and Game Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
11 Cook, D. G., P. W. White, and E. White. 2012. Natural histo ry notes:
Rana boylii
(foothill
yellow
-
legged frog), upland movement. Herpetological Review 43:325 –
326.
Twitty, V., D. Grant, and O. Anderson. 1967. Amphibian orientation: an unexpected observation. Science 155:352
–
353.
U.S. Forest Service
(
USFS
)
. 2016.
Foothill yellow
-
legged frog conservation assessment
in California. General Technical Report PSW
-
GTR
-
248, Pacific Southwest
Reserach Station, U.S. Forest Service, Albany, CA, USA.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
12 Attachment 1
Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
CDFW
provides
the following language to be incorporated into the
MMRP
for the Project.
Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation
Measure
(MM)
Description
Timing
Responsible
Party
MM BIO
-
4 MM BIO
-
4: Noise and Lighting Restrictions:
Construction noise shall be
limited to daylight hours.
All temporary Project lighting associated with
construction staging areas, access routes and
construction sites in natural lands must not spill into natural areas. Temporary Project lighting on the
surface of the road will be dir
ected towards the road
surface and will not be directed into natural areas
outside of the road surface to prevent additional light pollution and disruption of nocturnal wildlife activity.
Baffles and shielding devices will be required on all
temporary ligh
ting systems within the Project limits. All
temporary lighting shall be limited to 2700 kelvins. A
photometer shall be used in and around the
construction site to ensure light is not being exposed to natural areas.
Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
and
continuin
g
over the
course of
the Project
Project
Applicant
MM BIO
-
13 MM BIO
-
13 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys and Avoidance:
If Project activities are scheduled during the nesting
season for Swainson’s hawks (March 1 to August 31),
prior to beginning work on this Project, Swainson’s
hawk surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist with experience surveying for and detec
ting
the species pursuant to the Recommended timing and
methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk (2000)
survey protocol, within 0.25 mile of the Project site
each year that Project activities occur. Pur
suant to the
above survey protocol, surveys shall be completed for
at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a
Project’s initiation. For example, if the project is
scheduled to begin on June 20, the qualified biologist
shall complete three surve
ys in Period III and three
surveys in Period V. It is recommended that surveys
be completed in Periods II, III and V. The Project shall obtain CDFW’s written acceptance of the qualified
biologist and survey report prior to Project construction Prior to
Ground
Distur
bance
and
continuing
over the
course of
the Project
Project
Applicant
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
13 occurring be
tween March 1 and August 31 each year.
If the qualified biologist identifies nesting Swainson’s hawks, the Project shall implement a 0.25 mile no
disturbance buffer zone around the nest, unless
otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Project
activities shal
l be prohibited within the buffer zone
between March 1 and August 31, unless otherwise
approved in writing by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s
hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with
CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.
MM BIO
-
14 MM BIO
-
14: Tricolored Blackbird Avoidance.
If nesting
tricolored blackbird or evidence of their presence is
found during nesting bird surveys within 500 feet of
Project activi
ties, CDFW shall be notified immediately
and work shall not occur without written approval from
CDFW allowing the Project to proceed. Project
activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.
If
take
of tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, the
Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA
and obtain an ITP.
Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
and
continuing
over the
course of
the Project
Project
Applicant
MM BIO
-
15 MM BIO
-
15: California Freshwater
Shrimp Avoidance.
No project activities shall occur when standing or
flowing water is present in the stream within 500 feet of the project area, unless otherwise approved in writing
by CDFW. No streambanks outside of the project
footprint shall be impacted
or disturbed. No sediment
from the project area shall be allowed to enter the
stream channel. Flowing water and standing pools of
water shall be completely avoided. Silt fencing and any other necessary erosion controls shall be installed
between the work
area and the stream channel to
ensure sediment is prevented from entering the
stream, unless otherwise approved in writing by
CDFW. The silt fence shall be checked daily by the
Qualified Biologist, including during periods of
inactivity, and any necessary
repairs shall be made
immediately.
If sediment or any other materials from the project area enter the stream channel project activities shall
immediately stop and the Qualified Biologist shall
immediately notify CDFW.
If take of California
freshwater shri
mp cannot be avoided, the Project shall
the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA
and obtain an ITP.
Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
and
continuing
over the
course of
the Project
Project
Applicant
MM BIO
-
16 MM BIO
-
16: Foothill Yellow
-
Legged Frog
Surveys
.
Prior to starting Project activities, a Qualified Biologist Prior to
Ground
Project
Applicant
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
Michael Allen
City of Napa
October 1
2 , 2022
Page
14 shall conduct surveys for foothill yellow
-
legged frog
using a CDFW
-
approved methodology. If foothill
yellow
-
legged frogs, their eggs, or any other special
-
status species, are found, CDFW
shall be notified
immediately and construction shall not occur without
written approval from CDFW allowing the Project
activities to proceed. If foothill yellow
-
legged frog egg
masses are observed in a stream that is scheduled for
dewatering, dewatering sh
all not occur until an egg
mass relocation plan is approved in writing by CDFW
and implemented. In the event adult foothill yellow
-
legged frogs are observed, a temporary wildlife
exclusion fence shall be installed, if requested by
CDFW, to prevent frogs an
d/or other special
-
status
species from entering the work site. The results of the survey shall be submitted to CDFW for written
acceptance prior to starting Project activities.
If the
Project has collected data that the stream has
been completely dry for g
reater than 30 days prior
to starting Project activities, and no water or moist
areas within the streambed exist within 500 feet
upstream and downstream of the Project, then the
Project may request CDFW written approval that
surveys for foothill yellow
-
leg
ged frogs are not
necessary.
Disturbance
and
continuing
over the
course of
the Project
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8D1A1E37-F862-4701-B9AD-DBCDACB3B9C3 ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
17 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW
)
Comments below are reprinted verbatim from the comment letter.
Comment CDFW
-
1 Issue:
The Project may impact nesting
Swainson’s hawk, which occurs in Napa County. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) documents a Swainson’s hawk mating pair occurrence less than 4 miles from the Project site.
The proposed nesting bird survey mitigation measure would only survey for raptors present within
1,000 feet of the Project, however nesting Swainson’s hawks may be impacted up to 0.25 miles from the Project within urban areas and may not be detected using the proposed nesting bird surveys.
Specific impacts and why the
y may occur and be significant:
If active Swainson’s hawk nests are not
detected by the proposed surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established, Swainson’s hawk could be disturbed by Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of egg s or reduced
health and vigor and loss of young, thereby substantially reducing the number of the species.
Swainson’s hawk is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 153
80. The estimated historical population
of Swainson’s hawk was nearly 17,000 pairs; however, in the late 20th century, Bloom (1980) estimated a population of only 375 pairs. The decline was primarily a result of habitat loss from development (CDFW 2016). T
he most recent survey conducted in 2009 estimated the population at 941 breeding pairs. The species is currently threatened by loss of nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., from agricultural shifts to less crops that provide less suitable habitat), urban dev elopment,
environmental contaminants (e.g., pesticides), and climate change (CDFW 2016 ).
Therefore, if an active Swainson’s hawk nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, whic h is considered a Mandatory
Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
For an accurate environmental setting, to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less
-
than
-
significant, and to
comply with CESA, CDFW recommends including an
evaluation of Swainson’s hawk in the impact analysis and adding the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure (
MM
)
BIO
-
13 Swainson’s Hawk Surveys and Avoidance
:
Project activities are
scheduled during t
he nesting season for Swainson’s hawks (March 1 to August 31), prior to beginning work on this Project, Swainson’s hawk surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience surveying for and detecting the species pursuant to the Recommended timing and
methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk (2000) survey protocol1, within 0.25 mile of the Project site each year that Project activities occur.
Pursuant to the above survey protocol, surveys
shall be completed for at least the two survey
periods immediately prior to a Project’s initiation. For example, if the project is scheduled to begin on June 20, the qualified biologist shall
complete three surveys in Period III and three surveys in Period
V. It is recommended that surveys be completed in Periods II, III and V. The Project shall ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Responses to Written Comments
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neg
ative Declaration
2 -
18 FirstCarbon Solutions
H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
obtain CDFW’s written acceptance of the qualified biologist and survey report prior to Project construction occurring between March 1 and August 31 each year. If th e qualified biologist identifies
nesting Swainson’s hawks, the Project shall implement a 0.25 mile no disturbance buffer zone around the nest, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Project activities shall be prohibited within the buffer zone betwe
en March 1 and August 31, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP .
Response to CDFW
-
1 The
project
-
specific
biological survey
evaluate
d habitat suitability and nearby CNDDB records for
Swainson’s hawk during preparation of the biological resources report for the property at 3090 Browns Valley Road
(Appendix
B of the Draft IS/MND)
. The closest CNDDB record to the project site
is about 3.5 miles southwest of the site, where a pair of Swainson’s hawks was observed displaying, copulating, and defending territory in 2013, but no nest was found. This occurrence was near Carneros Creek i
n an open area surrounded by agricultural fields, a preferred habitat for this species.
Other CNDDB records of this species in Napa are concentrated to the south in the open area between Highway 12 and the Napa County Airport, often near riparian habitat s uch as Suscol Creek.
Although the project site has a riparian corridor along Browns Valley Creek, surrounding areas are developed or
contain
oak woodland (in Westwood Hills Park), and lack open areas preferred by this species. This is reflected in the Corn
ell Lab of Ornithology’s eBird records, as Swainson’s hawk has not been recorded at “hot spots” within a mile of the project site. As such , qualified
Biologists
concluded that protocol
-
level surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawks are not warranted in the pro ject
area.
In response to comments
, Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO
-
10 has been revised to
include protocol
surveys for Swainson’s hawks if project construction starts during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season
(generally
March 1 to August 31)
.
The text changes
to MM BIO
-
10 are reflected in Section 3,
Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
These changes are based on communication with
CDFW
during the on
-
site meeting
which took place
on
November 1, 2022
, in which
it was
clarified that surveys do not need to be repeated every year if construction is continuous,
and
that “project activities” refers only to construction activities (does not include project operation)
.
Potential project effects on Swainson’s hawk are not new
avoidable significant effects since the
proposed
project was previously found to have a less than significant impact on these species ( as
disclosed in the Draft IS/MND
).
The
revisions to MM BIO
-
10 merely
amplify and clarify
the
survey
protocols
from the
R
ecommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk,
1 and therefore
do
not
affect the impact analyses and the
environmental determination of the
Draft
IS/MND.
Comment CDFW
-
2 1
Swainson’s Hawk
Technical Advisory Committee
.
2000.
Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk
. Website:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83990&inline . Accessed November 30, 2022.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
19 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
Issue:
The project may impact tricolored blackbird, which occurs in Napa County. The Project sites fall within the range and predicted habitat of tricolored blackbird. CNDDB documents an occurrence
within 5 miles of the Project site.
Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant:
If active tricolored blackbird nests are
not detected by the proposed surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not estab lished, tricolored
blackbird could be disturbed by Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young, thereby substantially reducing the number of the species. Tricolored blackbird is CESA liste
d as a threatened species and therefore is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Therefore, if an active tricolored blackbird nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the
number of a threatened species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
For an accurate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to tricol
ored blackbird to less than significant, CDFW recommends including an impact analysis for tricolored blackbird and including the following mitigation measure:
MM BIO
-
14 :
Tricolored Blackbird Avoidance
.
If
nesting tricolored blackbird or evidence of their
p
resence is found during nesting bird surveys within 500 feet of Project activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and work shall not occur without written approval from CDFW allowing the Project to proceed. Project activities shall not occur within 50 0 feet of an active nest unless
otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take of tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP .
Response to CDFW
-
2 It is
acknowledge
d
that tricolored blackbird occurs in Napa County, and that the project site is within the range of this species. The CNDDB documented occurrence of tricolored blackbird is about 4.3 miles southeast of the project site at a freshwater marsh along the Napa R iver. As part of a
United
States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol site assessment for California red -
legged frog, all
wetland and riparian habitat within
1 mile of the project site
were identified and evaluated
.
Although designed for California r
ed
-
legged frog,
the biological survey
confirmed that there is no
suitable freshwater marsh habitat for tricolored blackbird within 1 mile of the project site
(Appendix
B of the Draft IS/MND)
. Therefore, nesting tricolored blackbirds are unlikely to occur i n the project
area, and the
proposed
project
would
not impact this species. Similar to Swainson’s hawk, there are no eBird “hot spot” observations of tricolored blackbird within 1 mile of the site.
In response to comments
, MM
BIO
-
10 is
revised to incorpora
te the CDFW recommended buffer if
nesting tricolored blackbirds are found within 500 feet of the project site.
The text changes to MM
BIO
-
10 are reflected in Section 3, Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
Potential project effects on
tricolored blackbird
are not
new avoidable significant effects since the
proposed project was previously found to have a less than significant impact on these species (as disclosed in the Draft IS/MND).
The revisions to MM BIO
-
10 merely
amplify and clarify
the
avoidance
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Responses to Written Comments
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neg
ative Declaration
2 -
20 FirstCarbon Solutions
H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
protocols
for
nesting tricolored blackbirds
if found during nesting bird surveys
, and therefore do not
affect the impact analyses and the environmental determination of the IS/MND.
Comment CDFW
-
3 Issue:
The proposed pre
-
construction surveys are insufficient to
ensure impacts to California
freshwater shrimp are avoided, as surveys may not detect this elusive species.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
MM BIO
-
15 :
California Freshwater Shrimp Avoidance
.
No Project activities shall occur when
standing or flowing water
is present in the stream within 500 feet of the project area, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. No streambanks outside of the Project footprint shall be impacted or disturbed. No sediment from the Project area shall be allowed to enter the stre am
channel. Flowing water and standing pools of water shall be completely avoided. Silt fencing and any other necessary erosion controls shall be installed between the work area and the stream channel to ensure sediment is prevented from entering the strea
m, unless otherwise approved in writing by
CDFW. The silt fence shall be checked daily by the Qualified Biologist, including during periods of inactivity, and any necessary repairs shall be made immediately.
If sediment or any other materials from the Proj
ect area enter the stream channel, Project activities
shall immediately stop and the Qualified Biologist shall immediately notify CDFW. If take of California freshwater shrimp cannot be avoided, the Project shall the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuan t
to CESA and obtain an ITP .
Response to CDFW
-
3 California freshwater shrimp was evaluated in the biological resources report and the
Draft
IS/MND
,
and was found to have a moderate potential to occur in Browns Valley Creek within the project site.
It is
ac
knowledge
d
that this species may not be detected during a single preconstruction survey, even if it is present. However, the
proposed
project is not expected to impact this species because
no work is proposed in Browns Valley Creek or below the top of the creek banks, and a silt fence
w
ould
be installed between the creek and the work area during construction.
MM
BIO
-
1 through
MM
BIO
-
9 in the
Draft
IS/MND would also avoid impacts to aquatic species, including California freshwater shrimp. In addition,
B
est
M
anagement
P
ractices
(BMPs)
would be
incorporated into the
proposed
project to prevent sediment or other pollutants from entering the creek (now p art of
MM
BIO
-
14, see
R
esponse to
CDFW
-
7 below), and a
S
torm
W
ater
P
ollution
P
revention
P
lan
(SWPPP)
would be prepared and implemented during construction, consistent with regulatory requirements.
However,
in response to comments,
MM
BIO
-
1 is revised
to
in
clude
measures to ensure sediment is
prevent
ed from entering the stream. The text changes to MM BIO -
1 are reflected in Section 3,
Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
The restriction on work within 500 feet of standing or flowing water in Browns Valley Creek was
not
included in this revised measure. This was based on communication with CDFW
personnel
during
the
November 1, 2022
on
-
site meeting, in which
it was
understood that standing or flowing water is
likely always present in Browns Valley Creek
,
and agreed that the first sentence of the proposed
mitigation measure could be deleted provided that potential impacts to California freshwater shrimp ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
21 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
are avoided. “Or designated construction crew member” was added because a full -
time
Biological
Moni
tor is
not required for the
proposed
project for work outside of the riparian zone, and a trained crew member could check and maintain the silt fence without assistance from a qualified Biologist
.
California freshwater shrimp was evaluated in the biological reso urces report and the
Draft
IS/MND
,
and significant impacts were already avoided
by requiring MM
BIO
-
1 through
MM BIO
-
9 and
the
BMPs incorporated into the
proposed
project for creek protection.
The revisions to MM BIO
-
1 merely ampl
if
y and clarify the avoida
nce protocols for
California freshwater shrimp
if found during
pre
-
construction survey
, and therefore do not affect the impact analyses and the environmental determination of the
Draft
IS/MND.
Comment CDFW
-
4 Issue:
The MND does not consider impacts to foothill yellow
-
legged frog (Rana boylii,
northwest/north coast clade). The Project site is within the range and suitable habitat for foothill yellow
-
legged frog and there is a CNDDB documented occurrence in Redwood Cre ek, approximately
3.2 miles from the Project site.
Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: Foothill yellow -
legged frogs have been
extirpated from about two
-
thirds of their historical range since 1970 (U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 2016) an
d is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC).
The main risk factors for the foothill yellow
-
legged frog are water development and diversion,
climate change, habitat loss (including urbanization and fragmentation), and introduced species (USFS 2016).
Project location can negatively affect foothill yellow
-
legged frog based on proximity to
suitable habitats. Many post
-
metamorphic foothill yellow
-
legged frogs move among a variety of
stream habitats throughout the year, including perennial mainstem reaches
to highly ephemeral
headwater streams (Bourque 2008). This species is also documented in uplands near streams (< 300 m; Twitty et al. 1967, Cook et al. 2012). Projects involving the alteration of the bed and/or banks of any stream or adjacent upland habit
ats could have potentially significant impacts on the species or its habitat. Therefore, if foothill yellow
-
legged frogs are present on or adjacent to the Project site, the Project would have potentially significant impacts on the species.
Recommended Miti
gation Measure:
For an adequate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to foothill yellow
-
legged frog to less
-
than
-
significant, CDFW recommends including an impact
analysis for foothill yellow
-
legged frog and including the following mitigation measure :
MM BIO
-
16 :
Foothill Yellow
-
Legged Frog Surveys
.
Prior to starting Project activities, a Qualified
Biologist shall conduct surveys for foothill yellow
-
legged frog using a CDFW
-
approved methodology.
If foothill yellow
-
legged frogs, their eggs, or any other
special
-
status species are found, CDFW shall
be notified immediately
,
and construction shall not occur without written approval from CDFW allowing the Project activities to proceed. If foothill yellow -
legged frog egg masses are observed in a
stream that i
s scheduled for dewatering, dewatering shall not occur until an egg mass relocation plan is approved in writing by CDFW and implemented. In the event adult foothill yellow -
legged
frogs are observed, a temporary wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed, if requested by CDFW, to
prevent frogs and/or other special
-
status species from entering the work site. The results of the ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Responses to Written Comments
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neg
ative Declaration
2 -
22 FirstCarbon Solutions
H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
survey shall be submitted to CDFW for written acceptance prior to starting Project activities. If the Project has collected data that
the stream has been completely dry for greater than 30 days prior to starting Proj
ect activities, and no water or moist areas within the streambed exist within 500 feet upstream and downstream of the Project, then the Project may request CDFW written appr oval that
surveys for foothill yellow
-
legged frogs are not necessary.
Response to CDFW
-
4 It is
acknowledge
d
that the project site is within the range of foothill yellow -
legged frog. The CNDDB
documented occurrence of foothill yellow
-
legged frog in Redwood
Creek is from 1972 and is listed as
“possibly extirpated.” As part of a USFWS protocol site assessment for California red -
legged frog, a
day
-
and night
-
time amphibian survey
was conducted
on the site, and no amphibians were detected.
Habitat suitability in Browns Valley Creek within the project site is low due to urbanization and low flow conditions. Therefore, foothill yellow
-
legged frogs are unlikely to occur in the project area. Even if
the species
did occur in the creek, the steep and tall banks between the project site and the creek bed likely provide a barrier for frog movement between the creek and the site.
However,
in response to comments
, MM
BIO
-
1 has been revised
to include foothi
ll yellow
-
legged
frogs in the pre
-
construction survey, notify CDFW if foothill yellow
-
legged frogs or other aquatic
special
-
status species are found, and install a wildlife exclusion fence if requested by the
CDFW.
The
text changes to MM BIO
-
1 are reflecte
d in Section 3, Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
Potential project effects on foothill yellow
-
legged frog are not new avoidable significant effects since the proposed project was previously found to have a less than significant impact on these species (as dis
closed in the Draft IS/MND).
The revisions to MM BIO
-
1 merely
amplify and clarify
the avoidance
protocols for
foothill yellow
-
legged frog
if found during
pre
-
construction
survey, and therefore do
not affect the impact analyses and the environmental determi nation of the IS/MND.
Comment CDFW
-
5 Issue: MM BIO
-
4 does not provide specific guidance regarding how lighting will be minimized.
Artificial lighting may adversely impact special
-
status species.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
To reduce impacts from artificial lighting to less
-
than
-
significant, CDFW recommends replacing MM BIO
-
4 with the following language:
MM BIO
-
4 :
Noise and Lighting Restrictions
:
Construction noise shall be limited to daylight hours. All temporary Project li
ghting associated with construction staging areas, access routes and construction sites in natural lands must not spill into natural areas. Temporary Project lighting on the surface of the road will be directed towards the road surface and will not be dire cted into natural
areas outside of the road surface to prevent additional light pollution and disruption of nocturnal wildlife activity. Baffles and shielding devices will be required on all temporary lighting systems within the Project limits. All tempora
ry lighting shall be limited to 2,700 kelvins. A photometer shall be used in and around the construction site to ensure light is not being exposed to natural areas.
Response to CDFW
-
5 The applicant
confirmed that project construction
would
be limited to da
ylight hours and
would
not
include temporary lighting.
MM BIO
-
4 has been revised t
o
clarify
that construction shall be limited to
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
23 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
daylight hours to
further reduce
nighttime noise impacts to wildlife.
This revision does not
affect
the
impact analyses and th
e environmental determination of the
Draft
IS/MND.
The text changes to MM
BIO
-
4 are reflected in Section 3, Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
Comment CDFW
-
6 Issue:
MM BIO
-
7 specifies that a qualified biologist may be on
-
site for daily monitoring if an
aquatic
state or federally listed species is present within or near the Project site, depending on the species. It is unclear whether the Project is required to consult with CDFW and/or USFWS in the event a listed species is encountered. MM BIO
-
7 also does
not account for species designated as SSC.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
Revise MM BIO
-
7 to specify that a qualified biologist shall be
on
-
site daily when work occurring within stream or riparian habitat, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Ad
ditionally, if any special
-
status species are detected, the Project shall consult
with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding appropriate steps before proceeding with construction.
Response to CDFW
-
6 As recommended by
the
CDFW, MM BIO
-
7 has been
modified to specify c
onsultation with
the
CDFW
and/or USFWS if a listed species is found on the site
.
This revision does not affect the impact
analyses and the environmental determination of the
Draft
IS/MND. The text changes to MM BIO
-
7 are reflected in Section 3, Errata, of
this Final IS/MND.
MM BIO
-
9 is more relevant to biological monitoring for work in riparian habitat than MM BIO -
7. As
such, MM BIO
-
9 has been modified
to specify that a
Biological Mo
nitor be present for all work in
riparian habitat
, per CDFW’s recommendatio
n.
This revision does not affect the impact analyses and
the environmental determination of the
Draft
IS/MND. The text changes to MM BIO
-
7 are reflected
in Section 3, Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
Comment CDFW
-
7 Issue: The MND mentions the need to
obtain an LSA Agreement from CDFW; however, this is not included as a mitigation measure. Additionally, on page 65, the MND includes a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs). This includes a BMP specifying that work within the riparian zone would occur b
etween April 15 to October 31; however, CDFW generally considers the dry season to be June 15 to October 15 in Napa County.
Additionally, while the MND states no riparian vegetation will be removed, it is unclear whether the area where structures will be r
emoved within the riparian zone will be restored with native plantings. If demolition areas are left barren of vegetation, this could result in erosion and sedimentation within Browns Valley Creek.
Furthermore, the MND states that the BMPs listed on page 6 5 are included to help avoid and
minimize potential impacts to critical habitat and essential fish habitat to less than significant levels, yet these BMPs are not included as mitigation measures.
Recommended Mitigation Measure:
To reduce impacts to riparia
n habitat to less
-
than
-
significant,
CDFW recommends including a mitigation measure requiring the Project to submit an LSA Notification to CDFW and comply with the LSA Agreement if issued by CDFW. The LSA Agreement ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Responses to Written Comments
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neg
ative Declaration
2 -
24 FirstCarbon Solutions
H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
would likely include measures restricting
work within the riparian zone from June 15 to October 15, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW, and require any areas within the riparian zone left barren of vegetation be restored and planted with native trees, shrubs and grasses. Additionally, pe
rmanent impacts, such as from installation of the storm drain outfall structure should be restored at a 3:1 ratio for acreage and linear feet impacted and temporary impacts should be restored on -
site,
unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.
CDFW also
recommends that all BMPs that are intended to reduce impacts to riparian and stream habitat to less
-
than
-
significant be clearly listed as mitigation measures.
Response to CDFW
-
7 An LSA Notification is in preparation and will be submitted to the
CDFW. It w
as not included as a
mitigation measure in the
Draft
IS/MND because it is a regulatory requirement, and regulatory requirements are not normally considered as mitigation since they are required by law
and were
considered as part of the regulatory setting f
or the
proposed
project
. However,
the
CDFW
indicated
that there have been issues in the past with project applicants not submitting required LSA Notifications to
the
CDFW. As such
notification of lake or streambed alteration
requirements have
been added
as
MM BIO
-
13 to specify that an LSA Notification
shall
be submitted to CDFW
.
The
applicant
shall
comply with the work period restrictions and revegetation requirements as
specified by
the
CDFW through a Streambed Alteration Agreement or Operation of Law. D uring the
on
-
site meeting,
CDFW
agreed that demolition of the structures in the riparian zone and revegetation of the disturbed areas would be sufficient to offset the rock energy dissipator; the removal of structures exceeds a 3:1 ratio for impact offsets .
CDFW has also requested that the BMPs
related to preparation of
the
SWPPP
be
incorporated in the
proposed
project
and
be listed as mitigation measures. As such,
MM BIO
-
14 clarifies that
t
he BMPs
required by the SWPPP would be
incorporated in
to
the
proposed
project
(Page 65 of the Draft
IS/MND)
and required as part of the
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (
MMRP
)
.
The
new MM BIO
-
14 is shown in Section 3, Errata, of this Final IS/MND.
As discussed in the Draft
IS/MND,
a
SWPPP is required by C
lean Water Act Section 402 and t
herefore incorporation of the new
MM BIO
-
14 amplifies the requirements of applicable regulations and would no
t affect the impact
analyses and the environmental determination of the
Draft
IS/MND.
Comment CDFW
-
8 On page 65 of
the MND it states, “No trees or other vegetation will be removed in the riparian zone unless it poses a safety hazard as determined by an arborist (for trees).” CDFW recommends revising this sentence for clarity. It is unclear if hazardous vegetation, besi des trees, could be removed.
Response to CDFW
-
8 As recommended by CDFW, the sentence has been revise
d to state: “No tree
shall
be removed in the
riparian zone unless it poses a
safety
hazard as determined by an arborist. The proposed location of the rock energy dissipator generally lacks understory vegetation, therefore removal of riparian vegetation would be minimal.
” This
text change is reflected
in Section 3, Errata, of this Final I
S/MND.
This revision merely
provides
clarification and does not affect the impact analyses and the environmental determination of the
Draft
IS/MND.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
25 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
In conclusion,
the
recommended edits to the
Draft
IS/MND
address requests for clarification and
do
not represent
any new significant impacts or
a “substantial revision” to the
Draft
IS/MND that would
trigger recirculation of the document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines S
ection
15073.5.
Revisions
enhance existing mit
igation and make no changes to the project description or the discussion of environmental setting.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c) specifies that recirculation is not required when:
(1)
Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measu res pursuant to
Section 15074.1.
(2)
New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
N
o new avoidable significant effects were identified in CDFW’s letter or are addressed by recommended new or revised mitigation measures. Potential project effects on Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, and foothill yellow
-
legged frog are not new avoidab
le significant effects since
the
proposed
project was previously found to have a less than significant impact on these species (during preparation of the biological resources report
and Draft IS/MND
). California freshwater
shrimp was evaluated in the biolo
gical resources report and the
Draft
IS/MND
,
and significant
impacts were already avoided by
MM BIO
-
1 through
MM BIO
-
9 and
the
BMPs incorporated into the
proposed
project for creek protection. Existing
MM
BIO
-
1 and
MM
BIO
-
10 have been updated
with
addition
al requirements that provide
equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 in order to
respond to
CDFW
’s comments
.
MM
BIO
-
13 reflects
a regulatory requirement to avoid a
significant impact but was added as a mitigation measure in response to
a request from
the
CDFW.
MM
BIO
-
14 also
incorporates
a regulatory requirement (SWPPP is required by Clean Water Act Section 402)
that
was previously included in the
Draft
IS/MND as BMPs incorporated in
to
the
proposed
project. All other recommended edits are minor changes to existing mitigation measures in response to recommendations by
the
CDFW or are wording changes for clarification.
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
You don't often get email from
[email protected]
.
Learn why this is important
From:
Michael Morris <
[email protected]
>
Sent:
Monday, October 3, 2022 11:38 AM
To:
Angela Alvarez-Cendejas <
[email protected]
>
Subject:
Re: PL21-0179 _ Browns Valley Subdivision
[EXTERNAL]
Angela a Few Questions;
Has CA Fish & Game had a site review. If so did they review my notes? The wild life assessment is not correct. Has my wild life notes with pictures been reviewed? Supervisor Painter was given copies of my notes hopefully she can provide the wild life photos and notes.
The project’s topo maps misleading. Has any Napa Planning staff made a site visit? On projects I have designed with unstable blanks like PL21-0179 I have found it most important to use sub-surface drainage to reduce weight of water durning high rain events.
This project doesn’t to address blank conditions-trying to avoid a 1603 permit? When the Robinson Ln Bridge was replaced in 1998 RWQCB stopped the project until Napa City secured their permit. This project a few hundred feet upstream, has RWQCB reviewed the project?
I question the outfall design of the storm water discharge pipe dissipater. It appears to allow concentrated flows over unprotected creek bank. The discharge flow needs to be better broken up.
MORRIS-1
1 2
3 4
5 6
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
29 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
Individuals
Michael Mor
ris
(
MORRIS
-
1 )
Comments below are reprinted verbatim from the comment letter.
Comment MORRIS
-
1 -
1 Has CA Fish & Game had a site review. If so did they review my notes?
Response to
MORRIS
-
1 -
1 Public comments are addressed in the
Final IS/MND and included in
the City’s
Planning Com
mission
and
City Coun
cil
staff report
s
.
The proposed
project
is expected to require a
S
ection
1602 Agreement
from the CDFW.
CDFW has reviewed the Draft IS/MND and
coordination with the CDFW would be
required pursuant to the
Section
1602 Agreement.
This comment does not identify any new environmental issues related to Biological Resources.
Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment MORRIS
-
1 -
2 The wild life
assessment is not correct. Has my wild life notes with pictures been reviewed?
Supervisor Painter was given copies of my notes hopefully she can provide the wild
life photos
and
notes.
Response to
MORRIS
-
1 -
2 Aquatic and avian wildlife movement is
discussed in the project Biological Resources Report
(Appendix B of the Draft IS/MND).
It was stated that
Browns Valley Creek could provide a movement
corridor for aquatic and avian wildlife and is
connected to Napa Creek and the Napa River
downstream. Roa
ds and culverts could be partial
movement barriers along Browns Valley Creek, but
there are no apparent complete barriers to
movement through t
he creek.
Low water flows,
particularly during the dry season and/or during
drought conditions, may also present
a movement
barrier to aquatic wildlife in Browns Valley Creek.
Th
e creek likel
y provides a corridor for aquatic and avian wildlife movement ;
however, there is no
evidence that the project site supports a major wildlife corridor. This is not surprising due to
surrounding suburban development that includes barriers (roads, fences ,
and other structures) to
wildlife movement.
There are no known wildlife nursery sites on or near the parcel. Browns Valley Creek is generally too
shallow to provide f
ish spawning habitat, and more suitable spawning habitat is available elsewhere
in the Napa River watershed. There are no known nesting bird colonies such as heron rookeries or
blackbird colonies in the project area, and no known bat maternity roosts or ma mmal denning sites
in the area.
This comment does not identify any new environmental issues related to Biological Resources.
Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment MORRIS
-
1 -
3 The project’s topo maps misleading. Has any Napa Planning staff mad e a site visit?
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Responses to Written Comments
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neg
ative Declaration
2 -
30 FirstCarbon Solutions
H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
Response to
MORRIS
-
1 -
3 The proposed project’s topography maps are created using available topography geospatial
information and
survey reports.
This comment does not identify any new environmental issues related to Biological Resources. The
refore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment MORRIS
-
1 -
4 On projects I have designed with unstable blanks like PL21 -
0179 I have found it most
important to
use sub
-
surface drainage to reduce weight of water durning
[sic]
high rain events.
This project
d
oesn’t
[want]
to address blank conditions
-
trying to avoid a 1603 permit?
Response to
MORRIS
-
1 -
4 Stormwater drainage is analyzed
as part of the
proposed
project.
As discussed in the project
Biological Resources Report, t
he
stormwater drainage
outfall is proposed to be located outside of
the top of bank in the northeast corner of the
project
site
.
The stormwater control plan directs site
stormwater first to two bioretention
areas
that
could
overflow to a detention pipe. Stor
mwater is
then directed to a rock energy
dissipator and coir log configuration that is
6 feet wide and
15 feet
long for a permanent
impact area of 90 square feet. An 18
-
inch storm pipe
would
direct stormwater
from the detention pipe
onto the dissipator. Fr
om there water
would
sheet flow toward the creek.
Because the rock energy
dissipator and a portion of the pipe
are
within the riparian zone it is
expected to require a
S
ection
1602 Agreement from the CDFW.
This comment does not identify any new environment
al issues related to Biological Resources.
Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment MORRIS
-
1 -
5 When the Robinson Ln Bridge was replaced in 1998 RWQCB stopped the project until Napa
City
secured their permit. This project
[is]
a few hundred feet upstream, has RWQCB reviewed
the
project?
Response to MORRIS
-
1 -
5 T
he rock energy
dissipator and a portion of the pipe
do not
extend below the top of bank or the
ordinary high water mark
;
there
fore,
it is not expected to require
authorization from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
.
This comment does not identify any new environmental
issues. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment MORRIS
-
1 -
6 I question the outfall des
ign of the storm
water discharge pipe dissipater. It appears to allow
concentrated flows over unprotected creek bank. The discharge flow needs to be better
broken up.
Response to MORRIS
-
1 -
6 S
ee Response to MORRIS1
-
4. In addition,
as stated in the project Preliminary Detention Calculation (Appendix F of the Draft IS/MND)
,
the proposed project’s storm drain system is designed such that the proposed post
-
development flow discharge would not exceed pre
-
developed levels in
accordance wi
th
the City of Napa Drainage Design Standard Section 2.10.02 .
This comment does not
identify any new environmental issues. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
ATTACHMENT 4
MORRIS
-2
1 2
3 ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutio
ns
2 -
33 H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared D ocuments/Publications/Client (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
Michael Morris
(
MORRIS
-
2 )
Comments below are reprinted verbatim from the comment letter.
Comment MORRIS
-
2 -
1 Development over the last 50 years has significantly increased runoff upstream of the project. This has resulted in increase
[
d
]
channel velocities and a dec
[
r
]
ease
in "Time of Travel
.
" The result on this
reach of Browns Valley Creek has been channel down cutting and bank destabilization.
The cultural practices of the previous owner has accreted bank destabilization by removing native vegetation from channel slopes as
well as from top of bank areas to the south. As shown in the attached picture the banks are now unstable have been under cut or having a vertical slope. During the storm season of 2017 80ft of the pictured bank along with 7 mature redwood and oak trees sl id
into the pictured main channel. High velocity flows were then directed towards my bank. The result was repaid erosion along the toe of my property. Only with quick work by me and the former owner was the problem corrected. This type of bank failure can cause damage to my property costing into
the l00's of thousands of dollars.
Response to
MORRIS
-
2 -
1 The commenter offers anecdotal
information on the
increased runoff upstream of the proposed
project
and the resulting
erosion and bank
destabilization
of Browns Valley
C
reek
adjacent to the
commenter’s property.
This comment does not identify any new environmental issues. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment MORRIS
-
2 -
2 This project does nothing to correct the degraded bank s. The project actually has the potential to
accelerate the problem by allowing for an increase in surface and subsurface water created by the addition of
impervious surfaces.
When I have designed repairs to unstable banks I have placed subsurface drainage
systems to reduce
ground water adjacent to the problem area. I have required a much wider vegetative setback zone.
The activities in these zones are greatly limited. Human activities in the reach of
the creek can cause
major damage and must be considered
in the design of the project.
Response to
MORRIS
-
2 -
2 Slope stability was analyzed in the project preliminary Geotechnical Exploration (Appendix D of the
Draft IS/MND)
.
According to the report, the creek
bank revealed slop
e
inclinations ranging from
1H:1V (
horizontal to vertical) to near vertical. Localized areas were partially undercut. Signs of past sloughing and erosions were apparent. Therefore, a minimum structure setback defined by a 2H:1V line extending up from the toe of the existing creek bank is recommended. This recommendation
has been incorporated into the design of the proposed project.
This comment does not identify any
new environmental issues. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.
Comment MORRIS
-
2 -
3 If this project was taking place in
the County of Napa a much wider setback would be required.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Responses to Written Comments
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Neg
ative Declaration
2 -
34 FirstCarbon Solutions
H
ttps://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec02
-
00 Responses to Written Comments.docx
Response to
MORRIS
-
2 -
3 The project set back is appropriate
ly
sized based on geotechnical investigation and
recommendations
. In addition, the creek structural setback is incorporated consistent wit h the City
of Napa
Municipal
Code, including Chapter
17.52, Section 110 Creeks and Other Setbacks.
No new
buildings would be built within the creek structural setback, riparian zone, or below the top of bank.
This comment does not identify any new environm
ental issues. Therefore, no further analysis is
warranted.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions
3-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Cl ient (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
SECTION 3:
ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft IS/MND
)
for the
proposed
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
(proposed project)
.
These revisions are minor modifications and
clarifications to the document, and do not change the
significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft IS/MND .
The revisions are
listed by page number
.
All additions to the text are underlined (
underlined
) and all deletions from
the text are stricken (
stricken
).
3.1 -
Changes
to the Draft IS/MND
Section
1.4.6 :
Utilities
Page
5 The proposed project
would
could
include an all
-
electric design and
would include
Tier 2 electric
vehicle (EV) charging. Utility connections would include tie -
ins to existing water and sewer facilities
in Browns Valley Road and construction of on
-
site bioretention basins and a new storm drain outfall
at Browns Valley Creek (Exhibit 11). There is an existing 0.75 -
inch water service to the property that
would be required to be abandoned as part of the proposed project. The parcel is required to annex into the City of Napa for the proposed project to be served by the City of Napa Water Div ision. The
proposed project fronts a 24
-
inch transmission main, a 6
-
inch distribution main with an 8
-
inch tie
-
in
to the transmission main. If existing well(s) are to be abandoned, they would be required to be abandoned per the Napa County Environmental Health requirements. The site is currently served by septic tank and the proposed project would be annexed to Napa Sanitation District (NapaSan). For solid waste/recycling, the current site would be served by Napa County Recycling and Waste Services (NCRWS),
and by Napa Recycling and Waste Services (NRWS).
Section
1.5 :
Required Discretionary Approvals
-6
As mentioned previously, the City of Napa has discretionary authority over the proposed project and is the CEQA Lead Agency for the preparation of this Draft IS/MND. In order to implement the proposed project, the project applicant would need to secure the following permits/approvals:
•
Annexation to City and Napa Sanitation District (City, NapaSan, and Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCo] approval)
•
Tentative Subdivision Map
–Vesting
•
Design Review Permit
–
Subdivision and Homes
•
Use Permit
–
Small Lot Development
•
Design Exception Request for the proposed attached sidewalk and cross slope of the new street
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Errata
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-2
FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
•
California Department of Fish and Wildlife review or
permitting approval of the proposed
stormwater detention system within the edge of the project’s riparian vegetation
•
Regional Water Quality Control Board review or permitting approval of the proposed stormwater detention system within the edge of the project’s riparian vegetation
Section
2.4 :
Biological Resources
The proposed project would comply with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (see BRR, Section 3.1.3 in Chapter 3 Regulatory Setting), including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs for
erosion control and water quality protection during and following construction.
T
hese BMPs are
listed as MM BIO
-
14. The BMPs included in the proposed project that would protect biological resources are listed at the end of this section and would be required by the City as Conditions of Approval.
Implementation of MM BIO
-
1 through MM BIO
-9,
and
MM BIO
-
14 BMPs defined below
to protect
California red
-
legged frog and other aquatic species would prevent significant impacts to aquatic special-
status species during project construction.
The proposed project includes stormwater bioretention and detention, and a rock dissipator for
stormwater flows
, which
would prevent significant impacts to water quality in Browns Valley Creek
ove
r the long term.
The
SWPPP BMPs as listed in MM BIO
-
14 would also provide erosion control and
water quality protection. BMPs incorporated into the proposed project to protect biological resources are listed in the BRR, Table 1 and Chapter 2.
and 65
Impacts
on Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat
As described in BRR Section 6.3 of Chapter 6 Special
-
Status Species and Sensitive Habitats, Browns
Valley Creek is designated as critical habitat for steelhead Central California Coast DPS for rearing
and migration habitat. Browns Valley Creek and the project site are also within the Essential Fish
Habitat
(EFH) for Chinook salmon and coho salmon. Potential short -
term and long
-
term impacts to
critical habitat and EFH are the same as for aquatic special -
status species; see BRR Section 7.1 above
for a detailed discussion of potential impacts, and compliance with applicable regulations to help avoid and minimize potential impacts. MMs BIO
-
1 through
MM
BIO
-9
,
MM BIO
-
13 (
Notification of
Lake or Streambed Alt
eration), and
MM BIO
-
14 (SWPPP BMPs)
and
BMPs defined below
would
further reduce potential impacts to critical habitat and EFH to less than significant levels.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions
3-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Cl ient (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
Best Management Practices
•
Construction or demolition in the riparian zone will be restricted to the dry season from April 15 to October 31, or as o
therwise specified in the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW.
•
Construction and demolition will not occur in the riparian zone during or within 24 hours following rain events of 0.25
-
inch of rain or more, or when the 72
-
hour National Weather
Service forecast is for 40 percent chance of rain or greater, or as otherwise specified in the SWPPP and the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
•
No trees or other vegetation will be removed in
the riparian zone unless it poses a safety
hazard as determined by an arborist (for trees).
•
Travel and parking of vehicles and equipment will be limited to pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas.
•
Temporarily impacted areas will be restore
d to preexisting contours and revegetated.
•
All potential pollutants, including solid wastes, petroleum products, chemicals, wastewater, sediment, and non
-
stormwater discharges will be controlled and will not be discharged to Browns Valley Creek or other wa
terways.
•
Cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles/equipment on property will be avoided except in designated areas in which runoff is contained and treated.
•
Soils and other materials will be removed from the site promptly and stockpiling material will be
avoided when rain is forecast. If rain threatens, stockpiles, soils, and other materials will be covered with a tarp or other material to minimize erosion.
•
A hazardous spill plan will be developed prior to the start of construction. The plan will describe
what actions will be taken in the event of a spill. The plan will incorporate preventive measures to be implemented, such as vehicle and equipment staging, cleaning, maintenance, and refueling; and contaminant (including fuel) management and storage. In t he event of a
contaminant spill, work at the site will immediately cease until the contractor has contained and mitigated the spill. The contractor will immediately prevent further contamination and notify appropriate authorities. Adequate spill containmen t materials, such as oil diapers and
hydrocarbon cleanup kits will always be available on
-
site. Containers for storage,
transportation, and disposal of contaminated absorbent materials will be provided on the project site.
•
All materials and equipment will
be removed from the work site immediately after completion of construction.
7 A creek structural setback is incorporated in the
proposed
project consistent with the Napa
Municipal Code, including Section 17.52. 110 Creeks and other watercourses; the
setback is shown in
Exhibit 10. This setback protects the riparian zone. The proposed project would also comply with ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Errata
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-4
FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
Napa Municipal Code Chapter 12.45 Trees on Private Property, which protects larger sized native trees (see BRR Section 7.1.2 above and Sec
tion 3.3.1 of Chapter 3 Regulatory Setting for more
information). By complying with the creek structural setback requirement, the proposed project would protect sensitive riparian habitat.
The proposed location of the rock energy dissipator
generally lacks
understory vegetation, therefore removal of riparian vegetation would be minimal.
The proposed project includes a bioretention area and stormwater detention outside of the creek structural setback and the edge of the riparian zone. The stormwater detention empties onto a 15
-
foot by 6
-
foot (90 square feet) rock energy dissipater that is within the edge of riparian vegetation, but is set back from the top of bank by about 55 feet (see Chapter 2 Project Location and Description). The rock energy dissi
pator falls within the jurisdiction of the CDFW
, and may be within
the jurisdiction of the RWQCB
.
The proposed project would be required to comply with Section 402 of the CWA (see BRR Section
3.1.3 in Chapter 3 Regulatory Setting), including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of BMPs for erosion control and water quality protection during and following construction, and incorporation of Low Impact Development (LID) design features such as green roofs, pervious surfaces, tree planters, grassy swales, and bioretention and/or detention basins, among other methods. Recommended BMPs for the SWPPP to p
rotect biological resources
are incorporated as
MM BIO
-
14. are listed in BRR Section 2.1 of Chapter 2 Project Description.
MM BIO
-1
Aquatic Species
Pre
-
construction Survey and Avoidance
.
No more than twenty
-
four
(24) hours prior to the date of initial ground disturbance, a qualified biologist shall perform a pre
-
construction survey for the California freshwater shrimp, steelhead, foothill yellow
-
legged frog,
California red
-
legged frog, and western pond turtle. The
survey shall consist of
walking the project boundary and within the project site to ascertain the possible presence of the species. The qualified biologist shall investigate all potential areas that could be used by aquatic special -
status species for
feeding, breeding, sheltering
, movement, and other essential behaviors. Results of
the survey shall be documented. Comply with MM BIO
-
8 if species are detected.
If any of the special
-
status species listed above, or their eggs, are found, the qualified biologist shall request guidance
from
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (
CDFW
)
on avoiding impacts. No work shall occur in the creek channel of Browns Valley Creek or below the tops of the creek banks without written authorization from
the
CDFW. In the event adult foothill yellow
-
legged frogs or
California red
-
legged frogs are observed, a temporary wildlife exclusion fence shall be installed, if requested by
the
CDFW, to prevent frogs and/or other special
-
status
species from entering the work site.
No streambanks outside of the project footprint shall be impacted or disturbed. No sediment from the project area shall be allowed to enter the stream channel.
Flowing water and standing pools of water shall be completely avoided. Silt fencing ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions
3-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Cl ient (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
and any other necessary erosion controls sha
ll be installed between the work area
and the stream channel to ensure sediment is prevented from entering the stream, unless otherwise approved in writing by
the
CDFW. The silt fence shall be checked
daily by the qualified biologist or a designated constr uction crew member, including
during periods of inactivity, and any necessary repairs shall be made immediately.
If sediment or any other materials from the project area enter the stream channel, project construction shall immediately stop and the qualifie d biologist shall
immediately notify
the
CD FW.
If take of
California Endangered Species Act
(
CESA
)
Listed species
cannot be avoided,
the project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an Incidental Take
Permit (
ITP
).
MM BIO
-4
Noise and Lighting Restrictions
.
Construction
noise
shall be limited to daylight hours
to prevent nighttime
construction noise impacts to wildlife
,
and construction lighting
shall be minimized and directed away from the riparian corridor and no construction site flood lighting shall be utilized
.
MM BIO
-7
Construction Monitoring
Listed Species
.
If a
n
aquatic special
-
status
species listed
under the federal or
S
tate
endangered species act(s) is confirmed to be present in or near the parcel, a qualified biologist shall
be on
-
site during all construction activities,
depending on the species. The
qualified biologist shall
be given the authority to
freely communicate verbally, by telephone, electronic mail, or in writing at any time with construction personnel, any other person(s) at the project site, otherwise associated with the project,
consult w
ith
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlif
e (
CDFW
)
and/or
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (
USFWS)
and/or
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)
,
or their designated agents
depending on the species. The
qualified biologist shall have oversight over implementation of all the conservation measures
recommended by
the
CDFW and/or the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries
and shall have the authority and responsibility to
stop project activities if they
determine any of the associated requirements are not being fulfilled.
MM BIO
-9
Biological Monitor during
Demolition
Work
in the Riparian Zone
.
A biological
monitor shall be present during the removal of structures
all work
within the
riparian zone. (Figure 6).
The monitor shall ensure that silt fencing, snow fencing, or equivalent is installed to prevent debris from entering the creek during demolition
activities
work in the riparian zone
. If debris falls into the creek, demolition shall
stop and additional methods shall be employed to prevent debris from falling into the creek. The biological monitor shall have the authorization to stop demoliti
on
activities
work in the riparian zone
.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Errata
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-6
FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
MM BIO
-
10 Pre
-
construction Survey for Nesting Birds
.
To avoid impacts to nesting birds and
violation of State and federal laws pertaining to birds, all vegetation removal, use of heavy equipment, and ground disturbance should occur outside the avian nesting season (that is, prior to February 1 or after September 15). At a minimum, removal of trees and other woody vegetation outside of the nesting bird season is strongly recommended. If tree removal or ground disturbance occurs within the avian nesting season (from February 1 to September 15), all suitable habitats located within the project’s area of disturbance including maintenance areas, staging and storage areas, and access routes plus a 250
-
foot (p
asserines) and 1,000
-
foot (raptor
nests) buffer around these areas shall be thoroughly surveyed, as feasible, for the presence of active nests by a qualified biologist no more than five days before commencement of any site disturbance activities and equipm ent mobilization. If
project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are obse rved carrying food to the
nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented.
If pre
-
construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no vegetation removal or maintenance activities shall take place within 250 feet of non -
raptor
nests and 1,000 feet of raptor nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW, as appropriate, until the chicks have fledged.
Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance with relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.
If construction is scheduled to begin after March 1 (the start of the March 1 –
August
31 nesting season for Swainson’s hawk),
Swainson’s hawk surveys shall be conducted
by a qualified biologist pu
rsuant to the Recommended
Timing and Methodology
for
Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk (2000) survey protocol, within 0.25 mile of the project site. Pursuant to the above survey protocol, surveys shall be comple
ted for at least the two survey periods
immediately prior to a project’s initiation. It is recommended that surveys be completed in Period
II (March 20 to April 5),
Period
III (April 5 to April 20), and
Period
V (June 10 to July 30); surveys are not recom
mended in Period IV (April 21
–
June
10).
If no nests are detected, construction can start. If a nest is detected, the qualified biologist shall request guidance from
the
CDFW on avoiding impacts to the
nest. This may include a 0.25 mile no disturbance buffer zone around the nest, and restriction of
p
roject
activities between March 1 and August 31. If take (i.e., physical harm) of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the project applicant
shall consult
with the
CDFW pursuant to
the California
Endangered Species Act (
CESA
)
and obtain
an
Incidental Take Permit (
ITP
).
If nesting tricolored blackbird or evidence of its presence is found during nesting bird surveys within 500 feet of the project site, the qualified biologist shall request ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions
3-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Cl ient (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
guidance f
rom
the
CDFW on avoiding impacts. Construction shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest unless otherwise approved in writing by the
CDFW. If take
of tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, the project shall consult with the
CDFW
pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP .
MM
BIO
-
13 Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration
.
The applicant shall submit a
Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (
CDFW
)
for the portions of the project in the riparian zone, including the rock energy dissipator and the building demolition in the riparian zone. Work in the riparian zone shall not start until a signed Streambed Alteration Agreement is issued by
the
CDFW, CDF
W indicates that a Streambed Alteration
Agreement is not required, or the project is approved by the
CDFW under
Operation of Law.
MM
BIO
-
14 Best Management Practices for Water Quality Protection .
Prior to the recordation
of a final map or issuance of any grading or building permits, a
S
torm
W
ater
Pollution Prevention P
lan
(SWPPP)
shall
be prepared and implemented for the
project consistent with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following
B
est
M
anagement
P
ractices
(BMPs) to protect
water quality and avoid impacts to bio
logical resources:
•
Construction or demolition in the riparian zone
shall
be restricted to the dry
season from April 15 to October 31, or as otherwise specified in the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and W
ildlife (
CDFW
).
•
Construction and demolition
shall
not occur in the riparian zone during or within
24 hours following rain events of 0.25
-
inch of rain or more, or when the 72
-
hour
National Weather Service forecast is for 40 percent chance of rain or greater, or as otherwise specified in the SWPPP and the Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement with
the
CDFW
.
•
No trees
shall
be removed in the riparian zone unless it poses a safety hazard as determined by an arborist.
•
Travel and parking of vehicles and equipment
shall
be limited to pavement,
existing roads, and previously disturbed areas.
•
Temporarily impacted areas
shall
be restored to preexisting contours and
revegetated.
•
All potential pollutants, including s
olid wastes, petroleum products, chemicals,
wastewater, sediment, and non
-
stormwater discharges
shall
be controlled and
shall
not be discharged to Browns Valley Creek or other waterways.
•
Cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles/equipment on pro perty
shall
be avoided
except in designated areas in which runoff is contained and treated.
•
Soils and other materials
shall
be removed from the site promptly and stockpiling
material
shall
be avoided when rain is forecast. If rain threatens,
stockpiles, soils,
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Errata
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-8
FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
and other materials
shall
be covered with a tarp or other material to minimize
erosion.
-
A hazardous spill plan
shall
be developed prior to the start of construction.
-
The plan
shall
describe what actions
shall
be taken in the event of a spill.
-
The plan
shall
incorporate preventive measures to be implemented, such as vehicle and equipment staging, cleaning, maintenance, and refueling; and contaminant (including fuel) management and storage.
•
In the event of a contaminant spill, work at the site
shall
immediately cease until
the contractor has contained and mitigated the spill.
-
The contractor
shall
immediately prevent further contamination and notify
appropriate authorities.
•
Adequate spill containment materials, such as oil diapers and hydrocarbo n
cleanup kits
shall
always be available on
-site.
•
Containers for storage, transportation, and disposal of contaminated absorbent materials
shall
be provided on the project site.
All materials and equipment
shall
be removed from the work
site immediately after completion of constr
uction.
Section 2.
6 : Energy
The proposed project would include several sustainable design features , including utilization of an all
electric building design; therefore, the proposed project is assumed to not consume natural gas
during operations.
As previously discussed, the proposed project would be considered to result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Considering the guidance provided by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines and the Appellate Court decision in
League to Save Lake Tahoe Mountain etc. v. County of Placer
(2022)
75 Cal.App.5th 63, 164
-
168, the proposed project would
not
be considered to
result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources if it would not
conflict with the
following energy conservation goals:
•
Decreasing overall per
capita energy consumption;
•
Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, or oil; and
•
Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.
8 Decreasing Reliance on Fossil Fuels
The proposed project would be considered to conflict with this criterion if it did not take steps to decrease the reliance on fossil fuels. The proposed project would include EV charging infrastructure meeting the Tier 2 requirements of the Residential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen. The inclusion of these features would contribute to an acceleration of EV adoption and facilitate an increase in EV and clean air and high occupancy vehicle use by residents, employees, and visitors of the proposed project, though they cannot guarantee a reduction in energy usage. Moreover, the proposed project would
be built according to the latest building code standards and could
include an all
-
electric
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions
3-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Cl ient (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
building design, decreasing the proposed project’s reliance on natural gas for space and water heating. Therefore, the proposed proj
ect would be consistent with this criterion.
Increasing Reliance on Renewable Energy Sources
As previously discussed,
the proposed project would utilize an all electric building de sign, eliminating
the use of natural gas and allowing
the proposed project
to
would
utilize renewable energy sources
as its
primary
energy supply. In addition, the proposed project would include EV charging infrastructure meeting the Tier 2 requirements of the Residential and Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen, which would accelerate the region's and proposed project’s adop tion of EVs
and allow the future transportation energy supply necessary for residents, employees, and visitors to be substituted with renewable energy sources. The proposed project would also include solar photovoltaic systems capable of generating approxi
mately 30,000 kWh of electricity per year. As
such, the proposed project would facilitate a greater dependence on renewable energy sources for building and transportation energy demands compared to the status quo. Therefore, the proposed project would be c
onsistent with this criterion.
Section 2.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
-
99 a-b)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact.
CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project
would have a significant impact on GHG emissions, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated. To determine significance, the proposed project is assessed for consistency with
applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
The analysis first quantifies project
-
related GHG emissions for the purposes of providing full disclosure.
Less than significant impact.
Both construction and operational activities have the potential to generate GHG emissions. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions during temporary (short
-
term) construction activities such as demolition and grading, running of construction equipment engines, movement of on
-
site heavy
-
duty constr
uction vehicles, hauling materials to and
from the project site, asphalt paving, and construction worker, vendor, and haul truck motor vehicle trips.
Long
-
term, operational GHG emissions most often result from project -
generated vehicular traffic,
on
-site
combustion of natural gas, operation of any landscaping equipment, off -
site generation of
electrical power over the life of the proposed project, the energy required to convey water to and wastewater from the project site, and the emissions associated with
the hauling, and disposal of
solid waste from the project site
.
In April 2022, the BAAQMD adopted updated GHG thresholds of significance that represent what is required of new land use development projects to achieve California’s long -
term climate goals o
f
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Errata
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-
10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
carbon neutrality by 2045. The BAAQMD has found that new land use development projects being built today need to incorporate the following design element thresholds shown in Table 10 to do their “fair share” of implementing the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045
:
Table 10: BAAQMD Climate Change Thresholds for Land Use Projects
Project Must Include A or B, as Outlined Below:
Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
Buildings
The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section
15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Transportation
Achieve a reduction in project
-generated
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percen t) or
meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
•
Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita
•
Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee
•
Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
•
Achieve compliance with off
-
street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier
2. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans. April 2022.
The proposed project would satisfy the Threshold A design elements. Regarding building design, the proposed project would not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plum bing. Further, as
determined under Energy Impact(a), the proposed project would not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage during construction or operations.
Regarding transportation, the vehicle trip analysis prepared by Kimley -
Horn determines that the
proposed project would be assumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact, pursuant to OPR screening thresholds. This means that the proposed project would not interfere with regional or
locally adopted VMT reduction targets and is presumed to achieve at least a 15 percent reduction in per capita VMT from the regional average. Further, the proposed project would be built in accordance with CALGreen Tier 2 off
-
street EV requirements, meaning that each dwelling unit would include a raceway with a dedicated 208/240
-
volt branch circuit for EV chargers.
Given these considerations, the proposed project would be consistent with the building design and transportation
elements of the BAAQMD’s Threshold A. As such, the proposed project would contribute its portion of what the BAAQMD deems necessary to achieve California’s long -
term
ATTACHMENT 4
City of
Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions
3-
11 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Cl ient (PN
-
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
climate goals, and the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to global climate change. This impact would be less than significant.
For informational purposes, the following section provides quantitative estimates of the proposed project’s GHG emissions from construction and operations.
Table 12: Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source
Year 2024 Total Emissions (MT CO
2 e per year)
Area
<1
Energy
22 Mobile (Vehicles)
91 Waste
7 Water
1 Total Annual Project Emissions
122
As previously discussed, the proposed project would contribute its portion of what the BAAQMD
deems necessary to achieve California’s long
-
term climate goals, and the proposed project would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact to global climate change. This impact would be less than significant.
b)
Conflict wi
th any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant impact.
The following discusses project consistency with applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emis
sions, which include ARB’s Scoping Plan, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments (MTC/ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2050, and City of Napa’s General Plan.
Section 2.18: Utilities and Service Systems
Electric Power
,
Natural Gas,
and Telecommunications Facilities
There are telecommunications companies who operate and maintain transmission and distribution infrastructure in the project vicinity and currently serve the existing uses on the project site.
The
proposed proj
ect would be all
-
electric, and no natural gas would serve the project site.
Impacts
associated with the proposed project’s electricity demand are discussed in Section 2.6, Energy.
The site is currently served by telecommunications
and natural gas
i
nfrastr
ucture, and the proposed
project would connect to the existing infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the installation or development of new or improved telecommunications facilities such that environmental impacts would occur. I
mpacts would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
City of Napa
—
Browns Valley
Subdivision
Project
Errata
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-
12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -
JN)/3552/35520021/Final ISMND/35520021 Sec03
-
00 Errata.docx
Section 2.28: Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Short
-
and long
-
term impacts to special
-
status
species, nesting birds, roosting bats, sensitive habitats, j urisdictional features, and wildlife
movement would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of MMs BIO -
1 through BIO
-
11 14
, and/or compliance with applicable regulations and agency requirements. In addition, a creek structural setb
ack is incorporated in the proposed project consistent with the City of Napa Municipal Code, including Section 17.52.110 Creeks and other watercourses; the setback is shown in Exhibit 10. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any other lo cal policies
or regulations protecting biological resources.
Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated . The proposed project would result in
potentially significant project
-
level impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and geology and soils. MM AIR
-
1, MM AIR
-
2, MM BIO
-
1 through
11 MM BIO
-14
, MM CUL
-
1, MM CUL
-
2, MM CUL
-
3, and MM GEO
-
1 would be implemented as part of the proposed project.
The mitigation measures
would
, among other things, reduce air pollutants, damage to cultural resources, and risks to wildlife. The mitigation measures would
reduce eac
h impact to a level of less
than significant.
Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
T
he previous sections of this Draft IS/MND
reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,
and geology, among other environmental issue areas. As concluded in these previous discussions, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of MM AIR
-
1, MM AIR
-
2, MM BIO
-
1 through
11 BIO
-
14 , MM CUL
-
1, MM CUL
-
2, MM
CUL
-
3, and MM
GEO
-
1. Therefore, with implementation of the specified mitigation and standard BMPs and conditions of approval, the proposed project would cause less than significant adverse effects on human beings
.
Implement MM AIR
-
1, MM AIR
-
2, MM
BIO
-
1 through MM BIO
-
11 14
, MM CUL
-
1, MM CUL
-
2, MM
CUL
-
3, and MM GEO
-
1. ATTACHMENT 4