Napa City Council
November 7, 2023

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Final Draft
Prepared for: Napa Valley Unified School District
November 2018 | Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT 8

ATTACHMENT 8

ORANGE COUNTY • NORTHERN CALIFORNIA • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE • SAN DIEGO www.placeworks.com
Prepared By:
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
In Association With:

W-Trans
Environmental Collaborative

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Final Draft
Prepared for: Napa Valley Unified School District
November 2018 | Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ATTACHMENT 8

ATTACHMENT 8

November 2018 | Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM
Napa Valley Unified School District
Final Draft
Prepared for:

Napa Valley Unified School District
Contact: Jennifer Gibb
2425 Jefferson Street
Napa, California 94558
707.253.6281
P
repared by:

PlaceWorks
1625 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, California 94709
510.848.3815
www.placeworks.com
ATTACHMENT 8

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
November 2018 Page i
Section Page

1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 LEAD AGENCY ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 EXISTING SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 4

1.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................................ 18

1.6 REQUIRED PERMIT AND PROJECT APPROVALS ............................................................ 19

2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST .................................................................................... 21

2.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 21

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .......................................... 23

2.3 DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................................... 23

2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................... 24

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 33

3.1 AESTHETICS .................................................................................................................................... 33

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES .................................................................. 35

3.3 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................... 36

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 47

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. 57

3.6 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................. 60

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................ 62

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................. 65

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 70

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................................. 75

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ..................................................................................................... 82

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 83

3.13 NOISE .................................................................................................................................................. 84

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ................................................................................................. 91

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES .......................................................................................................................... 92 ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks

3.16 RECREATION .................................................................................................................................. 94

3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .................................................................................................. 94

3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 97

3.19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................. 100

4. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 101 LEAD AGENCY ............................................................................................................................................ 101 PLACEWORKS .............................................................................................................................................. 101

APPENDICES
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Background and Modeling Data Appendix B Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C Geological and Environmental Hazards Assessment ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Table of Contents
November 2018 Page iii
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional and Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2 Project Site ............................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 Existing View from Trower Avenue .................................................................................................. 5 Figure 4 Zoning .................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 5 Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 6 Proposed Pig Barn .............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 7 Proposed Food Services and Hospitality Classroom Building .................................................... 13 Figure 8 Proposed Agri-Sciences Classroom Building ................................................................................. 14 Figure 9 Proposed Agriculture Mechanical Shop .......................................................................................... 15 Figure 10 Special Status Species ......................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 11 Potential Wetlands and Biological Features .................................................................................... 54

List of Tables
Table Page
Table 1 Barn Building Summary ....................................................................................................................... 9 Table 2 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates ............................................. 40 Table 3 Net Increase in Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions ......................................................................... 42 Table 4 Construction Risk Summary – Unmitigated .................................................................................. 44 Table 5 Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated ........................................................................................ 45 Table 6 Net Increase in Project GHG Emissions ....................................................................................... 67 Table 7 Project GHG Emissions – Operational Phase .............................................................................. 68 Table 8 Vintage Farm Water Demand ........................................................................................................... 78 Table 9 Project-Related Construction Noise ................................................................................................ 87 Table 10 Vibration Source Levels for Common Construction Equipment............................................... 90 ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Common Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page iv PlaceWorks
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM asbestos-containing materials
ADT average daily traffic
AF acre-feet
amsl above mean sea level
AQMP air quality management plan
AST aboveground storage tank
BAAMQD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAU business as usual
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAFE corporate average fuel economy
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEMA California Emergency Management Agency
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDE California Department of Education
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Common Abbreviations and Acronyms
November 2018 Page v
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act cfs cubic feet per second
CGS California Geologic Survey
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CSO combined sewer overflows
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A- weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR environmental impact report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gases
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Ldn day-night noise level
Leq equivalent continuous noise level
LBP lead-based paint
LCFS low-carbon fuel standard
LOS level of service
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Common Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page vi PlaceWorks
mgd million gallons per day
MMT million metric tons
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MT metric ton
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
OES California Office of Emergency Services
PM particulate matter
ppm parts per million
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC recognized environmental condition
RMP risk management plan
RMS root mean square
RPS renewable portfolio standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SFBAAQMD San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SLM sound level meter
SOX sulfur oxides
SQMP stormwater quality management plan
SUSMP standard urban stormwater mitigation plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TNM transportation noise model
tpd tons per day
TRI toxic release inventory
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Common Abbreviations and Acronyms
November 2018 Page vii
TTCP traditional tribal cultural places
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP urban water management plan
V/C volume-to-capacity ratio
VdB velocity decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WQMP water quality management plan
WSA water supply assessment

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Common Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page viii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank

ATTACHMENT 8

November 2018 Page 1

1. Project Description
Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD or District) is proposing to develop a 10.29 acre working farm and culinary and agri -science facility (the project or proposed project) for existing Vintage High School. The project would replace the school’s existing working farm and would be located at portions of 1077 El Centro Avenue, 1015 El Centro Avenue, and 2331 Big Ranch Road in Napa County, California 94558 (project site).

The project would provide technical education in animal science, viticulture, agriculture mechanics, and culinary arts. The project would be part of current school programming, and would be limited to existing students and staff. The project site would be divided into three main activity areas, inlcuding grazing pastures, a vineyard and educational and farm buildings.

Access to the project site, which is immediately northeast of the Vintage High School campus at 1375 Trower Avenue, would be provided by a gravel driveway extending from the eastern terminus of Trower Avenue.

The proposed working farm would operate seven days a week for 365 days a year. Classroom/instructional time would be limited to existing Vintage High School hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA was enacted in 1970 by the California Legislature to disclose to decision makers and the public, potential signifi cant environmental effects of proposed activities and ways to avoid or reduce potential environmental effects by implementing feasible alternatives and mitigation measures. CEQA applies to government agencies at all levels in California. This includes local agencies, regional agencies, State agencies, boards, commissions, and special districts.

1.1 LEAD AGENCY
In accordance with Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Napa Valley Unified School District is the Lead Agency for the proposed project, since it will serve as “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project.”

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project would be located just under 1 mile east of State Route 29 in Napa County, California (see Figure 1). A small portion of the western edge of the site that is located in the City of Napa. The project site is located at portions of 1077 El Centro Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 038- 110-035), 1015 El Centro Avenue (APN 038 -110-005), and 2331 Big Ranch R oad (APN 038 -240-019). As shown in Figure 2, the site is located immediately northeast of Vintage High School, which is located at 1375 Trower Avenue.

The site lies beyond the eastern terminus of Trower Avenue (see Figure 2). It is within the area defined by El Centro Avenue to the north, Big Ranch Road further to the east, and Rosewood Lane to the south.

ATTACHMENT 8

Figure 1
Regional and Vicinity Map
Source:ESRI, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2017.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) FOR THE VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM Trancas Street
Dale
Drive
Plass Drive
Villa Lane
Wisteria Way
Garfield Lane
Adrian StreetYajome Street
Sheridan Drive
Claremon t Way
Valencia Street
Harkness Street
PiedmontAvenue
Lathro p Street
Stadium Avenue
EdgewaterDrive
Central Avenue
Yellowstone Street
Windsor Street
JeffersonStreet
Idlewild Avenue
Wise Drive
Baxter Avenue
El Capitan Way
Rubicon Street
Tallac Street
Beard Road
La Homa Drive
W
illis
Drive
Pear Tree Lane
Salvador Avenue
Beckworth Drive
Redwood Rd
Sierra Avenue
Trower Avenue
Pueblo Avenue
SoscolAvenue
City of Napa Rail Trail
MeadowlarkDr ive
M
ain
Street
Stonehouse
Drive
California
Boulevard
Heather Lane
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet

PLACEWORKS
¬«101
¬«580
¬«680
¬«80
¬«1
¬«12
¬«29
¬«116
¬«280
¬«880
Vacaville
Suisun
CityPetaluma
BeniciaNovato
El Cerrito
San
Francisco
Danville
Alameda
San
Lorenzo
Union City
Newark
Cotati
Sonoma
Yountville
American Canyon
Tiburon
Sausalito
Colma
Half Moon
Bay Atherton
Emeryville
El Sobrante
Project
Site
Napa
|ÿ29
Big Ranch Road
Project Site
Silverado Trail
Figure 1
Regional and Vicinity Map
Source:ESRI, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2017.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) FOR THE VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM Trancas Street
Dale
Drive
Plass Drive
Villa Lane
Wisteria Way
Garfield Lane
Adrian StreetYajome Street
Sheridan Drive
Claremon t Way
Valencia Street
Harkness Street
PiedmontAvenue
Lathro p Street
Stadium Avenue
EdgewaterDrive
Central Avenue
Yellowstone Street
Windsor Street
JeffersonStreet
Idlewild Avenue
Wise Drive
Baxter Avenue
El Capitan Way
Rubicon Street
Tallac Street
Beard Road
La Homa Drive
W
illis
Drive
Pear Tree Lane
Salvador Avenue
Beckworth Drive
Redwood Rd
Sierra Avenue
Trower Avenue
Pueblo Avenue
SoscolAvenue
City of Napa Rail Trail
MeadowlarkDr ive
M
ain
Street
Stonehouse
Drive
California
Boulevard
Heather Lane
0 1,500 3,000750
Feet

PLACEWORKS
¬«101
¬«580
¬«680
¬«80
¬«1
¬«12
¬«29
¬«116
¬«280
¬«880
Vacaville
Suisun
CityPetaluma
BeniciaNovato
El Cerrito
San
Francisco
Danville
Alameda
San
Lorenzo
Union City
Newark
Cotati
Sonoma
Yountville
American Canyon
Tiburon
Sausalito
Colma
Half Moon
Bay Atherton
Emeryville
El Sobrante
Project
Site
Napa
|ÿ29
Big Ranch Road
Project Site
Silverado Trail

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

Figure 2
Project Site
Source:ESRI, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2017.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) FOR THE VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM Dillon Drive
Garfield Lane
Martin Street
El Centro Avenue
StoverStreet
Solomon
Avenue
Trower Avenue
Old Vine Way
0 300 600150
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Project
Site
Big Ranch Road
Project Site
Figure 2
Project Site
Source:ESRI, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2017.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) FOR THE VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM Dillon Drive
Garfield Lane
Martin Street
El Centro Avenue
StoverStreet
Solomon
Avenue
Trower Avenue
Old Vine Way
0 300 600150
Feet

PLACEWORKS
Project
Site
Big Ranch Road
Project Site

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description

1.3 EXISTING SETTING

1.3.1 Project Site
The 10.29-acre project site currently consists of vacant agricultural land defined by various grasses, as shown in Figure 2. The site partially supports grazing cattle. A current perspective of the site from the eastern end of Trower Avenue (Figure 3) illustrates the undeveloped character of the site.

1.3.2 Surrounding Conditions
As shown in Figure 2, the project site is in an area consisting of mostly rural residential development and agricultural land. Generally, a residential community of single-family homes and Vintage High School borders the project site to the west. Areas of lower density rural housing border the site to the north and east, followed by El Centro Avenue and Big Ranch Road, respectively. Undeveloped land similar to the project site borders the project site to the south, followed by single- family homes and the Napa Valley Club and Salvador Creek.

1.3.3 Land Use Designation and Zoning
As illustrated in Figure 4, the Napa County General Plan land use designation for the majority of the site is Residential County (RC). A small portion of the southern edge of the site is designated Residential County Urban Reserve Combination (RC-UR). The RC designation generally applies to government offices and related community service facilities, city -wide and community parkland, all levels of public schools, private schools with a significant enrollment and public health facilities. In the RC -UR combining district, uses or actions other than permitted uses require an application for annexation to be processed before proceeding.

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This section provides wri tten and graphic details of the proposed project components, site preparation activities, and circulation improvements. A proposed site plan is shown in Figure 5.

Napa Valley Unified School District is proposing to develop a working farm and technical education facility for Vintage High School to replace its existing facility. The project would be designed to provide technical education in animal science, viticulture, agriculture mechanics, and culinary arts. The project would be a part of current Vintage High School programming, and would be limited to existing Vintage High School students and staff. The project would not result in an increase in the school’s student body or faculty. The project would be divided into three main areas of use and activity. The largest area would be a grazing pasture that comprises the entire eastern portion of the site. The western side would be dominated by vineyards and a culinary garden. The third and smaller area in the central portion of the site would include the majority of the project’s built improvements and surrounding hardscape, including: two classroom/laboratory buildings, nine barns, a greenhouse and shade house, and various support structures.

ATTACHMENT 8

Figure 3
Existing View from Trower Avenue

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

Figure 3
Zoning
Source:ESRI, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2017.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) FOR THE VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM Dillon Drive
Martin Street
El Centro Avenue
Garfield Lane
StoverStreet
Solomon
Avenue
Trower Avenue
Old Vine Way
0 300 600150
Feet

PLACEWORKS
RC
Big Ranch Road
Project Site Residential County District
(RC)
Residential County Urban
Reserve Combination District
(RC-UR)
RC-UR
RC
RC
Figure 4
Zoning
Source:ESRI, 2018; PlaceWorks, 2017.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EIR) FOR THE VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM Dillon Drive
Martin Street
El Centro Avenue
Garfield Lane
StoverStreet
Solomon
Avenue
Trower Avenue
Old Vine Way
0 300 600150
Feet

PLACEWORKS
RC
Big Ranch Road
Project Site Residential County District
(RC)
Residential County Urban
Reserve Combination District
(RC-UR)
RC-UR
RC
RC

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

Source: ATI Architects + Engineers, 2018.
0 Scale (Feet)
60 Figure 5
Proposed Site Plan

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description

1.4.1 Site Boundary Preparation
As stated in Section 1.2, above, the proposed project site includes portions of three different parcels. This is the result of a land exchange between the District and the owner s of an adjacent 8.26-acre parcel to the north. As a result of that exchange, 6.49 acres of the District’s newly-acquired property now constitutes the eastern portion of the project site . In addition, the District purchased a 1.06 -acre portion of a second adjacent parcel and a 2.74-acre portion of a third parcel. These three land areas now constitute the 10.29-acre project site.

In order to prep are the site for construction and permitting, a Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) between the School District and the property owner with whom land was exchanged was approved by Napa County in October 2018 . In addition, the District is se eking annexation of the project site to the Napa Sanitation District (NSD) in order to connect to the existing NSD sanitary sewer system that runs through the project site.

See Section 1.6, Required Permit and Project Approvals, for further explanation.

1.4.2 Project Components

1.4.2.1 NON-BUILT COMPONENTS
Grazing Pasture
The project would include a six -acre grazing pasture that would comprise the eastern portion of the site (see Figure 5). The flood -irrigated pasture would include four separate grazing fields divided by six-foot high, no- climb fencing. Infrastructure for future solar panel shade structures would also be installed in the fields.

Vineyard and Gardens
A 1.5-acre vineyard and 0.25-acre culinary garden, separated by an easement, would be located on the western end of the project site. The vineyard would be irrigat ed with water from an above ground water storage tank supplied by up to two on-site wells located in the central area of the site (see Section 1.4.4.2 Water Supply) .

Distribution would be facilitated via a system of 3 -inch PVC pipes. The vineyard would be planted for agricultural education rather than production, and as such would be planted at a lower density tha n a typical vineyard, with fewer vines and more widely- spaced rows. Like the grazing pasture, the vineyard would be enclosed by no-climb fencing.

1.4.2.2 STRUCTURES
The proposed project would include a series of classrooms, laboratories, growing -houses and barns. The majority of these built components and surrounding hardscapes would be located in the central portion of the site, although the proposed classroom buildings would be located further to the southwest (see Figure 5).

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description
November 2018 Page 9
Barn Buildings
The proposed project would include nine barns totaling 21,500 square feet: A lamb and kidding barn, a sheep barn, a goat barn, a pig barn, a cattle barn, a chicken barn, a hay/feed barn, and a pole barn; as well as two open structures for show animals and storage of farm equipment. The farm buildings would be primarily steel-framed structures with gabled metal roofs, 4-foot high split-faced concrete block walls with corrugated metal panels above. All of the barn buildings would reach 14 feet, 3 inches tall from ground level to roof ridge. A conceptual drawing of the pig barn is provided in Figure 6 as an example.

Water service, trench drains, hose bibs, power, lighting, ventilation and/or temperature controls would be provided where needed. Hand sinks and boot wash areas would be located adjacent to ex terior doors in each building.

A summary of the use and size of all proposed barns is provided in Table 1, below.

Table 1 Barn Building Summary
Barn Primary Use Size (SF)
Chicken Barn Animal housing & egg retrieval 2,500
Pole Barn Large equipment storage 2,000
Cattle Barn Animal housing 2,500
Pig Barn Animal housing, washing, exercising 2,500
Hay/Feed Barn Feed and supply storage 2,000
Show Barn Animal exercise, exhibiting, showing 2,500
Lamb and Kidding Barn Newly birthed animal housing 2,500 Goat Barn Animal housing 2,500
Sheep Barn Animal housing 2,500
Total 21,500
Source: Napa Unified School District.

Chicken Barn
The chicken barn would include three nest system areas, an egg processing area, pens for the chickens, and two hand and foot washing stations. Three water spigots, hot water heater, heating and ventilation would be provided.

ATTACHMENT 8

EAST
WEST
SOUTH
NORTH
Source: ATI Architects + Engineers, 2018.

Figure 6
Proposed Pig Barn

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description
November 2018 Page 11
Pole Barn
This building would be a steel canopy structure with an open sided perimeter and metal panel roof. It would be used to park large farm equipment, trucks and trailer as well as store large quantities of feed.

Cattle Barn
The cattle barn would house eight (8) interior pens using portable cattle panels. Flooring in the pens will be 6-inch-deep shavings or large bark. Flooring in the aisle will be textured concrete. Outdoor runs measuring 16 feet by 10 feet would be attached to each pen.

Pig Barn
This barn will include 20 pens separated by fixed walls. Textured concrete slab floor will be provided throughout except in the sand arena. Wet effluence will be treated with a septic system.

Hay/ Feed Barn
The feed barn would be located in the central portion of the project site. It would include four cattle pens, a medicine room, and wash racks. Two single accommodation restrooms are attached.

Show Barn
The centrally-located show barn would be open on all sides and used for exercising, showing, and exhibiting animals. It would have an asphalt drive looping around it. General lighting, electrical outlets, four water spigots, and ventilation via large circular fans would be provided.

Lambing and Kidding Barn
The enclosed lambing and kidding barn would house expectant and newly birthed animals and is set further away from other barns. Portable livestock pens will be provided with base rock flooring throughout. Heat lamps will be needed along with general lighting, electrical outlets, and water spigots.

Goat Barn
This barn would enclose 16 animal pens partitioned by portable livestock panels. Automatic water bowls would be provided in each pen. A fitting area located at one end of the barn would have two wall outlets, a wash rack with two water spigots, and two electrical outlets to provide 220 mw of power. Two cord reels would be spaced 24 feet from each of the roll up doors. Pen areas measuring 8 feet x 10 feet would be provided for goat runs outside stalls.

Sheep Barn
This barn would enclose 16 animal pens partitioned by portable livestock panels. Automatic water bowls would be provided in each pen. A fitting area located at one end of the barn would have two wall outlets, a wash rack with two water spigots, and two electrical outlets to provide 220 mw of power. Two cord reels would be spaced 24 feet from each of the roll up doors. Pen areas measuring 8 feet x 10 feet would be provided for goat runs outside stalls.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description

Classroom Buildings
Food Services and Hospitality
The approximately 3,000-square-foot, single-story food services and h ospitality classroom building would be located in the southwest corner of the site, immediately south of the vineyard. It would be a steel moment frame structure with stucco on light gauge metal framing, and a standing seam metal roof. The building would be divided into two sections, a flexible classroom area with teaching station, office and pantry; and a culinary laboratory with six cooking stations and prep sinks, laundry area, scullery and walk -in freezer. It would also include restrooms and a janitor/fire riser room. Conceptual drawings of the building are illustrated in Figure 7.

Agri-Sciences
The agri -sciences building would be located east of the food sciences building. The single -story building would be just over 2,670 square feet. The building would be a steel moment frame structure with stucco on light gauge metal framing, and a standing seam metal roof. It would include a flexible -use lecture and classroom space with adjoining laboratory area, as well as an administrative meeting room, staff restroom, fire riser room, and a mechanical/electrical room. Power and data would be provided along the built- in counters and walls pursuant to District standards for high school classrooms needs. Conceptual drawings of the building are illustrated in Figure 8.

Other Farm Structures
Agriculture Mechanics Shop
As shown in Figure 5 , this building would be located immediately east of the agri - sciences building. The shop building would be a single-story and about 1,350 square feet in size. Like the other non- barn structures, the shop building would be a steel frame structure with stucco on light gauge metal framing and a standing seam metal roof. It would be a workshop space for hands -on training of a variety of mechanical technologies related to the agricultural field, and would include a standard classroom with an adjacent lab and an area for tool storage. The building is illustrated in Figure 9.

Green and Shade House
The proposed project would include traditional green and shade houses for plant growing, both located adjacent the vineyard and culinary gardens.

1.4.3 Parking and Circulation

1.4.3.1 VEHICULAR
The project would include a 24 -foot-wide gravel access road beginning at the eastern terminus of Trower Avenue, running parallel to the southern boundary of the site up to a driveway into the parking lot. The road would be split by a landscaped island at its western connection to Trower Avenue. This would separate eastward movement from Trower Avenue onto the southern side of the road from westward movement onto Trower Avenue on the northern side. The road would provide vehicular access to a gated driveway into the site. This driveway would lead vehicles to an asphalt concrete loop providing access to a 27 -stall parking lot

ATTACHMENT 8

Source: ATI Architects + Engineers, 2018.

Figure 7
Proposed Food Services and Hospitality Classroom Building

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

Source: ATI Architects + Engineers, 2018.

Figure 8
Proposed Agri-sciences Classroom Building

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

Source: ATI Architects + Engineers, 2018.

Figure 9
Proposed Agricultural Mechanical Shop

1. Project Description

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description

on the southern side of the side of the site as well as five additional parking spaces north of the central barn structures for staff and loading/unloading. The loop would wrap around barn structures and return to a future driveway (see Figure 5).

The proposed driveway would also provide access for fire and emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, farm equipment and loading vehicles.

1.4.3.2 PEDESTRIAN
The existing sidewalk on the southern side of Trower would be extended to facilitate pedestrian access into the proposed farm from the existing high school. The proposed four -foot wide sidewalk would meet a raised 10-foot-wide asphalt crosswalk just east of the end of existing Trower Ave. A 4-foot sidewalk continuing east on the northern side of the crosswalk will be separated from the proposed gravel road by an earth swale, and would turn into the site just before the proposed driveway. The sidewalk would lead directly to a gated plaza which provides access to both classroom buildings and northward to the barn buildings (see Figure 5).

1.4.3.3 BICYCLE
The proposed farm would be include 24 bicycle parking spaces located in the southwest corner of the site, just south of the culinary sciences classroom and adjunct the utility and services structures.

1.4.4 Utilities and Infrastructure

1.4.4.1 STORMWATER
As noted under Section 1.2 above, the majority of the project site is located in unincorporated Napa County.

As such, there is no municipal storm drain system. Instead, the proposed project would include an underground storm drain system that would collect and temporarily detain overflow. The system would release stormwater in a controlled manner, allowing it to drain southeasterly via historic overland drainage patterns.

The proposed project would also include two bioretention planters at the southern edge of the hardscaped circulation areas in the center of the site and, as noted under Section 1.4.2.2, above, an earthen swale at the western end of the gravel driveway to promote natural runoff retention.

1.4.4.2 WATER SUPPLY
All water for the project, including for irrigation, domestic, livestock and fire suppression, would be provided by one or two on-site wells located in the northeast corner of the vineyard. Water for different uses would be stored in three above ground tanks, including a 30,000-gallon tank for fire suppression, a 10,000 gallon tank for irrigation water , and a smaller tank for domestic use . These would be located on concrete pads in the northern hardscaped area of the site, within the central cluster of buildings. Water would be delivered to the storage tanks by an 800-gallon pressurized tank and water pump of minimum 20 psi, both located adjacent to the well (s). A d omestic water treatment system would be located in the pump house . Water for irrigation would be distributed from the tank to the vineyard , culinary garden and pasture via a system of 3- inch PVC pipes and pressure treated headers . Domestic water would be distributed to classrooms and barns through a ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description
November 2018 Page 17
series of 8-inch or 3-inch pipes and headers. Each structure would have necessary spigots and water bowls. A new fire hydrant and fire water service will be installed to serve the food services and science buildings.

1.4.4.3 SANITARY SEWER
As stated in Section 1.4.1.1, the District has applied for annexation of the project site , most of which is located in unincorporated Napa County, to the Napa Sanitation District (NSD). This would allow the project to receive NSD wastewater collection and treatment services and utilize existing sanitary sewer infrastructure on the project site, including a 15-inch north-south running easement on the western side of the site and a 20-inch easement that extends westward from the southern end of the 15 -inch easement. Pending final approval by LAFCO of the application to amend the NSD SOI, the proposed farm will include a septic system constructed per the current Napa County On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) Standards.

1.4.4.4 GAS AND ELECTRICITY
Gas and electricity to the project site would be provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). The site would be served by smart meters.

1.4.4.5 SOLID WASTE
Trash and recycle dumpsters for non -animal re fuse and recycling would be located in an enclosed facility immediately east of the main parking lot for ease of access. Dry animal waste containers would be located closer to the barns for pickup by a specialty waste company. Trash, recycle, and composting off -haul would occur once a week, and hay delivery would occur two to three times per year . A compost area for organic materials would be located east of the vineyard, to the north of the green house. As noted previously, a septic tank and pump would be located adjacent to the pig barn to treat wet effluence from pigs. A separate compost area for chicken waste will be located near the raised planter/ornamental garden area.

1.4.5 Lighting
The proposed project would include LED- based lighting systems in all interior and exterior spaces. This would include indirect and direct luminaires for classrooms, flat -panel low-glare luminaires for workshops, labs, and the culinary building and vapor-tight luminaires for the barns. Interior lighting would have motion sensors to turn off lights when spaces are unoccupied, and daylight -responsive lighting controls to automatically reduce electric lighting when there is adequate daylight . L ow-level wall -mounted exterior lighting would be located near door entrances and beneath metal roof eaves of classroom buildings. All wall- mounted and pedestal exterior luminaires would conform to backlight, uplight and glare ( BUG) ratings as outlined in IESNA TM -15-11, in order to reduce glare, light trespass, and skyglow .1 The proposed lighting plan will meet code requirements for egress pathway lighting.

1 Lippincott, Chris, O'Mahony & Myer Electrical Engineering & Lighting Design, email communication to Greg Goodfellow, November 3, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description

1.4.6 Farm Programming
The proposed farm would operate seven days a week, 365 days a year. Instructional time would be limited to existing Vintage High School hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The proposed program allows for 120 students in the Food Services and Hospitality program and 150 students in the Agricultural program. On school days, there would be a total of five class periods per program, with about 20 students per culinary arts class and about 25 students per agricultural science class. As such, about 45 students and 4 staff members would rotate on-site at any given time during normal school hours.

Approximately 15-20 students would be working on- site throughout off -hours (3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) each day during the fall season, and approximately 30 -50 students would be working on-site throughout the same off-hours during spring and summer. Livestock associated with the County Fair would be on-site from winter (January/February) through summer (September ) in preparation for the Future Farmers of America show.

On-site activity would increase at any time during livestock birthing events, as necessary Large, on-site operational equipment would be limited to one (1) tractor, one (1) trailer and one (1) pick -up truck.

1.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The project site is undeveloped, and as such would require no demolition activities . As described below, the propose farm would be constructed in two phases requiring moderate site preparation and grading.

1.5.1 PHASING
The proposed project would be constructed in two phases (or “Increments”) estimated to occur over a total 24-month period. Phase 1 construction is expected to begin in June, 2019 and be completed in June, 2020.

Phase 2 is anticipated to begin June 2021 and be completed in September 2022.

In Phase 1, the circulatory hardscapes and structures central to the technical farm program would be constructed. These include the food services sciences building, agri-sciences building and feed, chicken, sheep and lambing & kidding barns . The supporting infrastructure (sewer & septic systems and water systems would be constructed as part of Phase 1.

In Phase 2, the agriculture mechanics shop; pole, cattle, show, goat and pig barns; green and shade houses; and various support structures would be built.

1.5.2 GRADING AND HARDSCAPE
The Vintage Farm site is nearly level , with a minimal downward slope to the southeast. As a result it would require minimal earthwork and site preparation. Grading for buildings would be limited to provide for new 4- 6-inch engineered concrete pads for each building, water tank pads and the parking lot. It is estimated that 3,250 cubic yards (CY) of earth would be cut from the site and 2,160 CY of fill would be required, thereby resulting in net export of 1,090 CY of soil. The proposed project would include 47,000 SF of hardscape.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description
November 2018 Page 19
As a result of the use of engineered slab, minimal grading and steel-framed construction of the project structures, equipment used during construction preparation activities would be limited to rubber tired dozers, graders, and rollers. Construction associated with the project would not include pile driving, rock blasting, or rock crushing.

1.6 REQUIRED PERMIT AND PROJECT APPROVALS
Because the proposed project would be part of an existing school and proposes to extend existing sc hool district property, the California Division of State Architects (DSA) is responsible for plan review and construction oversight for structural safety of school facilities pursuant to the Field Act contained in the California Education Code Sections 172 80, et. seq. for K -12 schools. Upon completion of plan review and approval by the DSA, the DSA would be responsible for construction oversight, which may include scheduled site visits by field staff to report on the construction and performance of the project and to verify compliance with the California Building Code (CBC).2
As explained, the project site is n ot entirely within the NSD Sphere of Influence (SOI) . The NSD does not have the authority to process annexations or provide sanitary sewer service to areas outside the SOI.

Annexation of the project site to the NSD, as described in Section 1.4.1, will require approval of both an SOI amendment and annexation by the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). As part of that process, LAFCO would make CEQA findings associated amendment and annexation, and would serve as the responsible agency that relies on the lead agency’s project CEQA analysis . Additional permits and approvals include:
 Napa County Groundwater Permit based on completion and approval of the County’s Water Availability Analysis (WAA).
 Napa County Water Wells—Class I permits for proposed on-site wells.  Well Cons truction Application and permits from the Napa County Planning and Building and Environmental Services Department.
 Napa County Environmental Health permits for proposed septic improvements (if required pending NSD SOI amendment and site annexation).
 Napa County Environmental Health permits for installation of new water storage tanks.

2 Division of the State Architect, Department of General Services, Construction Projects: Submittal, Review, Oversight and Certification, http://www.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/Programs/progProject.aspx, accessed December 28, 2016.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1. Project Description

This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 8

November 2018 Page 21

2. Environmental Checklist

2.1 BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Vintage High School Farm

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

Napa Valley Unified School District
2425 Jefferson Street
Napa, California 94558

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

NVUSD – School Planning & Construction
(707) 253-6281

4. Project Location: Portion of 1077 El Centro Avenue, 1015 El Centro Avenue, and 2331 Big Ranch Road, Napa County, California 94558

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Napa Valley Unified School District
Jennifer Gibb
2425 Jefferson Street
Napa, California 94558
(707) 253-6281

6. General Plan Designation: The Napa County General Plan land use designation s are Residential County District (RC) and Residential County Urban Reserve Combination District (RC-UR).

7. Zoning: The Napa County General Plan land use designation for the site is Residential County District (RC) as well as Residential County Urban Reserve Combination District (RC-UR).

8. Description of Project : Napa Valley Unified School District (NVUSD or District) is proposing to develop a working farm and technical education facility for Vintage High School, via new construction.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting : The project site is located in a suburban area, primarily surrounded by single- and multi-family residential development with some agricultural land in the vicinity.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: California Division of State Architects (DSA) , Napa County, Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County, Napa Sanitation District.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist
November 2018 Page 23

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture / Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards / Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

2.3 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name For
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist

2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).

A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. I dentify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist
November 2018 Page 25
substantiated. A source list should be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist
November 2018 Page 27
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
VI. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
 Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: N/A i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
X
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist
November 2018 Page 29
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist
November 2018 Page 31
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
X
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2. Environmental Checklist

Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X

ATTACHMENT 8

November 2018 Page 33

3. Environmental Analysis
Section 2.3 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Napa has identified several roadways with important scenic quality because they provide views of the hills to the east and vineyards surrounding Napa . The city has designated State Route 29 (SR 29), State Route 121 (SR 121) and State Route 221 (SR 221) as scenic corridors.

Per General Plan policy, the city shall work to underground utilities and improve visual quality of these corridors through Napa. The project site is located just under 1 mile east of SR 29, and is buffered from the roadway by existing development. As such , the site is not visible from SR29 . In addition, si gnificant landforms considered significant to the surrounding visual setting such as the surrounding mountains, hills, and vineyards are hidden from view by development and trees near the project site.

The proposed project would be a working farm and technical education facility adjacent to Vintage High School. As shown in Figure 3, the largely flat undeveloped land on which the project would be built affords views eastward from Trower Avenue to local hillsides. While implementation of the proposed project would result in new buildings that would partially impede these views, they are not designated scenic vistas. Based on this aspect of the project design and the topography of the site and its surroundings, the proposed project would not negatively impact surrounding scenic vistas, nor obstru ct views from higher elevations. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on existing scenic vistas. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designates some roadways that provide scenic views as official State Scenic Highways. SR 29, located under a mile west of the project site, has been deemed eligible for designation as a State Scenic Highway , yet is “not officially designated .”3 Therefore, no impact would result in this respect and no mitigation is required.

3 California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/ 16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm, accessed July 25, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact . The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, partially supporting grazing cattle. Areas surrounding the site are primarily occupied by single - and multi -family residential development with some agricultural land in the vicinity. The visual character of the site and its surroundings can be characterized as rural -residential. Most structures in the area are one and two story and have setbacks characteristic of suburban neighborhoods. Properties to the north of the site include large areas of working agricultural land.

The proposed project would result in construction of new classroom and agricultural facilities on an undeveloped site. As such, the character of the site would be altered. However, given that over seven acres of the proposed project would consist of a grazing pasture, vineyard and gardens, with clustered low-lying agricultural support structures throughout other areas of the site , the proposed school farm would be an appropriate facility given the visual character of the surroundings. It would not significantly interrupt the quality of the aesthetic environment. The primary change to the visual character of the site associated with implementation of the project would be the development of two classroom/laboratory building, and these would be consistent with the educational aesthetic of neighboring Vintage High School. As such, the project would not degrade the visual character of the site nor its surroundings. Project impacts are considered less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact . T he project site does not currently contain outdoor lighting, and implementation of the project would introduce new sources of light in the area, including pathway lighting and security lighting fixtures around the new school buildings. However, the proposed project is a low - intensity farm that req uires minimal lighting. Exterior lighting would be limit ed to safety and comfort levels with cut-off fixtures and hoods that limit direct light to within the site. As noted in Section 1.4.5, c lassroom buildings would include low-level wall-mounted exterior lighting associated with door entrances as well as fixtures positioned beneath metal roof eaves.
4 Proposed lighting would not flash, would be arranged
downward and would be shielded where feasible to minimize upward light spill and trespass.5 As such, no direct beam would leave the project site. A ll building exteriors would be cement plaster with two non- reflective color tones,6 the result being that the project would not contribute to substantial glare . Although new sources of light would be introduced, these sources of light would be designed and sited in a way that would not create substantial sources of light or glare, and day or nighttime views in the area would not be substantially affected . Therefore, light and glare impacts would be less than significant , and no mitigation is required.

4 ATI Architects + Engineers, Vintage High School Farm Exterior Elevations, site plan, May 23, 2018. 5 Win, Anna. ATI Architects + Engineers. Personal communication with Greg Goodfellow, October 29, 2018. 6 ATI Architects + Engineers, Vintage High School Farm Exterior Elevations, site plan, May 23, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 35

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The propose d project is a working farm and agricultural educational facility that would be located on an undeveloped site designated Farmland of Local Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 78 Due to the character of the proposed project and FMMP designation, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The majority of the project site is zoned Residential County (RC) by Napa County. A small portion of the southern edge of the site is designated Residential County Urban Reserve Combination (RC - UR). The RC designation generally applies to government offices and related community service facilities, city-wide and community parkland, all levels of public schools, private schools with a significant enrollment and public health facilities. As such the proposed educational farm does not conflict with an existing agricultural zone. Additionally, the site is not under Williamson Act contract ( referenced as “Non -Enrolled Land”) per the State of California, Department of Conservation. 9 Therefore, no impact to farmland or
agricultural resources would result from project implementation. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. Forest land is defined as “land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits”.
10 Timberland is defined as “land…which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.”11 The project includes construction of a school farm on undeveloped land in an suburban setting, as shown in Figure 2. Surrounding land uses consist of a mix of residential, commercial/retail, and agricultural uses. The

7 State of California, Department of Conservation, Napa County Important Farmland 2016, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/ dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/nap16.pdf, accessed September 1, 2018. 8 State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Napa County, Important Farmland Data Availability, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Napa.aspx, accessed September 1, 2018. 9 State of California, Department of Conservation, Napa County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/ dlrp/wa/Napa_15_16_WA.pdf, accessed September 1, 2018.
10 California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g).
11 California Public Resources Code Section 4526.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Napa County General Plan land use designation for the site is Residential County District (RC) as well as Residential County Urban Reserve Combination District (RC -UR). Project development would not result in rezoning. Finally, the project site is identified as “Urban” on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program Land Cover map. 12 Therefore, development o f the proposed project would have no impact on forest land or timberland. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As described above, the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped grassland, parti ally supporting grazing cattle. In addition, the project site does not contain forest land and is identified as “Urban” on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program Land Cover map.13 Therefore, no impact would result in this respect. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
No Impact. As described above, is project site is mapped as Farmland of Local Importance by the FMMP.14,15 However, the project site does not contain forest resources, and would have no direct impact on these types of resources. In addition, the project would not result in an increase in enrollment at the school , and as such, would not result in substantial population growth which would have the potential to affect off - site farmland and forest resources. Therefore, no impact related to the conversion of farmland would occur.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
This section analyzes the types and quantities of air pollutant emissions that would be generated by construction and operation of the proposed project. An update to the background discussion on the air quality regulatory setting, meteorological conditions, existing ambient air quality in the vicinity of the project site, and air quality modeling is included in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Initial Study.

California is divided geographically into air basins for the purpose of managing the air resources of the State on a regional basis. An air basin generally has similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout.

The project site is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB or Air Basin), which comprises all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties; the southern portion of Sonoma County; and the southwestern portion of Solano County. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional air quality agency for the SFBAAB. Air quality in this area is

12 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover map, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/pdfs/fvegwhr13b_map.pdf, accessed July 25, 2018. 13 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, Land Cover map, http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide/fvegwhr13_map.pdf, accessed July 25, 2018. 14 State of California, Department of Conservation, Napa County Important Farmland 2016, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/ dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/nap16.pdf, accessed September 1, 2018. 15 State of California, Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Napa County, Important Farmland Data Availability, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Napa.aspx, accessed September 1, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 37
determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions.16 Federal, State, and local air districts have adopted laws and regulations intended to control and improve air quality. Air pollutants of concern are criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs).

Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Air Pollutants
The pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by federal and State law under the National and California Clean Air Act, respectively. Air pollutants are categorized as primary and/or secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are those that are emitted directly from sources.

Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG) (also referred to as volatile organic compounds [VOC]), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM 10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM 2.5), and lead (Pb) are primary air pollutants. Of these, all of them except for ROGs are “criteria air pollutants,” which means that ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established for them. The National and California AAQS are the levels of air quality considered to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

T oxic Air Contaminants
In addition to criteria air pollutants, both the State and federal government regulate the release of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The California Health and Safety Code define a TAC as “an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.” A substance that is listed as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112(b) of the federal Clean Air Act (42 United States Code Section 7412[b]) is a toxic air contaminant. Under State law, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), acting through the California Air Resources Board (CARB), is authorized to identify a substance as a TAC if it determines that the substance is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Where available, the significance criteria established by BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following determinations:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the SFBAAB to achieve National and California AAQS. In September of

16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Appendix C: Sample Air Quality Setting. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_ may2017-pdf, accessed August 24, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

2017 BAAQMD adopted its 2017 Clean Air Plan, which is a regional and multiagency effort to reduce air pollution in the Air Basin. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the clean air plan. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals in the Bay Area.

Regional growth projections are used by BAAQMD to forecast future emission l evels in the Air Basin. For the Bay Area, these regional growth projections are provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and transportation projections are provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect the regional growth projections. The proposed project would expand the Vintage High School campus to accommodate its working farm and culinary and agri -science facilities expansion. Improvements and expansion to the existing working farm would include new grazing pastures, a vineyard, educational and farm buildings, and hardscape. Because the proposed project would not directly result in any new population growth or employment growth, the proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and warrant intergovernmental review by ABAG and MTC. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which is the basis of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan projections.

Furthermore, the net increase in regional long -term emissions generated by the proposed project would be less than the BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds

17. These thresholds are established to identify projects that have the potential to generate a substantial amount of criteria air pollutants. Because the proposed project would not exceed these thresholds, the proposed project would not be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Bay Area Clean Air Plan and impacts would be less than significant. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air q uality violation?
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant precursors, including ROG, NO x, PM10, and PM 2.5.

Development projects below the significance thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The following describes changes in regional impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project.

17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017, May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf, accessed August 24, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 39
Construction-Related Impacts
Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources, such as on- site heavy -duty construction vehicles, vehicles hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Construction activities associated with the improvements and expansion would disturb

9.48 acres on the 10.29- acre project site. Site preparation activities produce fugitive dust emissions (PM 10 and PM2.5) from demolition and soil -disturbing activities, such as grading and excavation. Air pollutant emissions from construction activities on site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Construction activities associated with the project would result in emissions of ROG, NO x, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5. The
proposed project would result in the hauling of exported soil that would occur proximate to existing sensitive land uses. Thus, the BAAQMD screening criteria for construction- related impacts are not applicable and a quantified analysis of the proposed project’s construction e missions was conducted using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2 based on information available.

Construction Exhaust Emissions
Construction on the site would include the building of nine barns ; two classroom buildings; as well as two other structures such as an agriculture mechanics shop and a green and shade house for plant growing.

Construction emissions are based on the construction schedule and equipment list verified by the Napa Valley Unified School District for improvements and expansion to Vintage High School. Where construction details were unavailable, Ca lEEMod defaults were used. Construction is estimated to occur during a two- phase construction schedule over a total 24 -month period. Phase 1 is expected to begin in June 2019 and finish in June 2020. Phase 2 is projected to begin in June 2021 and be completed in April 2022. To determine potential construction-related air quality impacts, the average daily criteria air pollutants emissions generated by the proposed project-related construction activities are compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds in Table 2. Average daily emissions are based on the annual construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days.

As shown in Table 2, criteria air pollutant emissions from construction equipment exhaust would not exceed the BAAQMD average daily thresholds and impacts from project- related construction activities to the regional air quality would be less than significant.

Fugitive Dust
Ground disturbing activities during construction would generate fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions (PM 10 and PM 2.5) are considered to be significant unless the proposed project implements the BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control during construction. PM 10 is typically the most significant source of air pollution from the dust generated from construction. The amount of dust generated during construction would be highly variable and is dependent on the amount of material being disturbed, the type of material, moisture content, and meteorological conditions. If uncontrolled, PM10 and PM2.5 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed State standards. Consequently, impacts related to fugitive dust would be less than significant with the incorporation of BMPs as mitigation measures.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 2 Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Estimates Year
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)a
VOC NOx
Fugitive
PM10
b
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
b
Exhaust
PM2.5
b
2018 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 <1
2019 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
2020 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
2021 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Total <1 3 1 <1 <1 <1

Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)a
Average Daily Emissionsc 2 14 <1 1 <1 1
BAAQMD Average Daily Project-Level
Threshold 54 54 BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceeds Average Daily Threshold No No NA No NA No
Notes: BMP: Best Management Practices; NA: not applicable a. Construction phasing and equipment mix are based on the preliminary information provided by the school district. Where specific information regarding project-related construction activities was not available, construction assumptions were based on CalEEMod defaults, which are based on construction surveys conducted by South Coast Air Quality Management District of construction equipment and phasing for comparable projects. b. Includes implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust control required by BAAQMD as mitigation, including watering disturbed areas a minimum of two times per day, reducing speed limit to 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces, and replacing ground cover. c. Average daily emissions are based on the total construction emissions divided by the total number of active construction days. The total number of construction days is estimated to be 482.

Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.2.

Adherence to the BAAQMD’s BMPs for red ucing construction emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 would ensure that ground -disturbing activities would not generate a significant amount of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure
AQ-1 The projec t’s construction contractor shall comply with the following BAAQMD Best Management Practices for reducing construction emissions of PM10 and PM2.5:
 Water all active construction areas at least twice daily, or as often as needed to control dust emissions. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.  Pave, apply water twice daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 41
 Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
 Sweep daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) or as often as needed all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site to control dust.
 Sweep public streets daily (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) in the vicinity of the project site, or as often as needed, to keep streets free of visible soil material.
 Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas.  Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non- toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
 Limit vehicle traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.  Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.  Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff from public roadways.

Operation-Related Impacts
Typically, the primary source of new long- criteria air pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be mobile- source emissions produced from project- generated vehicle trips. Because the implementation of the proposed project would not result in an increase in students or employees, the project would not generate an increase in vehicle trips. Other project- related emissions from area sources (e.g., landscape equipment and aerosol use), building energy (energy use for cooling, heating, and cooking), and on- site off-road equipment for agricultural uses were quantitatively analyzed due to their potential of producing substantial project-related criteria pollutants. Table 3 identifies the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project.

As shown in Table 3, the increase in operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed the BAAQMD daily or annual thresholds. Consequently, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the Air Basin, and regional operational phase air quality impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 3 Net Increase in Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions Category
Criteria Air Pollutants (average lbs/day)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project Net Increase (Average pounds per day)a Area 1 <1 <1 <1
Energyb <1 <1 <1 <1
Off-Roadc <1 2 <1 <1
Total Increase 1 2 <1 <1
BAAQMD Average Daily Project-Level Threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Average Daily Threshold? No No No No
Proposed Project Net Increase (Annual Emissions in tons per year) Category
Criteria Air Pollutants (tons/year)
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Net Change <1 <1 <1 <1
BAAQMD Annual Project-Level Threshold 10 tpy 10 tpy 15 tpy 10 tpy Exceeds Annual Threshold No No No No
Notes: typ = tons per year
a. Average daily emissions are based on the annual operational emissions divided by 365 days. b. New buildings would be constructed to the current Building Energy Efficiency Standards. c. Project operation is assumed to require use of agricultural equipment (truck and tractor).

Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.2 Based on year 2022 emission rates. Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. This section analyzes potential impacts related to air quality that could occur from a combination of the proposed project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the Air Basin. The SFBAAB is currently designated a nonattainment ar ea for California and National O 3, California and National PM 2.5, and California PM 10 AAQS. Any project that produces a significant project- level regional air quality impact in an area that is in nonattainment adds to the cumulative impact. Due to the extent of the area potentially impacted from cumulative project emissions (the Air Basin), a project is cumulatively significant when project-related emissions exceed the BAAQMD emissions thresholds.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 43
As described above in section (b), the proposed project would not have a significant long -term operational phase impact. However, as also discussed in section (b) above, without incorporation of fugitive dust control measures, construction activities associated with the proposed project could potentially result i n significant regional short -term air quality impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would ensure that required fugitive dust control measures are implemented to control project -related fugitive dust generated during construction activities. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Development that would be accommodated by the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the mass of construction emissions shown in Table 3, described in pounds per day, localized concentrations refer to an amount of pollutant in a volume of air (ppm or µg/m3) and can be correlated to potential health effects.

Off-Site Community Risk and Hazards
Construction
The construction of the proposed project would temporarily elevate concentrations TACs and diesel-PM2.5 in the vicinity of sensitive land uses during construction activities. The nearest off -site sensitive receptors to the project site are single family residents to the west, north, and east. Other nearby off -site sensitive receptors are the students and staff at the existing Vintage High School to the southwest of the site. The BAAQMD developed Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction that evaluate construction- related health risks associated with construction activities. According to the screening tables, the residences and existing Vintage High School are closer than the distance of 200 meters (656 feet) that would screen out potential health risks, and therefore could be potentially impacted from the proposed construction activities.

Consequently, a site-specific construction HRA was prepared for the project site (see Appendix B).

Phase 1 of project construction is anticipated to take place starting June 2019 and be completed by June 2020 and Phase 2 is anticipated to start June 2021 and is to be completed by April 202 2 (approximately 482 construction days). Construction emissions were based on the construction schedule and off -road equipment list provided by the District. CalEEMod defaults were used where District data was not available. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AERMOD air dispersion modeling program was used to estimate breathing height level pollutant concentrations at the nearest sensitive receptors, and to calculate excess lifetime cancer risk, chronic hazard index for non -carcinogenic risk, and the PM

2.5 maximum annual
concentrations. Results of the analysis are shown in Table 4.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 4 Construction Risk Summary – Unmitigated
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)a
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-Site Residence 12.5 0.053 0.10 Existing Vintage High School Staff 0.13 0.021 0.04
Existing Vintage High School Students 0.61 0.021 0.04
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance. a. The predicted maximum annual PM2.5 concentration occurs in year 2019.

Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.6 (2018).

The results of the HRA are based on the maximum receptor concentration over the construction exposure duration for off -site receptors, assuming 24- hour outdoor exposure. Risk is based on the updated OEHHA Guidance:18
 Cancer risk for the maximum exposed off -site resident (MER) at the single -family residence to the west from project-related construction emissions was calculated to be 12.5 in a million, which would exceed the 10 in a million significance threshold. In accordance with the latest 2015 OEHHA guidance, the calculated total cancer risk conservatively assumes that the risk for the MER consists of a pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the approximately 24 - month construction period. Therefore, all calculated risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10 or a factor of 3 to account for early age sensitivity. In addition, it was conservatively assumed that the residents were outdoors 8 hours a day, 260 construction days per year and exposed to all of the daily construction emissions.
 For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint totaled less tha n one for all the off -site sensitive receptors. Therefore, chronic non- carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits. The highest PM 2.5 annual concentration, which occurs at the residential MER as shown in Table 4, would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).

Mitigation measures are needed because cancer risk for nearby residential receptors would exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds during project construction.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-2 The Napa Valley Unified School District (District) shall specify in the construction bid that the construction contractor(s) shall use construction equipment with fitted with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) or higher emissions standards for all equipment of 50 horsepower or more.

18 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 45
Level 2 DPFs are capable of reducing 50 percent of diesel exhaust and particulate emissions from off-road equipment.

Prior to construction, the construction contractor(s) shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the District’s Director of Facilities, Maintenance and Operations, or designee, clearly show the requirement for Level 2 DPF or higher emissions standards for construction equipment over 50 horsepower. During construction, the construction contractor(s) shall maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the District’s Director of Facilities, Maintenance and Operations or designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, and number of construction equipment on -site. Equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. The construction contractor shall ensure that all non-essential idling of construction equipment is restricted to five minutes or less in compliance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9.

Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would reduce the project’s localized construction emissions, as shown in Table 5.

The results indica te that, with mitigation, health risk values would be below the BAAQMD’s significance threshold for off-site residential and school-based receptors. Therefore, the project would not expose off -site sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Table 5 Construction Risk Summary – Mitigated
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)a
Maximum Exposed Receptor – Off-Site Residence 8.5 0.038 0.06 Existing Vintage High School Staff 0.09 0.016 0.03
Existing Vintage High School Students 0.44 0.016 0.03
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA guidance.

Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which includes using construction equipment with Level 2 Diesel Particulate Filters for equipment over 50 horsepower. a. The predicted maximum annual PM2.5 concentration occurs in year 2019.

Source: Lakes AERMOD View, 9.6 (2018).

CO Hotspot Analysis
Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create pockets of carbon monoxide (CO) called hotspots.

These pockets have the potential to exceed the State one-hour standard of 20 ppm or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm. The proposed project would not conflict with the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) because it would not hinder the capital improvements outlined in the CMP or alter regional travel patterns. NVTA’s CMP must be consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions’ (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Plan Bay ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Area.19 An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services an d infrastructure rather than allocate new growth in outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT , and associated GHG emissions reductions. The project site is not within an area that has traffic congestion that has the potential to exceed the ambient air quality standards. Furthermore, the proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles pe r hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., bridges and tunnels). The project would not result in an increase in vehicle trips and no additional AM or PM peak hour trips would be generated. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation . The proposed project is the development of a high school farm and supporting facilities. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Operation of a high school farm has the potential to generate substantial odors if compost and manure is not managed effectively on - site.

During operation, the proposed project would generate refuse from non -animal and animal sources.

Composting is proposed on-site east of the vineyard and near the culinary garden and would likely have a high carbon- to-nitrogen ratio that can support microbial populations that have the potential to generat e substantial odors. The project would also require managing animal manure as well as dry animal waste, which will be stored on-site until hauled off-site. While manure and associated odors would be produced throughout the proposed project site wherever animals are present, the potential for excessive odors from manure would only occur if stalls are not cleaned frequently and when it is consolidated and stored on-site without proper storage techniques and frequent removal.

Nuisance odors are regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, which requires abatement of any nuisance generating an odor complaint. BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. In addition, odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1 -301, Public Nuisance, which states that “no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” Because the project consists of operational practices that have the potential to cause objectionable odors, impacts are potentially significant. Mitigation Measure AQ -3 would require that the District adopt an Odor Management Plan to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors and comply with BAAQMD odor regulations. Impacts from odors during the operation of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation.

19 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2017, March. Plan Bay Area 2040 Plan.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 47
Mitigation Measure
AQ-2 The Napa Unified School District (District) shall prepare an Odor Management Plan to comply with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 7, Odorous Substances and Regulation 1, Rule 1 - 301, Public Nuisance. The plan shall control odors generated by manure collection and storage from the proposed barn facilities and co mpost piles to ensure odors and compost pile would not constitute a public nuisance. The Plan shall be prepared prior to occupancy.

The Plan shall be available for review at the District Office, upon request, and shall be periodically updated, as needed to control odors on-site. At minimum, the Plan shall include the following:
 Collected manure shall be processed into manure bales on a daily basis.  Manure shall be removed off -site on a weekly basis (excluding holidays) and shall not remain on-site for more than ten (10) days.
 Soiled stall bedding shall be removed and replaced with new bedding on a daily basis.  Manure spills shall be cleaned upon occurrence.
 The moisture content of stockpiled manure and compost shall be minimized to reduce the potential for release of odorous compounds during storage (e.g., use of a tarp to cover stockpiled manure and compost).
 Dust suppression measures, including site watering and tarping shall be implemented to prevent the release of odorous compound-carrying fugitive dust.

During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. Construction-related odor impacts would be less than significant.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the State and /or federal Endangered Species Acts 20 or other regulations, as well as other species that are considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or denning locations, communal roosts and other essential habitat. Species with legal protection under the Endangered Species Acts often represent major constraints to development, particularly when they are wide- ranging or highly sensitive to habitat disturbance and where proposed development would result in a "take" 21 of these species.

A record search conducted by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), together with other relevant information, indicates that occurrences of numerous plant and animal species with special -status have been recorded from or are suspected to occur in Napa Valley vicinity. Figure 10 shows the known distribution of special-status plant and animal species within an approximately 5- mile radius of the project site, based on records maintained by the CNDDB. A total of 44 special-status species are recorded from the Napa U.S.G.S. according to the CNDDB records, of which eight special-status plants and six special-status animal species have been reported from the surrounding area of the project side as indicated in Figure 10 . However, no occurrences of special -status species have been reported from within over a mile of the project site.

A field reconnaissance survey was conducted by the IS/MND biologist and botanist on May 31, 2018 to inspect existing conditions on the site and evaluate the habitat suitability for special -status species. T he site has been routinely disturbed by past grazing and agricultural production activities, which severely limits the potential for presence of any special -status plants or animal species, with the possible exception of nesting birds as discussed further be low.

Special-Status Plants. The intensity of routine grazing severely limits the suitability of the project site for the special -status plant species known from grassland habitat in the Napa Valley, such as Contra Costa goldfields ( Lasthenia conjugens ), two-fork clover ( Trifolium amoenum ), and Napa bluecurls (Trichostema ruygtii).

However, systematic surveys through the flowering period of special -status species are typically necessary to confirm presence or absence from a particular location where natural habitat remains. Although considered unlikely, there remains a remote possibility that one or more special-status plant species may occur on the site but were undetected during the May 2018 survey because the plants had been browsed to the point that t hey were unrecognizable or because the individual plants had already developed and dried out to the point that they had become unrecognizable. Further detailed surveys would be necessary during the spring and summer flowering period of grassland -dependent special-status plants to confirm their absence on the site. If any occurrences are present, construction of new structures and other improvements could result in the loss of

20 The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 declares that all federal departments and agencies shall utilize their authority to conserve endangered and threatened plant and animal species. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984 parallels the policies of FESA and pertains to native California species. 21 "Take" as defined by the FESA means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect" a threatened or endangered species. "Harm" is further defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to include the killing or harming of wildlife due to significant obstruction of essential behavior patterns (i.e., breeding, feeding, or sheltering) through significant habitat modification or degradation. The CDFW also considers the loss of listed species habitat as take, although this policy lacks statutory authority and case law support under the CESA.

ATTACHMENT 8

Special Status Plants
CCg- Contra Costa goldfields
Gn-l- Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
h-lc- holly-leaved ceanothus
Jl- Jepson's leptosiphon
Ml- Mason's lilaeopsis
Nb- Napa bluecurls
n-ab- narrow-anthered brodiaea
t-fc- two-fork clover
Special Status Animals
Ab- American badger
Ai- An isopod
lsm- longfin smelt
pb- pallid bat
wbb- western bumble bee
wp- western pond turtle
Source: ESRI, 2017; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2018.

CNDDB OCCURRENCE RECORDS
NVUS-02.4

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
|ÿ29
|ÿ121
wp
wp
Gn-l
n-ab
n-ab
h-cl
CCg
lsm
Ai
pb
Ab
t-fc
wbb
Jl
Gn-l
Ml
^_^_
0 0.55 1.10.275
Miles
^_Project Site
Special Status Plants
CCg- Contra Costa goldfields
Gn-l- Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
h-lc- holly-leaved ceanothus
Jl- Jepson's leptosiphon
Ml- Mason's lilaeopsis
Nb- Napa bluecurls
n-ab- narrow-anthered brodiaea
t-fc- two-fork clover
Special Status Animals
Ab- American badger
Ai- An isopod
lsm- longfin smelt
pb- pallid bat
wbb- western bumble bee
wp- western pond turtle
Source: ESRI, 2017; California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2017; PlaceWorks, 2018.

CNDDB OCCURRENCE RECORDS
NVUS-02.4

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
|ÿ29
|ÿ121
wp
wp
Gn-l
n-ab
n-ab
h-cl
CCg
lsm
Ai
pb
Ab
t-fc
wbb
Jl
Gn-l
Ml
^_^_
0 0.55 1.10.275
Miles
^_Project Site
Figure 10
Special Status Species

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

individual plants or the entire occurrence unless follow -up surveys and appropriate mitigation is provided.

This would be a potentially significant impact on special-status plant species, if any are present on the project site.

Special-Status Animal Species. The habitat suitability assessment conducted as part of the part of the May 2018 field reconnaissance survey indicated that special -status animal species known from the Napa Valley are unlikely to occur on the site, with the possible exception of nesting birds. Aquatic habitat conditions necessary to support California red -legged frog, California freshwater shrimp, foothill yellow -legged frog, western point turtle, steelhead trout and longfin smelt are absent from the project site. No evidence of diggings by American badger was observed during the survey, and the extent of surrounding development severely limits the suitability of the project site for even foraging by this species. A number of special -status bat species known from the Napa Valley area may occasionally forage throughout the vicinity, but structures and mature trees necessary for roosting are absent on the site. Western bumblebee, which has been reported from the Napa vicinity south of the site, is found in a variety of habitats. It technically has no legal protective status under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, but records on its distribution in the western United States are now being monitored by the CNDDB and other data bases because of dramatic declines in numbers and distribution over the past two decades. It’s presence on the site, either foraging or nesting, would not be considered a significant constraint.

Although no active bird nests were observed on the project site during the field reconnaissance survey, there is a possibility that new nests could be established before construction is initiated. Potential nesting substrate for raptors and other migratory birds exist in the trees and areas of dense grassland cover on the project site and adjacent lands. If nests are present, vegetation removal and construction- related disturbance during the breeding and rearing season could inadvertently result in the destruction or abandonment of a nest in active use, which would be a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFW Code. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703) prohibits the taking, hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc. of migratory birds, p arts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests. Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code specifically protects the nests and eggs of raptors similar to the provisions of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Potential impacts on any nests in active use are considered to be a potentially significant impact.

Standard preconstruction surveys are typically conducted to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and CDFW Code when construction is initiated during the bird nesting season, which in the Napa vicinity is typically from February 1 to August 31. The mitigation measure below would serve to avoid this potential for violation of Federal and State regulations by limiting vegetation removal and construction initiation to the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31) or by conducting a standard preconstruction survey and implementing appropriate construction restrictions if any active nests are encountered until any young birds have successfully fledged.

With adherence to Mitigation Meas ures BIO -1 and BIO-2 , potential impacts on special -status plants and migratory birds would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 51
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Systematic surveys shall be conducted to confirm absence of any special -status plant species on the project site and to provide adequate mitigation if any occurrences of special-status plants are encountered. This shall be accomplished by taking the following steps.  A qualified botanist shall conduct follow -up systematic surveys in the spring and summer months to confirm the presence or absence of any special -status plant species in the vicinity of proposed improvements on the site. The surveys shall be completed and a report of findings submitted to the District before the onset of any initial ground- disturbing activity or construction associated with project implementation.  If any special -status plant species are encountered during the surveys, then the occurrence(s) shall be avoided or potential impacts adequately mitigated as part of project implementation. The qualified botanist shall develop and implement a Special - Status Plant Species Mitigation and Monitoring Program (SSPSMMP). The SSPSMMP shall only be required if a listed species or those with a ranking of 1A, 1B or 2 of the California Native Plan Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Inventory) are encountered during the surveys. Potential impacts on any species with a ranking of 3 and 4 of the CNPS Inventory would not be considered significant and no additional mitig ation would be required for these species if encountered during the surveys.
 The SSPMMP shall be prepared in consultation with the CDFW and shall be approved by the District prior to any initial ground -disturbing activity or construction. The SSPMMP shall be based on the status and vulnerability of the species present, with avoidance of all or a majority of any populations on the site the preferred method of mitigation. Where complete or even partial avoidance of any special -status plant populations on the site is considered infeasible, options for mitigation may include a program to salvage and reestablish the population at an alternative, suitable location.

Details of any salvage and habitat recreation effort shall include the following criteria and performance standards measures may include:
o Collection of seeds during the appropriate developmental stage of the plant. o Procedures for sowing techniques appropriate to the life cycle of the plant. o Preparation of a maintenance and monitoring plan specific to the environmental conditions necessary for survival of the new population. Maintenance and monitoring shall be provided for a minimum of five years to determine success of re-seeding and habitat creation, and need for additional preservation. o Identification of funding sources to provide for implementation of the plan in consultation with the qualified plant ecologist and project civil engineer. o In addition, preservation of another existing occurrence of the affected special - status plant species shall be required if monitoring indicates that the reestablishment ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

efforts have not been successful after five years. The preservation program shall provide for permanent protection of a different existing population in Napa County, which is equal or larger in size than that encountered on the site (minimum 1:1 replacement), through land acquisition or use of a conservation easement. Any off-site mitigation lands shall include establishment of a management endowment as necessary to provide for long-term management of the preserved population.

BIO-2 Adequate measures shall be taken to avoid inadvertent take of bird nests protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State Fish and Game Code when in active use. This shall be accomplished by taking the following steps.
 If vegetation removal and initial construction (i.e., landscape grubbing/grading) is proposed during the nesting season (March 1 to August 31), a focused survey for nesting raptors and other migratory birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 7 days prior to the onset of construction in order to determine whether any active nests are present on the project site and surrounding area within 100 feet of proposed construction. The survey shall be reconducted any time construction has bee n delayed or curtailed for more than 7 days during the nesting season.  If no active nests are identified during the construction survey period, or development is initiated during the non -breeding season (September to February), vegetation removal and construction may proceed with no restrictions.
 If bird nests are found, an adequate setback shall be established around the nest location and construction activities restricted within this no- disturbance zone until the qualified biologist has confirmed that any young birds have fledged and are able to function outside the nest location. Required setback distances for the no -disturbance zone shall be based on input received from the CDFW , and may vary depending on species and sensitivity to disturbance. Constru ction setback distances of 250 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines are typically used, but these may be adjusted depending on input from CDFW and site- specific conditions. T he no -disturbance zone shall be fenced with temporary orange construction fencing if construction is to be initiated elsewhere on the site.
 A report of findings shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and submitted to the District for review and approval prior to initiation of construction during the nesting season (March 1 to August 31). The report shall either confirm absence of any active nests or should confirm that any young are located within a designated no- disturbance zone and construction can proceed. No report of findings is required if construction is initiated during the non- nesting season (September 1 to February 28) and continues uninterrupted according to the above criteria.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 53
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities dominated by native vegetation that are considered rare in the region by the CDFW, such as riparian woodlands, native grasslands and freshwater marsh. No sensitive natural communities such as riparian habitat or native grasslands were observed during the 2018 field survey of the site. The potential seasonal wetlands discussed below under Criterion c) are likely regulated by State and federal resource agencies, but they are dominated by non -native species and do not qualify as a sensitive natural community. Given the absence of any sensitive natural community types on the site, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is necessary. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant with Mitigation . Wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface or groundwater, and support vegetation adapted life in saturated soil.

Wetlands are recognized as important features due to their inherent value to fish and wildlife, use as storage areas for storm and floodwaters, and water recharge, filtration and purification functions. Jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is established through provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the U.S.” without a permit. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction is established through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which requires certification or waiver to control discharges in water quality whenever a Corps permit is required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and State waters as regulated under the P orter- Cologne Act. Jurisdictional authority of the CDFW over wetland areas is established under Sections 1600 - 1607 of the State Fish and Wildlife Code, which pertains to activities that would disrupt the natural flow of any lake, river or stream.

As noted above, the National Wetlands Mapper does not show any streams, wetlands, or other water bodies or any riparian habitat on the project site.
22 A preliminary wetland assessment was conducted by the consulting biologist for the IS/MND as part of the field reconnaissance survey on May 31, 2018. An inspection of the entire project site was performed and evidence of any potential wetland conditions was noted. Data was collected on soils, vegetation and hydrology and used to determine whether the location met the criteria used by the Corps as a wetland or an upland. Figure 11 shows the location of sample data points and results of the preliminary wetland assessment.

22 National Wetlands Mapper, http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, accessed July 25, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

Project Site
Source: Environmental Collaborative, 2018 and Chaudhary & Associates, 2018. 0 Scale (Feet)
300 Figure 11
Potential Wetlands and Biological Features
1 4
2 3

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PlaceWorks
Sample Data Point
Mature Valley Oak
Drainage/Potential Seasonal Wetland
Potential Seasonal Wetland
Drainage Ditch
5 10
6 7
8 9
ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 55
Based on the results of the field survey, several features were observed that may be considered regulated waters by the Corps, RWQCB and CDFW . As indicated in Figure 11 , these consist of two drainage ditches along the western boundary and three areas of potential seasonal wetlands in the eastern portion of the project site proposed for use as grazing lands. The drainage ditches are man- made features, but may have been constructed and maintained in areas that would otherwise support seasonal wetland conditions. The potential seasonal wetlands occur along a natural depression or topographic low points, and are dominated by non-native obligate and transitional wetland species such as pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), rabbits-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensus), and hyssop loosestrife ( Lythrum hyssopifolia). A formal wetland delineation verified by the Corps would be necessary to confirm the extent of any jurisdictional waters on the project site, but the preliminary wetland assessment provides a strong indication that regulated waters may be present. The proposed improvements associated with the project would generally avoid the potential jurisdictional waters on the site (see Figure 11).

As currently proposed, grazing would continue in the area occupied by the potential seasonal wetlands. These features are already subject to intensive grazing pressure when cattle concentrate their activities in the lingering seasonal wetlands through late spring. De pending on the number of animals in each of the Grazing Fields, changes in the intensity of grazing activities could result in further degradation of the potential seasonal wetlands on the project site. However, agricultural use is not a restricted activity and would not require authorization from the resource agencies as long as the regulated waters themselves are not dredged, filled or otherwise altered.

As currently proposed, the project could significantly impact jurisdictional waters. With adherence to Mitigation Measures BIO-3, potential impacts on jurisdictional waters would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-3 A compensatory mitigation program shall be developed and implemented to provide adequate mitigation for any jurisdictional waters affected by any future improvements on the project site. A jurisdictional wetland delineation shall be prepared by a qualified wetland specialist and submitted for verification by the Corps. A Wetland Protection and Replacement Program (WPRP) shall be prepared by the qualified wetland specialist and implemented to provide compensatory mitigation at a minimum 2:1 ratio where jurisdictional wetlands are affected, shall minimize disturbance to vegetated waters, and shall be reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies. The WPRP shall include appropriate implementation measures to prevent inadvertent loss and degradation of jurisdictional waters to be protected, and replacement for those features eliminated or modified as a result of any future improvements. The WPRP shall contain the following components:
 Where verified waters of the U.S. are present and cannot be avoided, authorization for modifications to these features shall be obtained from regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. These agencies may include the Corps through the Section 404 permitting process where waters of the United States are affected by the project and the RWQCB ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

as part of the Section 401 Certification process. All conditions required as part of the authorizations by the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW shall be implemented as part of future improvements.
 Consultation or incidental take permitting may be required under the State of California and federal Endangered Species Acts. The applicant shall obtain all legally required permits or other authorizations from the USFWS and CDFW for the potential “take” of protected species under the Endangered Species Acts.  Orange construction fencing shall be installed between any jurisdictional feature to be retained where grading or other construction-related dis turbance may occur within 50 feet of the feature. The temporary construction fencing shall remain in place for the duration of construction
 A qualified biologist/restoration specialist shall be available during construction to oversee installation of the temporary construction fencing and to provide situation- specific wetland avoidance measures or planting recommendation, as needed.  Success criteria, maintenance and long -term management responsibilities, monitoring requirements, and contingency measures in the WPRP should be specified. Monitoring shall be conducted by the qualified wetland specialist for a minimum of 5 years and continue until the success criteria are met. Permanent monitoring transects shall be established as part of the program and vegetation data collected in the spring and summer months when plant identification is possible. Photo stations shall be established along each monitoring transect, and photographs taken every year during the required monitoring period.
 Annual monitoring re ports shall be prepared by the qualified wetland specialist and submitted to resource agency representatives and the City by December 31 of each monitoring year for a minimum of 5 years or until the defined success criteria are met.

The annual report shall summarize the results of the monitoring effort, performance standards, and any required contingency measures, and shall include photographs of the monitoring transects and program success. Maps shall be included in the monitoring report to show the location of monitoring transects and photo stations. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped grassland adjacent to Vintage High School, and is surrounded by rural residential, pasture land and vineyards.

The project site does not con tain any major waterways that would harbor fish nor does it contain habitat conditions that would serve as important wildlife nursery areas. Wildlife associated with the project site are common in grassland, agricultural and suburban habitats found in the Napa vicinity, including a wide variety of native and non -native birds, mammals, and reptiles. Construction of new buildings, roadways and other ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 57
improvements associated with the project would temporarily disrupt wildlife activity, but would not permanently displace them from the project site. Wildlife would continue to utilize the project site following completion of construction and no substantial disruption of movement opportunities or nesting areas is anticipated. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would serve to protect any bird nests while in active use, if present on the project site. With implementation of BIO-2, potential impacts on wildlife movement opportunities would be considered to be less-than-significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinance s protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant with Mitigation . The District, as a state- level sovereign agency, is not subject to the County of Napa’s ordinances and standards.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not within the plan area of a Natural Community Conservation Plan 23 and is not in a Habitat Conservation Plan. 24 No conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan would occur. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
No Impact. The types of cultural resources that meet the definition of historical resources under CEQA generally consist of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant for their traditional, cultural, and/or historical associations.

Generally, a resource is considered by the lead agency to be a “historical resource” if it is: 1) Listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.); 2) included in a local register of historical resources, or is identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC; or 3) is a building or structu re determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.

Cultural resources are protected by federal and State regulations and standards, including but not limited to, the National Historic Preservation Act, the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA. In addition, the

23 Summary of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID= 15329&inline, accessed September 1, 2018.
24 Habitat Conservation Plans, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/conservationPlan/region?region=8&type=HCP, accessed September 1, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) has determined that structures in exces s of 45 years of age should be considered potentially important historical resources, and former buildings and structure locations could be potentially important archaeological sites. Typically, if the project site or adjacent properties are found to be eligible for listing on the California Register, the development would be required to conform to the current Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, and Restoring Historic Bui ldings, which require the preservation of character defining features which convey a building’s historical significance, and offers guidance about appropriate and compatible alterations to such structures.

Neither the project site nor Vintage High School is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. 25 In addition, they are not identified in the City of Napa 2009 City-Wide Historic Context Statement.26 Due to the lack of formal State or National historical listing of the site and school, there would be no impact to an historic resource.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Archaeological deposits that meet the definition o f unique archaeological resources under CEQA could be damaged or destroyed by ground -disturbing activities associated with construction permitted under the proposed project, such as grading and/or filling. Should this occur, the ability of the deposits to convey their significance, either as containing information important in prehistory or history, or as possessing traditional or cultural significance to Native American or other descendent communities, could be materially impaired.

The proposed project would include minimal ground-disturbing activities including grading, excavation and filling, as part of construction of the proposed project. There is no physical or recorded evidence that the project site is sensitive for archaeological resources. No archaeological sites have been recorded in or near the site.27
Although there is no physical or recorded evidence that the project site is sensitive for archaeological resources, the site could contain subsurface archaeological deposits , including unrecorded Native American prehistoric archaeological materials. Therefore, any project-related ground-disturbing activities would have the potential to affect subsurface prehistoric archaeological resources that may be present. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits to a less-than-significant level.

25 California Historical Resources Napa County, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=28, accessed July 25, 2018.
26 City of Napa, 2009. City-Wide Historic Context Statement, page 122. 27 Napa County GIS, Parcel Report for {038240019000, 038110005000, and 038110035000}; report created July 25, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 59
Mitigation Measure
CULT-1 If any prehistoric or historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground - disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the significance of the find, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives fr om the District and the archaeologist must meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subj ect to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards. In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the District shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) must be instituted.

Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Although paleontological resources have not been identified on or near the project site, unrecorded fossils of potential scientific significance and other unique geologic features may be located there. Ground disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project could cause damage to, or destruction of, those resources. The resulting potential impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be reduced to a less- than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-2.

Mitigation Measure
CULT-2 In the event that fossils or fossil -bearing deposits are discovered during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The contractor shall notify a qualified paleontologist to examine the discovery. The paleontologist shall document the discovery, as needed, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleon tology standards,28 evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the finding under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If the project proponent determines that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the project based on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to implementation.

28 Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, 1995. Impact Mitigation Guidelines, revised 2010.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact . Similar to the discussions under criteria (b) and (c), there are no known human remains on the project site; however, the potential to unearth unknown remains during ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of the project exists. Any human remains encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with the proposed project would be subject to federal, State, and local regulations to ensure no adverse impacts to human remains would occur in the unlikely event human remains are found.

California Health and Safety Code Section 7052 states that the disinterment of remains known to be human, without the authority of law, is a felony. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) identify the mandated procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains.

According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery must cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area must be taken. The Napa County Coroner must be notified immediately. The Coroner must then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, who will, in turn, notify the person NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendants (MLD) of any human remains. Further actions must be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the owner must, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.

Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by NAHC.

Therefore, with implementation of the mandatory regulatory procedures described above, potential impacts related to the potential discovery or disturbance of any human remains accidently unearthed during construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

3.6 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Native American Historic Resource Protection Act, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), took effect on July 1, 2015. The Bill amends CEQA and adds standards of significance that relate to Native American consultation and certain types of cultural resources. Projects subject to AB 52 are those that file a notice of preparation for an EIR or notice of intent to adopt a negative or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015.

As of July 1, 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed guidelines and the NAHC informed tribes which agencies are in their traditional area. In response to these guidelines, this Section 3.6, Tribal Cultural Resources, has been added as a stand-alone section to this IS/MND.

AB 52 requires the CEQA lead agen cy to begin consultation with a California Native American Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project if the Tribe requests in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of the proposed projects in the area.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 61
The consultation is required before the determination of whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR is required. In addition, AB 52 includes time limits for certain responses regarding consultation. AB 52 also adds “tribal cultural resources” (TCR) to the specific cultural resources protected under CEQA. CEQA Section 21084.3 has been added, which states that “public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resources.” Information shared by tribes as a result of AB 52 consultation shall be documented in a confidential file, as necessary, and made part of a lead agencies administrative record. In response to AB 52, Napa Unified Valley School District has not received any request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated with or otherwise to be notified about projects.

A TCR is defined under AB 52 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope, sacred place, and object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included a local register of historical resources, or if the NVUSD, acting as the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resource as a TCR. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or • A resource determined by the lead a gency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed under Criteria (b) and (d) in Section IV , Cultural Resources, no known archeological resources, ethnographic sites or Native American remains are located on the project site. As discussed under Criterion (b) in Section 3.5 , Cultural Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -1 would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological deposits, including TCRs, to a less -than-significant level. As discussed under Criterion (d) in Section 3.5 , Cultural Resources, compliance with State and federal regulations would reduce the likelihood of disturbing or discovering human remains, including those of Native Americans. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and compliance with State and federal regulations related to the protection of human remains would reduce impacts to TCRs to a less -than-significant level. Furthermore, NVUSD has not received any request from any Tribes in the geographic area with which it is traditionally and culturally affiliated with or otherwise to be notified about projects in the District.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Mitigation Measure
TRIBAL-1 Implement Mitigation Measure CULT-1.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion [California Building Industry Association (CBIA) v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)], here in referred to as CBIA v. BAAQMD, confirmed that CEQA is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, and not the effects the existing environment may have on a Project. Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the following sections focuses on impacts of the project on the environment, including whether a project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards.

Detailed information is included in the Geological and Environmental Hazards Assessment (Appendix C). a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of lo ss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other subs tantial evidence of a known fault; (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides, mudslides or other similar hazards?
Exposure of people or structures to seismic hazards is not a CEQA impact. Pursuant to the 2015 CBIA v BAAQMD case, CEQA applies to a project’s impacts on the environment, not the environment’s impacts on the project unless the project would exacerbate the environmental hazard. 29 Implementation of the proposed
Project would not cause or worsen seismic activity; therefore, the Project would not exacerbate the seismic hazard. No further discussion is required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact . Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earthen materials are loosened, worn away, decomposed or dissolved, and removed from one place and transported to another. Precipitation, running water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion. Ordinarily, erosion proceeds so slowly as to be imperceptible, but when the natural equilibrium of the environment is changed, the rate of erosion can be greatly accelerated. Accelerated erosion within an urban area can cause damage by undermining structures, blocking storm sewers, and depositing silt, sand, or mud in roads and tunnels.

Eroded materials are eventually deposited into coastal and local waters where the carried silt remains suspended in the water for some time, constituting a pollutant and altering t he normal balance of plant and animal life. As noted in the geotechnical investigation performed of the site, the site does not contain s andy soils on moderate slopes or clayey soils on steep slopes, conditions that are susceptible to erosion. 30 29 California Supreme Court, 2015. California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Opinion No. S213478, date filed: December 17, 2015.
30 Miller Pacific Engineering Group, 2018, Geotechnical Investigation Napa Valley Unified School District Vintage High School Student Farm Complex, page 8.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 63
The projec t would include trenching for installation and connection of underground utilities, and other subsurface disturbances. These site preparation activities would result in the disruption of on- site soils and exposure of uncovered soils to potential erosion impacts. However, site preparation activities would be short- term, occurring for only a brief period during the preliminary stages of project development.

Although minimal erosion would result from grading and construction operations, the proposed project would not result in significant soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Because the site encompasses an area of more than one acre, the proposed project would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. As part of the permit requirements, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Monitoring Program would be prepared. The SWPPP would serve to help identify the sources of pollution that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges and to describe and ensure implementation of practices to reduce the pollutants in construction stormwater discharges. The SWPPP would specify, along with permanent or post -construction measures, BMPs for temporary erosion control. The BMPs typically include the use of vegetation and mulch to stabilize disturbed areas, and sandbags and temporary catch basins to direct runoff away from disturbed areas and trap sediments on- site. NPDES permit requirements are further discussed in Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this re port. Mandatory compliance with the requirements set forth by the NPDES permit, combined with soils that are not susceptible to erosion, would ensure that erosion impacts resulting from the project would be less than significant . No mitigation is required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact . Unstable geologic units are not known to be present on the project site.

Ground subsidence often results from the withdrawal of large amounts of oil and/or groundwater from a region. Oil withdrawal is not an issue in this area, and according to the Califor nia division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) ,
31 there are no DOGGR wells on-site. W ater supplies in Napa and the surrounding area come mainly from imported and local surface waters, not from groundwater; therefore, the potential for ground subsidence on and near the site is regarded as low. The project is not located in a fault zone as indicated on the California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California 32, and as
described in the City’s General Plan. 33In addition, the project site is not located in a liquefaction zone or landslide zone as described in the City’s General Plan. 34 The geotechnical investigation performed for the site also confirmed that sand layers beneath the site are sufficiently dense to resist liquefaction during a seismic event.35

31 California Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources – Well Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/ #close, accessed July 25, 2018.
32 California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/, accessed July 25, 2018.
33 City of Napa General Plan 2020, Health and Safety Element. 34 City of Napa General Plan 2020, Health and Safety Element. 35 Miller Pacific Engineering Group, 2018, Geotechnical Investigation Napa Valley Unified School District Vintage High School Student Farm Complex, page 7.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

The California Building Code (CBC) may require detailed soils and/or geotechnical studies in areas of suspected geological hazards such as unstable geologic units that may be subject to collapse, subsidence, landsliding, or lateral spreadi ng. Upon submission to the Divisi on of the State Architect (DSA), the project would be reviewed for compliance with these standards. Therefore, the project would result in less- than- significant impacts related to potential lateral spreading, settlement, co llapse, subsidence, and liquefaction. No mitigation is required.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation . Expansive soil refers to those soils that upon wetting and drying alternately expand and contract, causing cracking in the foundations of buildings and other structures.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) web soil survey, one type of soil run s through the project site; Haire loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. 36 This soil is moderately well-drained, with no
history of flooding or ponding. However, expansion testing performed as part of the project geotechnical investigation located isolated, highly-expansive surface soils in the southwest and northeast corners of the project site, creating a moderate to high risk of expansion to the proposed Food Services and Hospitality Building and Agri-Sciences Building.
37 Future development would be subject to CBC regulations and provisions. CBC requirements can include detailed soils and/or geotechnical studies in areas of suspected geological hazards such as expansive soils.

Mandatory compliance with established standards and adherence to Mitigation Measure GEO -1, would reduce potential impacts from expansive soils to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Rigid mat slabs shall be utilized to support the structure that will allow movement due to the expansive soils while preventing the structure from shifting differentially. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Significant Impact . As n oted in Sections 1.4.4.2 Structures and 1.4.4.3 Sanitary Sewer, the proposed project would include septic systems for both animal waste and sanitary sewer. The systems would be required to comply with existing County regulations and standards specific to on- site sewage treatment systems. These regulations are established in Part II, Design, Construction, and Installation of Conventional Sewage Treatment Systems, of the Napa County On-S ite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) Technical Standards.38 As noted in the document, “The design goals for all wastewater treatment systems are to prevent disease and preclude contamination of groundwater and other beneficial waters by dispersal of effluent

36 Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed July 25, 2018. 37 Miller Pacific Engineering Group, 2018, Geotechnical Investigation Napa Valley Unified School District Vintage High School Student Farm Complex, page 9.
38 Napa County, Napa County Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS) Technical Standards, https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3831/Final-Draft-Technical-Standards-January2016-AB-885-PDF, accessed September 12, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 65
below the surface of the ground and reducing discharges to the environment from wastewater treatment systems by adequately siting and designing all on-site wastewater treatment systems.” The document includes requirements for system plan submittal for approval by the County, as well as:
 Verification of site suitability, including the soil hydraulic loading rate applicable to the existing soil type; depth of groundwater, fractured rock and all other limiting conditions, Site evaluation or percolation testing prior to system design, to establish suitable permeability of soils.  Submission of detailed plans from a qualified professional, showing features such as, but not limited to, easements, rights -of-way, pluming stub -outs, areas subject to flooding, proposed on-site wastewater treatment systems, soil profile test holes, underground and overhead utilities, and on-site slops and elevations. Plan must be reviewed and approved by the administrative authority prior to the issuance of the construction permit.
 Detailed provisions related to soil fill cover and infiltrative surface parameters, trench spacing, septic tank effluent, required monitoring wells and drains.
 Required construction inspection process.

Project adherence to the above County design, construction and inspection standards would ensure that the proposed septic system is designed to be adequately supported by the existing soil profile, and that the resulting impact would be less than significant.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat- trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs), into the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs —water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O 3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 20th and 21st centuries.

Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N
2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons.39,40 This section analyzes the project’s contribution to global climate change impacts in California through an analysis of project- related GHG emissions. Information on manufacture of cement, steel, and other “life cycle” emissions that would occur as a result of the project are not applicable and are not included in the

39 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 40 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting cloud formation. Black carbon is the most strongly light-absorbing component of PM emitted from burning fuels. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2014b).

However, state and national GHG inventories do not yet include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving the precise global warming potential of black carbon. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

analysis.41 Black carbon emissions are not included in the GHG analysis because CARB does not include this pollutant in the state’s AB 32 inventory; it treats this short-lived climate pollutant separately.42,43 A background discussion on the GHG regulatory setting and GHG modeling can be found in Appendix A to this Initial Study.

The 10.29-acre project site, located immediately northeast of Vintage High School, is currently vacant and undeveloped. As such, it does not currently generate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle trips, energy use (e.g., heating and cooling), or other area sources (e.g., landscape fuel use, aerosols, and architectural coatings).

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this section measures the project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental impact.

Construction-Related Impacts
The construction- related GHG emissions associated with the proposed project are shown in Table 6.

BAAQMD does not have thresholds of significance for construction- related GHG emissions. However, BAAQMD has identified a threshold of 1,100 MTCO 2e which is used to evaluate construction emissions in order to identify whether or not construction- related GHG emissions would be substantial. The BAAQMD advises that lead agencies quantify and disclose GHG emissions that would occur during construction and make a determination on the significance of these construction- generated GHG emissions in relation to meeting GHG emissions reduction goals. GHG emissions from construction activities are one -time, short- term emissions and therefore would not significantly contribute to long -term cumulative GHG emi ssions impacts of the proposed project. One- time, short-term emissions are converted to average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building. For buildings in general, it is reasonable to look at a 30- year time frame, since this is a typical interval before a new building requires the first major renovation. 44 The
net increase in emissions generated by the project was evaluated using the California Emissions Estimator

41 Life cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions found that lifecycle analyses was not warranted for project-specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources, and the possibility of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008). 42 Particulate matter emissions, which include black carbon, are analyzed in Section 5.2, Air Quality. Black carbon emissions have sharply declined due to efforts to reduce on-road and off-road vehicle emissions, especially diesel particulate matter. The State's existing air quality policies will virtually eliminate black carbon emissions from on-road diesel engines within 10 years. 43 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2016. Proposed Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, September. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/meetings/04112016/proposedstrategy.pdf, accessed February 2, 2018 44 International Energy Agency, 2008. Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings, March.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 67
Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2. As shown in Table 6, when amortized over a 30 -year project lifetime, average annual construction emissions from the proposed project would represent a nominal source of GHG emissions and would not exceed BAAQMD’s de minimis bright line threshold of 1,100 MTCO 2e.

Construction emissions would be less than significant.

Table 6 Net Increase in Project GHG Emissions
Category
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)
Project Percent of Total
Construction Emissions
Total Construction Emissions (Years 2018–2019) 414 N/A
30-Year Amortized Construction 14 N/A
BAAQMD Bright-Line Threshold 1,100 MTCO2e/Year
Exceeds BAAQMD Bright-Line Screening Threshold? No N/A
Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.2.

Operations-Related Impacts
As stated previously, development of the proposed project would not result in an increase in students and/or faculty. However, development of the proposed project would generate an increase building energy use and water demand, increase wastewater and solid waste generation, and would relocate agricultural practices to a new site. GHG e missions from development of the proposed project would primarily be from energy usage (natural gas and purchased energy).

The proposed high school farm’s agricultural processes including the management of a vineyard, culinary garden, compost refuse, and the handling of farm animals such as cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, and chickens are subject to the production of GHG emissions. The management of a vineyard would result in N 2O emissions
from soil management and the application of fertilizers to grow grapes. In addition, CH 4 emissions will be produced through the breakdown of organic materials in composting piles and through the enteric fermentation and increase in manure from farm animals. The District currently maintains an agricultural program at the Vintage High School campus but does not have on-site facilities for their animals, which are currently brought in from off-site. The proposed project would allow the District’s agricultural program to be consolidated on campus, and support a maximum of 85 animals. This would increase the number of animals within the program. The fertilization of the vineyard with by typical potassium (K) fertil izer blend, would also increase N
2O emissions as compared to the existing undeveloped land use.

The use of the nine barns totaling 21,500 SF and three classroom buildings and structures totaling 7,020 SF would require energy use, area sources of emissions, and agricultural practices would entail use of off -road equipment. As shown in Table 7, development of the proposed project would result in an increase of GHG emissions of 170 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2e) per year. T he increase in GHG ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

emissions would not exceed BAAQMD’s bright -line screening threshold of 1,100 MTCO 2e. Therefore, project-related GHG emissions during the operational phase of the proposed project would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

Table 7 Project GHG Emissions – Operational Phase

GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e/Year)
Buildout Year 2022
(MT/Year) Percentage
Net Change
Area <1 <1%
Energy 42 25%
Off-Road 71 42%
Waste 15 9%
Water/Wastewater 42 24%
Total 170 100%
BAAQMD Bright-Line Threshold 1,100 MTCO2e/ Year
Exceeds Bright-Line Threshold? No
Note: Emissions may not total to 100 percent due to rounding. New buildings would be constructed to the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (effective January 1, 2017) at minimum.

Source: CalEEMod 2016.3.2.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC)/Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Plan Bay Area. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB’s Scoping Plan
In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the 2008 Scoping Plan to outline the State’s strategy to achieve 1990 level emissions by year 2020.45 The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to state agencies and is not directly applicable to cities/counties and individual projects. Nonetheless, the Scoping Plan has been the primary tool that is used to develop performance-based and efficiency -based CEQA criteria and GHG reduction targets for climate action planning efforts. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan addresses the new interim GHG emissions target under Senate Bill 32, which requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 40

45 California Air Resources Board. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 69
percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 46 The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan provides the strategies for the state to meet the 2030 GHG reduction target as established under SB 32.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan include implementing Senate Bill 350, which expands the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent by 2030 and doubles energy efficiency savings; expanding the Low Carbon Fuel Standard to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero- electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementation of the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementation of the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement Senate Bill 375; creation of a post- 2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; and development of an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink. Statewide GHG emissions reduction measures that are being implemented as a result of the Scoping Plan would reduce the proposed project’s GHG emissions. The proposed project would be constructed to achieve the standards in effect at the time of development and would not conflict with statewide programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. While measures in the Scoping Plan apply to state agencies and not the proposed project, the project’s GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32 and SB 32 were adopted. Therefore the impact would be less than significant.

ABAG/MTC Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2040 is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS).47 To achieve MTC/ABAG’s sustainable vision for the Bay Area, the Plan Bay Area land use concept plan for the region concentrates the majority of new population and employment growth in the region in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are transit -oriented, infill development opportunity areas within existing communities. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions. Although the proposed project is not within a PDA, as discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing , growth associated with the proposed project is consistent with ABAG projections and would not exceed regional population and employment pr ojects48. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan for the City of Napa identified in the Plan Bay Area and the impact would be less than significant.

46 California Air Resources Board. 2017, November. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target.
47 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/ Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2017, July. Plan Bay Area 2040. http://2040.planbayarea.org/, accessed August 12, 2018. 48 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013. Priority Development Area Showcase. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/, accessed March 9, 2017.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not create a significant hazard through the transport, disposal, or use of hazardous materials. Construction and operation of the school would not require extensive or ongoing use of acutely hazardous materials or substances. While grading and construction activities may involve the transport, storage, use, or disposal of some hazardous materials, such as on- site fueling/servicing of construction equipment, the activities would be short -term and would be subject to federal and State safety requirements.

State-level agencies, in conjunction with the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for Asbestos -Containing Materials (ACMs). Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations and medical evaluation and monitoring is required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. Additionally, the regulations include warnings that must be heeded and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk of asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, federal, State, and local agencies must be notified prior to the onset of demoli tion or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos.

The inclusion of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical equipment and the handling of those PCBs are regulated by the provisions of the California Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. (TSCA). Relevant regulations include labeling and periodic inspection requirements for certain types of PCB - containing equipment and outline highly specific safety procedures for their disposal. The State of California regulates PCB-laden electrical equipment and materials contaminated above a certain threshold as hazardous waste; these regulations require that such materials be treated, transported, and disposed of accordingly. At lower concentrations for non- liquids, Region al Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) may exercise discretion over the classification of such wastes.

The State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH or Cal/OSHA) Lead in Construction Standard is contained in Title 8, Section 1532.1 of the California Code of Regulations. The regulations address all of the following areas: permissible exposure limits (PELs); exposure assessment; compliance methods; respiratory protection; protective clothing and equipment; housekeeping; medical surveillance; medical removal protection (MRP); employee information, training, and certification; signage; record keeping; monitoring; and agency notification. Implementation of these regulations would ensure a less- than-significant impact in this respect during the construction phase of the project.

Long-term operation of the school farm would be similar to existing conditions at the school and would continue to involve little transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The types of hazardous materials associated with operation of the school farm would generally be limited to those associated with janitorial, maintenance, and repair activities, such as commercial cleansers, lubricants, and paints. These ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 71
hazardous materials would be used in limited amounts for school operations; and transport, storage, use, and disposal of these materials would be subject to federal and State safety requirements. The storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials are regulated by the U.S. EPA and OS HA. The requirements of these agencies would be incorporated into the design and operation of the school farm. This would include providing for and maintaining appropriate storage areas for potentially hazardous materials and installing or affixing appropriate warning signs and labels. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact in this respect and no mitigation is required. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. T here are no existing structures at the site. As such, the likelihood of encountering lead and/or ACMs is minimal . A s discussed below, the existing regulatory framework would preclude a significant impact resulting from ACMs.

Asbestos
Asbestos is the name of a group of silicate minerals that are heat resistant, and thus were commonly used as insulation and fire retardant. Inhaling asbestos fibers has been shown to cause lung disease (asbestosis) and lung cancer (mesothelioma).
49 BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 2 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACMs. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying; notification; ACM removal procedures and time schedules; ACM handling and clean-up procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfill disposa l requirements for asbestos -containing waste materials. As noted above, there are no existing structures at the site. As such, no demolition activities would occur at the project site. In addition, as stated in the Geological and Environmental Hazards Asse ssment ( Appendix C ), n o known naturally occurring serpentine rock or rock formations —which may contain significant quantities of asbestos —are on or within 10 miles of the project site.

Regardless, removal of any structural or naturally- occurring asbestos would comply with State and federal regulations, including Rule 2. Asbestos waste would be transported to a facility permitted for direct land filling of asbestos-containing waste, both friable and nonfriable, into a fully lined, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subpart D landfill unit. Additionally, soils contaminated by asbestos would be removed, if warranted. Compliance with existing regulations is sufficient to reduce potential impacts associated with ACM to a less-than-significant level, and no mitigation is necessary.

49 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Glossary of Environmental Terms. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/ InformationResources/Glossary_of_Environmental_Terms.cfm, accessed July 25, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Lead
Lead was formerly used as an ingredient in paint and as a gasoline additive; both of these uses have been banned. Lead is listed as a reproductive toxin and a cancer -causing substance; it also impairs the development of the nervous system and blood cells in children.

The determination of the presence of lead -based paint and its removal would comply with state and federal regulations, including OSHA rule 29, Code of Federal Regulations Part 1926, which establishes standar ds for occupational health and environmental controls for lead exposure. The standard also includes requirements addressing exposure assessment, methods of compliance, respiratory protection, protective clothing and equipment, hygiene facilities and practi ces, medical surveillance, medical removal protection, employee information and training, signs, recordkeeping, and observation of monitoring. Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 36100 specifically sets forth requirements for lead -based paint abatement in public and residential buildings.

As noted above, there are no existing structures at the site. However, if any building materials containing lead-based paint were to be found, the removal of lead -based paint would also need to comply with Ti tle 22, Division 4.5 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 22 sets forth the requirements with which hazardous-waste generators, transporters, and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities must comply. These regulations inclu de the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting shipments of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and emergency accidental discharges during transportation.

Soils contaminated by lead -based paint would be removed, as needed. Removed lead waste would be transported to a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act approved, Toxic Substances Control Act and RCRA permitted, Class I, II, and III landfill. Compliance with existing regulations would reduce hazards related to lead -based paint to less than significant, and no mitigation is needed.

Overall, compliance with State and federal regulations would reduce construction- related impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less Than Significant Impact . The project is located adjacent to an existing school site. As described above, the proposed project would have a less -than-significant impact with respect to the potential for the project to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, it was demonstrated above that the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 73
Operation of the proposed project would not emit stationary emissions that could substantially increase the cancer risk of occupants at any of the surrounding school sites. Long -term operation of the new building s would not involve the transport, storage, use, or disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. The existing student farm at Vintage High School is governed by safety and hazards protocol that would be implemented at the proposed farm. These protocols include a guided tour of the farm for all participating students and staff, and distribution of rules and safety standards. The effectiveness of these existing District guidelines is indicated by the fact that no hazards -related or emissions- related incidents associated with the existing working farm have been recorded. 50 Due to the character of the proposed project and adherence to existing protocol for a similar existing facility, impacts related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials at the project site to schools within ¼-mile of the project site would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact . Section 17213 of the California Education Code and Section 21151.8 of the California Public Resources Code prohibit construction of a new school on a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site. Government Code Section 65962.5 req uires listing of the following types of hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities; hazardous waste discharges for which the State Water Quality Control Board has issued certain types of orders; public drinking water wells containing detectable levels of organic contaminants; underground storage tanks with reported unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has migrated.

A review of environmental databases was conducted through EnviroStor and GeoT racker, operated by DTSC and SWRCB respectively. Databases searched included lists of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup sites, cleanup program sites, land disposal sites, military sites, WDR sites, Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program sites, Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities. The project site was not identified on the GeoT racker database . However, the site was identified on the EnviroStor database as a “School Investigation” site with an “active” status as of June 5, 2018. 51,52 Although, there are no specified
past uses that could have caused contamination, and currently there are no specified contaminants of concern or potential media affected at the site. In addition, as stated in the February, 2018 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment,
53 the site was not identified on any of the databases searched by EDR —the electronic database service. As such, the site would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

50 Pearson, Michael. School Planning and Construction, Maintenance & Operations, Napa Valley Unified School District. Email communication to Greg Goodfellow, September 9, 2018.
51 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), EnviroStor Database, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed July 23, 2018.
52 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker database, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed July 23, 2018.
53 Napa Valley Unified School District, February 2018, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vintage High School Farm Property, page 5.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

None of the database listings indicate that hazardous waste or solid waste has ever been disposed of within the project site, or that any of the types of hazardous waste releases relevant to Government Code Section 65962.5 has ever occurred there. As the site is not on a list of any of the types of hazardous materials sites specified in Government Code Section 65962.5, impacts would be less than significant , and no mitigation is required.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a saf ety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The Napa County Airport is the closest public airport to the project site and is approximately

8.3 miles to the south of the project site . The project site is not located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for the Napa County Airport.54 Therefore, no impact would result and no mitigation is needed. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. There are no private airstrips or heliports in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The Sonoma Skypark, a privately- owned airport, is approximately 9.2 miles to the southwest of the project site.55 Given the distance between the project site and this airstrip, project implementation would not create any safety hazard related to a private airstrip or heliport. There would be no impact, and no mitigation is required. g) Impair implementation of or physic ally interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to comply with DSA and local fire department requirements for emergency egress routes from school buildings and campuses. Project plans would be submitted to the City of Napa Fire Department for review of emergency access to buildings, turning radii for fire apparatus, etc.

Roadways in the vicinity of the site would continue to provide emergency access through the project area and to surrounding properties during project construction. In the event that a temporary closure of any street is required, the project contractor would be required to provide the City with a construction schedule and plans for the closure of the street and to ensure that placement of construction materials and equipment do not obstruct a detour route. The project contractor would be required to comply with all City and/or fire department recommendations, as applicable, for reducing impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans.

The proposed project would not impair or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response and evacuation plans, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary.

54 Napa County, Airport Land Use Commission. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, revised 1999. http://www.countyofnapa.org/ WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=4294968988, accessed December 29, 2017 55 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (APOA), https://www.aopa.org/airports/results?term=napa+CA, accessed July 25, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 75
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less Than Significant Impact . The project site is in an area developed with urban land uses, including residential uses, schools, and roadways. The site is not located within an area that contains dense vegetation (flammable brush) or is considered wildland. There are no wildlands on or near the project site. Moreover, the project site is located within a Non- Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as shown on the most recent map produced by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire).56 It is not located in a City of Napa Wildland Urban Interface Fire Hazard Area, per the Napa General Plan. 57 Therefore, project development would comply with all applicable fire code requirements. Impacts due to wildland fires would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project involves development of a working farm on

10.29 acres of vacant, undeveloped property adjacent to Vintage High School. Construction activities would result in the addition of 1.08 acres (47,000 square feet ) of hardscape. Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land that could impact hydrologic resources must comply with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) Construction General Permit (2009 -0009-DWQ) as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ.58 As such, the District would be required to obtain SWCRB General Permit coverage.

Construction activity subject to this permit would include clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation. 59 The General Permit establishes effluent standards, or numeric effluent limitations (NELs) for discharges from construction sites. The requirements of this permit would prohibit all discharges which contain a hazardous substance in excess of reportable quantities established in Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 117.3 and 302.4, unless a separate NPDES permit has been issued to regulate those discharges.

Adherence to the requirements of this permit would ensure that erosion, sediment, and runoff control measures are implemented through the project’s Storm Water Control Plan (SW CP). The SWCP outlines recommended BMPs for water discharge and runoff. The SWCP for the proposed project includes a series of strategic Drainage Management Ar eas (DMAs) located primarily in the central area of the site, surrounding classroom and barn structures and designed to facilitate safe, appropriate site discharge. The proposed SWCP

56 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP), 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/napa/fhszl_map.28.pdf, accessed July 25, 2018. 57 City of Napa General Plan, Health and Safety Element, Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Hazard Areas, page 8-23. 58 General Permit requirements would be enforced by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 59 State of California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf, accessed September 1, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

also establishes bioretention facilities at both ends of the proposed main parking area (see Figure 5). The bioretention areas would include 6 inches of loamy sand are followed by a layer of artifici al permeable material and native soils.

In addition to regulations applicable during the construction phase, the General Permit contains post construction requirements including requirements that dischargers (in this case, NV USD) replicate the pre- project runoff water balance (defined as the amount of rainfall that ends up as runoff) for the smallest storms up to the 85th percentile storm event, or the smallest storm event that generates runoff, whichever is larger. The permit requirements emphasize runoff reduction through on- site storm water reuse, interception, evapotranspiration and infiltration through non-structural controls and conservation design measures (e.g., downspout disconnection, soil quality preservation/enhancement, interceptor trees).

The proposed project would also include two underground stormwater detention/drainage facilities; one 120 linear foot facility, located on the western side of the site, would be positioned downslope of an earth swale grade to facilitate drainage. A second 180 linear foot facility would be located on the eastern side of the site, in grazing field 2. Two bioretention planters located at the east and west ends of the project parking lot would control runoff associated with project hardscaping. Adherence to the req uirements of the General Permit combined with the proposed bioretention strateg ies and drainage facilities , would ensure a less -than-significant impact in this respect. No mitigation is required.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in Section 1.4.4.2, project water supply would come entirely from one or two on- site wells in the central , d eveloped area of the site. T hree above ground water tanks with pumps will provide water storage . One 30,000-gallon tank would be dedicated for fire suppression, a 10,000- gallon tank for irrigation and a third storage tank for domestic use. As described below, Napa County’s groundwater permit process requires a groundwater availability analysis, the completion of which demonstrates that the proposed project would not result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

Water pumped from the groundwater system causes the water table to lower and alters the direction of groundwater movement. Some water that flows nearby creeks and stream s no longer does so and some water may be drawn in from those local waterways into the groundwater system, thereby reducing the amount of streamflow.

As recorded in the Geotechnical Investigation completed for the project, local groundwater lies at between 10 and 29 feet below ground surface (bgs). Literature research cited in the Investigation indicates that groundwater data from two monitoring wells within ½-mile of the project site show a highest historic groundwater level of 15.0 feet bgs. For analysis purposes, the Investigation assumed that a historic high ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 77
groundwater surface was 10 feet bgs. 60 Groundwater flows north-northeast toward Napa River, which is east of the site.61 The project site is currently without impervious surfaces, and therefore groundwater infiltration is unrestricted.

Groundwater Screening and Demand
As noted in Section 1.6, the project would require a Napa County Groundwater Permit based on the completion and approval of the County’s Water Availability Analysis (WAA). The WAA is specifically designed to determine CEQA -related groundwater impacts . As explained in the document, “The County is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)… and the CEQA Guidelines …to conduct an environmental analysis of all discretionary permits submitted for approval. The purpose of this document…is to prov ide guidance and a procedure to …to gather the information necessary to adequately answer… [CEQA Appendix G, Hydrology and Water Quality, Threshold b].”62 The WAA is used to determine if a proposal may have an adverse impact on the groundwater basin as a whole or on the water levels of neighboring non- project wells or on surface waters. The WAA requires that established water use criteria be compared to the water use estimate provided by the applicant.

The WAA establishes a three-tiered groundwater screening system:
 Tier 1. Water Use: Projects are evaluated for their potential to exceed maximum allowable groundwater use per acre.
 Tier 2. Well and Spring Interference: Projects are evaluated for their potential to interrupt existing flow between wells and natural springs.
 Tier 3 . Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction: Projects are evaluated for their potential to impact surface waters.

The level of required evaluation is based on whether a proposed project site is within Napa’s groundwater deficient Milliken -Sarco-Tulucay (MST) subarea. Per the Napa County Watershed Information & Conservation Council, the proposed project is outside the MST Subarea .63 As such, the proposed project would require Tier 1 review only.64
The Tier 1 w ater use screening criterion for parcels located on the Napa Valley Floor and outside the MST subarea is 1 acre-foot per acre of land per year. Therefore the proposed project, which would be located on a

60 Miller Pacific Engineering Group, 2018, Geotechnical Investigation Napa Valley Unified School District Vintage High School Student Farm Complex, page 2.
61 Cornerstone Earth Group, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Portions of APNs 038-240-019, 038-110-035, and 038-110-005, February 5, 2018, page 15.
62 Napa County 2015 Water Availability Analysis Guidance Document, https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/ View/8496/Attachment-D---Water-Availability-Analysis-Guidelines-5-12-15-PDF, page 4, accessed November 2, 2018. 63 Napa County Watershed Information & Conservation Council, Groundwater Subareas webpage, https://www.napawatersheds.org/app_pages/view/7254, accessed November 2, 2018. 64 Napa County 2015 Water Availability Analysis Guidance Document, https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/ View/8496/Attachment-D---Water-Availability-Analysis-Guidelines-5-12-15-PDF, page 7, accessed November 2, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

10.29-acre site, will meet this criterion if projected groundwater use would not exceed 10.29 acre-feet per year (afy).

Daily Water Demand
The proposed farm would require daily groundwater water supply for domestic (student and staff), livestock , irrigation and fire suppression uses. Table 8, below, summarizes daily water demand estimates. Vineyard irrigation estimates were calculated using the County’s vineyard irrigation estimation guidelines for working vineyards, although the proposed vineyard, as noted in Section 1.4.2.1 , would be planted for education rather than production, and as such would be planted at a lower density than a typical vineyard . Remaining irrigation estimates are for July, one of the hottest months of the year. As shown in Table 8, the project would result in an estimated water use of 9.16 afy. Based on the County’s WAA’s Tier 1 criteria for water use, the project would remain below the established water use criteria groundwater use on the project site of 10.29 afy.

Table 8 Vintage Farm Water Demand
Use
Unit
Quantity
Unit Demand
(gpd)
Daily Demand
(gpd)
Annual
Demand
(g/year)
Annual
Demand
(afy)
Domestic a
Staff 4 15 60 21,900 0.067
Students 45 20 900 328,500 1.01
Total Domestic 49 960 350,400 1.08
Livestock b
Animals 85 10 850 310,250 0.95
Irrigation
Vineyardc 1.5 acres 1.2
Culinary Garden and Pasture 6.25 acres 5.7
Total Irrigation 7.75 acres 6.95
Safety
Fire Suppressiond 2 Events/year 30,000 60,000 0.18
Average Project Demand 9.16
a. Napa County Environmental Health Division Technical Standards – Table 4 b. Napa County Environmental Health Division Technical Standards – Table 4 c. Napa County vineyard irrigation estimation guidelines : 0.2 to 0.5 acre-feet per acre per year + 0.25 acre-feet per year (heat protection) + 0.25 acre-feet per year (frost protection)
d. Insurance Services Office, Inc. high rating for fire protection capacity is 250 gallons per minute (gpm) for two hours, or 30,000 gallons Source: Napa Valley Unified School District.

Implementation of the project would also result in 1.08 acres of impervious surface on the project site, which would decrease groundwater infiltration. However, the project would be subject to the requirements of the ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 79
SWRCB Construction General Permit. These emphasize runoff reduction through on-site storm water reuse, interception, evapotranspiration and infiltration through non- structural controls and conservation design measures (e.g., downspout disconnection, soil quality preservation/enhancement, interceptor trees).

Adherence to the requirements of the General Permit would ensure that impervious surface associated with the proposed would not substantially deplete groundwater . The project would also include the strategically located DMAs and two underground stormwater detention/drainage facilities described in Section 3.10a.

In addition to obtaining a Napa County Groundwater Permit and approval of the WAA, the District would be required to comply with the following Napa County well-specific regulations, including:
 Adherence to Chapter 13.12 Wells, of the Napa County Municipal Code, including:
 13.12.260 Permit Requirements
 13.12.280 Application Requirements
 13.12.320 Inspection of Work Required
 Article III. Construction Specifications
 13.12.440 Protection of Water Supply
Fulfillment of the appropriate WAA screening criteria, compliance with the SWRCB General Permit and compliance with County permitting requirements would ensure that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to groundwater depletion. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project does not involve the alteration of any watercourse, stream or river. T he project site is 55 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and is nearly level, with a slight downward slope to the southeast. It is located in a suburban-rural area that is adjacent to existing development to the north and west, with developed areas further south and east. Construction activities associated with the project would involve grading and excavation resulting in the net export of 1,090 CY of earth, and the construction of school buildings, outdoor areas and parking lots, which could increase the potential for erosion and siltation impacts. As noted in Section 1.4.4.1, the proposed project would include an underground storm drain system that would collect and temporarily detain overflow. The system would release stormwater in a controlled manner, allowing it to drain southeasterly via historic overland drainage patterns. Section 1.4.4.1 also describes two bioretention planters located in the project parking lot that would control runoff associated with project hardscaping.

In addition, as previously discussed in Section 3.7.b, standard erosion and sediment control measures are required and would be implemented as part of the SWPPP for the proposed project to minimize the risk during construction. The SWPPP must include an erosion control plan that prescribes measures such as phasing of grading, limiting areas of disturbance, designation of restricted�entry zones, diversion of runoff away from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, outlet protection, and provisions for re � ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

vegetation or mulching. The erosion control plan would also include treatment measures to trap sediment once it has been mobilized, including inlet protection, straw bale barriers, straw mulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams, terracing, and siltation or sediment ponds. The topography of the project site, combined with compliance with the above regulations and proposed features, ensure that it would not result in a substantial increase in surface runoff resulting in significant erosion or siltation. The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the project substant ially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact . Implementation of the project would increase the quantity of impervious surface on the project site. It would be subject to the requirements of the General Permit which, as explained, emphasizes runoff reduction through on- site storm water reuse, interception, evapotranspiration and infiltration through non-structural controls and conservation design measures (e.g., downspout disconnection, soil quality, preservation and enhancement, interceptor trees). T he proposed bioretention planters and underground storm drain system would facilitate natural drainage, control runoff associated with project hardscaping and further reduce the potential for on- and off-site flooding. Adherence to the requirements of the General Permit and project characteristics would ensure a less -than-significant impact associated with increased flooding.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project would include drainage improvements that would be sized to limit runoff from the site to within the existing capacity of the storm water drainage system on the roadways surrounding the project site. As under Section 3.10.a , the project would comply with NPDES requirements for minimizing pollution of storm water through preparation and implementation of an SWCP, which would specify BMPs that would be implemented in the project during the construction stage, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that would detail which BMPs would be implemented in project design and during project operation. The previously -referenced proposed bioretention planters and underground storm drain system would facilitate natural drainage, control runoff associated with project hardscaping and further reduce the potential for storm water pollution and capacity impacts. The associate d impact of the project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is needed. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact . Adherence to NPDES requirements and the requirements of the General Permit would substantially reduce potential impacts related to water quality. A less-than-significant impact would result in this respect and no mitigation is required.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 81
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project does not include a housing component and is not located within a 100 - year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Insurance Rate Map. 65 Therefore, no impact would result in this respect and no mitigation is required.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Insurance Rate Map.66 Therefore, no impact would result in this respect and no mitigation is required. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact . As stated in Section 3.10.g, the project site is not within a flood hazard zone. Per Napa County, the site is not in a mapped dam inundation area. 67 Moreover, regulations in the California Code of Regulations, Title 5 would apply to the proposed project and reduce potential impacts by requiring geologic and soils engineering studies to address the nature of the site including a discussion of flood inundation and street flooding. Therefore, a less- than-significant impact would result and no mitigation is required.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than Significant Impact . A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. The project site located 15 miles north of San Pablo Bay and at an elevation of roughly 55 feet amsl. There are no surface bodies of water near the project site that could pose a hazard of flooding to the site due to a seiche. Therefore, the site would not be at risk from flooding due to seiche and no mitigation is required.

A tsunami is a series of ocean waves caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. According to maps prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), the project site is not in an area subject to inundation by tsunamis. 68 The nearest tsunami inundation area is
approximately 9 miles to the south. Therefore, tsunami risk on-site would be less than significant.

A mudflow is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement.

Compliance with requirements of the California Building Code and all recommendations by the geotechnical study would reduce potential impacts for landslides to less than significant. Furthermore, the project site is

65 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2010. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06055C0508F, https://msc.fema.gov/ portal/home, accessed July 25, 2018.
66 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2010. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06055C0508F, https://msc.fema.gov/ portal/home, accessed July 25, 2018.
67 Napa County, 2008 Napa County General Plan, Dam Inundation Areas map, page SAF-15. 68 California Emergency Management Agency (CEMA), 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Cuttings Wharf Quadrangle, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic_hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps, accessed July 25, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

not in a streambed or floodplain. Therefore, the site is not at risk of inundation due to mudflow, a less- than- significant impact would result, and no mitigation is required.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Less Than Significant Impact. Typically, projects with the potential to divide an established community include construction of major highways or roadways, construction of storm channels, closing bridges or roadways, or the construction of utility transm ission lines. The proposed project would develop a school farm with classroom structures and barns on undeveloped 10.29- acre property adjacent to Vintage High School, as well as 24-foot -wide gravel access drive . The location of the project is also adjacent to an established residential neighborhood. However, due to the location of the proposed project just beyond the boundary of that neighborhood, at the terminus of existing Trower Avenue (see Figure 2), it would not interrupt or divide an established community nor disrupt the physical arrangement of the surrounding built environment. A less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or re gulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than Signif icant Impact. The majority of the project site is located in unincorporated Napa County and is designated RS:UR (Residential Single and Urban Reserve) on the Napa County Zoning Map 69 and “Cities” and “Rural Residential” on the General Plan Map for County of Napa.70 The site is zoned RC (Residential Country District) and RC -UR (Residential Country Urban Reserve Combination District) in the Napa County Zoning Ordinance.

The RC district classification is intended to be applied to land in pr oximity to existing urban areas, but that is currently in agricultural areas or developed with low -density residences. The RC also applies to land which, because of its location to major services, water and sewage facilities and major streets, as well as appropriate underlying geology, is suitable for low- density single -family residential development . Agriculture uses and public stables are also allowed in all RC districts without a use permit.71 The UR combination district classification is intended to identify those properties inside the sphere of influence of a city as adopted by LAFCO and a city- adopted urban limit, such as the city of Napa's Rural

69 Napa County Planning, Building and Environmental Services, Zoning Map for County of Napa, 2015, https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/8436/Napa-County-Zoning-Map?bidId=, accessed September 1, 2018. 70 Napa County Planning, Building and Environmental Services, General Plan Map for County of Napa, Land Use Map, Napa County Land Use Plan 2008-2030, https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/8492/-General-Plan-Map-for-County- of-Napa-PDF-, accessed September 1, 2018.
71 Napa County, California – Code of Ordinances, https://library.municode.com/ca/napa_county/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=TIT18ZO_CH18.64RCRECODI, accessed September 1, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 83
Urban Limit ( RUL), whose continued or future urbanization, subject to Section 18.100.030, is contingent upon annexation to the city, as indicated in Napa County general plan policies. Uses or actions other than permitted uses first require an application for annexation to be processed before proceeding. 72 In UR districts, any use allowed without a use permit in the principal zoning district with which the UR district is combined is allowed. As such, the proposed farm project is allowed within the RC-UR district.

The project site and proposed project are consistent with the intent of the existing County land use planning and zoning. The project would not conflict with any land use policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. In addition, District, as a state- level sovereign agency, is not subject to the City’s ordinances and standards. Therefore, the p roject would have a less- than-significant impact on existing plans and policies, and no mitigation is needed.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not within the plan area of a Natural Community Conservation Plan 73 or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS) classifies lands into Aggregate and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board, as mandated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1974. These MRZs identify whether known or inferred significant mineral resources are present in areas. Lead agencies are required to incorporate identified MRZs resource areas delineated by the State into their General Plans. 74 Gravel, sand, and stone aggregate mineral resources exist about ½- mile to the west of the city’s border. This is the only aggregate resource sector to be designated of regional significance by the CGS. 75 There are no other designated significant aggregate mineral resources in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, project implementation would have n o impact on the availability of known mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.

72 Napa County Conservation, Development and Planning Department, Zoning Districts, Summary of Allowable Uses by Zoning District, 2006, https://www.countyofnapa.org/DocumentCenter/View/3377/Summary-of-Allowed-Uses-by-Zoning- District-PDF, accessed September 1, 2018.
73 Summary of Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) October 2017, https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=15329&inline, accessed September 1, 2018.
74 Public Resources Code Section 2762(a)(1).
75 Department of Conservation (DOC), 1982. Mineral Land Classification Map, Napa Quadrangle, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/ dmg/pubs/sr/SR_146-3/SR-146_Plate_3.19.pdf, accessed July 25, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The Napa General Plan does not identify any locally-important mineral resource recovery sites.

Only two former rock and gravel quarries exist within the city and have closed prior to 1970 . Therefore, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan and no impact would occur.

No mitigation is required.

3.13 NOISE
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Federal, state, and city governments have established nois e criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent the disruption of certain human activities, such as classroom instruction, communication, or sleep.

The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section:
 Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which, when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism, such as the human ear or a microphone.
 Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB). A unit-less measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency -weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
 Equivalent Continuous Noise Lev el (L eq). The mean of the noise level, energy averaged over the measurement period.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24 -hour period, with 5 dB added from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Existing Noise Environment
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped . However, Vintage High School, located adjacent to the site, accommodates approximately 1,845 students and 81 teachers.76 The addition of the school farm would not cause an increase in staff or students, although it would accommodate new farm animals, including goats, sheep, lambs, chickens, and pigs in nine barns, as well as grazing cattle. The project site is adjacent to V intage High School, and near Big Ranch Road and Jefferson Street, which are the primary noise sources at the

76 National Center for Education Statistics, Search for Public Schools, Common Core Data, 2015-2016, https://nces.ed.gov/ ccd/schoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&DistrictID=0626640&SchoolPageNum=2&ID=062664004037, accessed September 1, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 85
proposed project site. Roadway noise from Trower Avenue and other nearby residential arterials may also contribute to the total noise environment at the proposed project site.

Sensitive Receptors
The proposed project site is immediately adjacent to rural residential uses to the west, and the proposed grazing fields would be adjacent to rural residential properties to the north and east.

Would the project:
a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant with Mitigation . Noise regulations applicable to the proposed project are provided in the Napa County Code and the Napa Municipal code. Chapter 8.08 Noise Control Regulations , of the City of Napa Municipal County Code provides noise level limits and general factors considered in determining whether a violation of the noise ordinance exists. Construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday. There is to be no startup of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 a.m., nor past 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines nor equipment past 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6:45 p.m., Monday through Friday; and construction on weekends or legal holidays shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., unless a permit is issued by the City.

Operational Noise Impacts
Stationary Noise
The proposed project could introduce new stationary noise sources to the community, including mechanical equipment, farm maintenance equipment (operational equipment), farm animal noises, and human speech and activity noise.

Operational noise projections are based on equipment regularly operated to run and maintain the farm, su ch as tractors. This will not result in an increase in operational noise from what already exists at the current farm location.

Mechanical Equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems would be placed within appropriate sound enclosures or parapets similar to the mechanical systems employed at existing schools. This would be a less-than-significant impact.

Parking Lots and Student Drop-off/Pick-up
Parking lots typically generate noise from car horns, car engines, brakes and tires, lock triggers, alarms and radios. In typical high school campuses, each of these is short in duration and the highest magnitudes of noise are most likely to occur during school start and dismissal times. However the proposed project will not be affected by typical start/dismissal times. The majority of students will arrive on foot from existing Vintage ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

High School. The proposed project includes a 27 stall parking lot to the south boundary of the farm. For the majority of the daytime hours, school parking lots experience little traffic and any closing of doors or conservations are intermittent and would not be significant.

On-campus Student and Staff Activity Noise
Project development will not increase the numbers of students and staff, but will result in people in the area immediately surrounding the proposed project. This may result in localized noise generated from human speech and other school interactive activities on the campus. Noise generation from student activities would primarily occur when students are outdoors. The greatest concentration of students outdoors would be at the proposed culinary garden during culinary classes and break periods. Noise at the garden would be highly variable depending on the level of activity in this area. The most sensitive receptors in terms of outdoor student activity noise would be the homes adjacent to the culinary garden. Overall, noise from students participating in learning activities at the garden and elsewhere during operation of the proposed project would be intermittent and would not be expected to result in a significant noise impact.

Construction Noise
The total duration of project construction is expected to be approximately 24 months, broken into two phases.

Two types of short- term noise impacts could occur during construction: (1) mobile -source noise from transport of workers, material deliveries, and debris and soil haul and (2) stationary-source noise from use of construction equipment.

Construction Vehicles
The transport of workers and materials to and from the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Individual construction vehicle pass -bys may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (L max) at 50 feet from the vehicle, but these occu rrences would general ly be infrequent and temporary. Therefore, noise impacts from construction vehicles would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment
Noise generated by on-site construction equipment is based on the type of equipment used, its location relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of noise- generating activities. Each stage of construction involves different kinds of equipment and has distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are typically dominated by the loudest several pieces of equipment. The dominant equipment noise source is typically the engine, although work-piece noise (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable.

The noise produced at each construction stage is determined by combining the L eq contributions from each
piece of equipment used at a given time, while accounting for the on -going time- variations of noise emissions (commonly referred to as the usage factor). Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short- duration noise levels in excess of 80 to 85 dBA at 50 feet. However, overall noise emissions vary considerably, depending on what specific activity is being performed at any given moment.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 87
Noise attenuation due to distance, the number and type of equipment, and the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks at each construction phase would result in different noise levels from construction activities at a given receptor. Since noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of at least 6 dB per doubling of distance (conservatively ignoring other attenuation effects from air absorption, ground effects, and shielding effects), the average noise levels at noise -sensitive receptors could vary considerably, because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with different loads and power requirements. Noise levels from project -related construction activities were calculated from the simultaneous use of all applicable construction equipment at spatially averaged distances (i.e., from the acoustical center of the general construction site) to the property line of the nearest receptors. Although construction may occur across the entire phase area, the area around the center of construction activities best represents the potential average construction-related noise levels at the various sensitive receptors.

Using information provided by the applicant, the expected construction equipment mix was estimated and categorized by construction activity using the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). The associated, aggregate sound levels—grouped by construction activity—are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9 Project-Related Construction Noise
Construction Activity Phase
Sound Level at Various Distances from
Construction Activities, dBA Leq
Residential Uses to South (300 Feet)a
Site Preparation 69
Grading 69
Building Construction 67
Paving 70
Architectural Coating 57
a. As measured from the acoustical center of the construction site to the nearest sensitive receptor property line.

Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model, FHWA, 2008.

Construction activities would not permanently increase noise levels at and near the proposed area of improvements. The highest average construction- related noise levels—up to approximately 70 dBA L eq— would occur at the residential receptors to the north during the paving phase. As discussed above, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property are exempt from the provisions of the Municipal Code, provided construction does not take place during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends or legal holidays. Provided that construction activities would comply with the hours allowed in the Municipal Code, they would occur during the least noise-sensitive portions of the day. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE -1, project- related construction noise impacts to the surrounding residences would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

Mitigation Measure
NOISE-1 As required by the City of Napa Municipal Code, construction activities shall not take place during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekends or legal holidays. There shall be no startup of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 AM, Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials or equipment prior to 7:30 AM, or past 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines nor equipment past 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6:45 PM, Monday through Friday. In addition, the following best management practices shall be observed:
 At least 30 days prior to the start of construction activities, all off -site residences within 300 feet of the project site will be notified of the planned construction activities. The notification will include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when construction would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification should include the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise complaint.
 The project sponsor and contractors will prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan.

The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan, including those details listed herein, will be included as part of the permit application drawing set and as part of the construction drawing set.
 At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign will be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, which includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, he/she will investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
 All muffler systems on construction equipment shall be properly maintained. D uring the entire active construction period, equipment and trucks used for project construction will utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment re-design, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and a coustically attenuating shields or shrouds), wherever feasible.
 All construction equipment shall not be placed adjacent to developed areas unless said equipment is provided with acoustical shielding. During the entire active construction period, stationary noise sources will be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures will be incorporated to the extent feasible.  All construction and grading equipment shall be shut down when not actively in use.

Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on -site construction zones, ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 89
and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.  During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back -up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level, or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
b) Result in e xposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less Than Significant. The following analysis is based on the vibration guidelines provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Vibration impacts are quantified in terms of architectural damage due to vibration (typically expressed in peak particle velocity [PPV] in inches/second) (FTA 2006).

Operations-Related Vibration
The City of Napa does not set quantitative vibration level standards. Thus, impacts are defined as significant if they exceed standards for vibration, as provided by FTA. For potential architectural damage, FTA guidelines define an impact as significant if it exceeds 0.20 inches/second peak particle velocity (PPV) for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (which would apply to the surrounding residential structures).
77 Operation of the proposed project would not generate substantial levels of vibration because there are no notable sources of vibrational energy associated with the project. Thus, operation of the proposed project would not result in significant ground borne vibration impacts.

Construction-Related Vibration
Construction activities generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration- sensitive uses. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 3.12 -2 lists reference vibration levels for different types of commonly used construction equipment. Rock blasting and impact pile- driving generate the highest levels of vibration. Construction for this project would not require impact pile- driving or blasting.

Proposed construction would include grading, which would include equipment such as loaders. Some of these equipment types such as vibratory rollers used for paving may generate substantial levels of vibration at close distances. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided in Table 10 and the

77 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

construction vibration assessment guidelines published by the FTA, the vibration impacts associated with the proposed project were assessed in terms of potential architectural damage due to vibration.

Table 10 Vibration Source Levels for Common Construction Equipment Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity
(in/sec) at 25 feet
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Source: FTA 2006.

The term ‘architectural damage’ is defined as minor surface cracks (in plaster, drywall, tile, or stucco) or the sticking of doors and windows. This is below the severity of ‘structural damage’ which entails the compromising of structural soundness or the threatening the basic integrity of the building shell. Building damage is typically not a concern for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile driving during construction.
78 No blasting, pile driving, or hard rock ripping/crushing activities will be require d during project construction. Since vibration- induced architectural damage could result from an instantaneous vibration event, distances are measured from the receptor façade to the nearest location of potential construction activities. For reference, a peak particle velocity (PPV) of 0.20 inches/second is used as the limit for “non-engineered timber and masonry buildings” (which would apply to the surrounding structures) (FTA 2006). Small construction equipment generates vibration levels less than 0.1 PPV in/sec at 25 feet away. The closest that construction equipment could come to the residential buildings to the west would be 35 feet. At this distance, vibration levels from vibratory rollers would attenuate to approximately 0.13 in/sec PPV , which would be below the threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV and would, therefore, be less than significant. c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant Impact . Long-term operational stationary noise impacts from implementation of the proposed project site were addressed in discussion a), above. It was concluded that the potential for noise increases from stationary sources would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

Traffic Noise
In the absence of applicable quantitative standards for traffic noise increases within the City of Napa, impact significance is determined by any audible impact, which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Changes in noise level of less than 1 dB are typically “inaudible” to the human ear except under

78 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT). FTA-VA-90-1003-06.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 91
controlled environments. Change in noise level between 1 and 3 dB are considered “potentially audible”. An audible increase in community noise levels generally refers to a change of 3 dB or more, considered the threshold of perceptibility in exterior environments. Only “audible” changes in noise levels at sensitive receptor locations (i.e., 3 dB or more) are considered potentially significant. Note that for traffic-generated noise levels to increase by 3 dB, a doubling of traffic flows (i.e., 10,000 vehicles per day to 20,000 per day) would be needed.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in additional staff or students and no change to traffic patterns along roadways in the vicinity of the project is anticipated. Therefore, an increase in noise due to increased traffic is not projected and this impact would be less than significant. d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. As presented in Impact Item (a) above, project- related construction noise would comply with the allowable construction hours per the City Municipal Code and would implement Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and project development would not expose people on-site to excessive airport-related noise levels. There would be no impact. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As such, development of the project would not expose people on -site to excessive noise levels from aircraft at private airstrips and no impact would occur.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not develop new homes or businesses, and therefore would not directly induce population growth. Additionally, the project is intended to serve existing Vintage High School students and staff only. It would not cause an increase in enrollment. The proposed gravel extension of Trower Avenue from its eastern terminus would provide access to the project site only; this limited access and infrastructure would not induce or facilitate new development and/or population growth .

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

The project would constitute an improved educational program of an existing high school, the addition of which would induce neither direct nor indirect growth that would exceed regional projections. The resulting impact would be a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation is necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site does not contain housing, and no housing would be displaced. No impacts due to the displacement of existing housing would occur, and no mitigation is required. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, and no residents live on-site. There would be no impact due to the displacement of residents, and there would be no need for replacement housing. No mitigation is required.

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physicall y altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Napa Fire Department provides fire protection services to the project site. The nearest fire station to the site is Fire Station No. 3 at 2000 Trower Avenue, about 0.9 miles southwest of the project site. The proposed project would result in the development of an extension of an existing school program on a currently -undeveloped site, and thus may increase the potential for on-site fire-related incidents and impacts to fire service provision. However, the project is immediately adjacent the existing school and would not involve an increase in total staff or student enrollment. In addition, the project would include the installation of a pressurized, 30,000- gallon above- groundwater storage tank dedicated for fire suppression. This would facilitate the use of 250 gallons per minute (gpm) for fire suppression. As such, it would not result in significant new demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. New demand for public services such as fire protection are primarily driven by population growth, and as described above in Section 3.1 4, Population and Housing, the project would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth. This means that the increase in demand for fire protection services would not be substantial and would not create a need for new fire protection facilities. Environmental i mpacts from new fire facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 93
b) Police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in Napa County, just east of the City of Napa boundary.

As such, the site is officially served by the Napa County Police Department, and is located in the Department’s Vintage Neighborhood, whose northern and eastern boundary is the City of Napa limit line.

Its southern boundary is Trancas Street and its western boundary is Jefferson Street. 79 The proposed project would result in the development of an extension of an existing school program on a currently -undeveloped site, and thus may increase the potential for on- site police -relate incidents and impacts to police service provision. However, the project is immediately adjacent the existing school and would not involve an increase in total staff or student enrollment. As such, it would not result in significant new demand for police services.

New demand for public services such as police protection are primarily driven by population growth, and as described above in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth. This means that the increase in demand for police services would not be substantial and would not create a need for new police facilities. Environmental i mpacts from new police facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

c) Schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes construction of the Vintage High School Farm, adjacent to Vintage High School. As described above, this Initial Study evaluates the potential impacts of this project on the physical environment. The proposed project would result in the development of an extension and improvement of an existing school program. It is not intended to accommodate new school growth in the form of additional students or staff. As such it would not result in substantial demand for new school facilities. Potential environmental i mpacts from new school facilities would be less than significant , and no mitigation is required
d) Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact . Demand for parks is typically induced by the const ruction of housing, which directly induces population growth, or development of infrastructure that may generate indirect population growth, such as the extension of public roadways. As described above in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth.

Moreover, as described in S ection 3.1 6, Recreation, the proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. The proposed project is in response to an existing need for improved educational facilities that would accommodate only existing students in the Napa Valle y Unified School District. Therefore, a less -than-significant impact would result in this respect and no mitigation is required.

79 Napa County Police Department, Neighborhoods webpage, https://www.cityofnapa.org/570/Vintage-Neighborhood, accessed November 2, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact . The Napa County Public Library provides library services to the city of Napa at one location: the Main Library at 580 C oombs Street, about 3 miles southeast of the project site. As described above in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth. As such, it is unlikely that the proposed project would induce demand for library services such that new facilities, the construction of which would have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts, would be necessary. The demand for public facilities is typically driven by increases in population and , as discussed above , the project would have a less -than-significant impact with respect to population growth. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result in this respect and no mitigation is required.

3.16 RECREATION
Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact . Demand for parks is usually created by development of new housing, which directly induces population growth, or other activities that generate indirect population growth, like the extension of roads. As discussed above in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the project would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth. Moreover, the project would not involve an increase in enrollment. Given the project would not result in substantial population growth or an increase in enrollment, project implementation would not increase the use of recreational facilities in the community such that substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated. A less- than-significant impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities on or off -site. As such, the project w ould have a less- than- significant impact on the physical environment. No mitigation is required.

3.17 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 95
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestria n and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project would result in construction of classroom space, barns, fields, and other farming -related teaching facilities to accommodate areas of study that are currently housed on the existing Vintage High School campus and nearby farming sites. As proposed, the project would not increase the number of teachers or students, so would result in no increase in traffic associated with the campus and therefore no impact on traffic operation. Alternative transportation modes are discussed below.

Pedestrian Facilities
Given the site is surrounded by residential development, it is likely that some students will arrive on foot or by bicycle. There will be sidewalks on both sides of the Trower Avenue extension once it is paved, as set forth in existing City of Napa policies for Trower Avenue and a pathway will be constructed as part of the project to connect the existing sidewalk system to the new classrooms. Additionally, a crosswalk will be installed at the terminus of Trower Avenue to connect the site to the existing Vintage High School campus.

Therefore, pedestrian impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Bicycle Facilities
There are existing Class II bike lanes along both sides of Trower Avenue for its entire length, although the bike lane markings east of Stover Street are mostly faded. Per the City of Napa Bicycle Plan, January 2012, there are plans to extend Trower Avenue and its bike lanes to Big Ranch Road, including in front of the project site. However, as the roadway is not being constructed at this time, bicyclists can use the crosswalk at the terminus of Trower Avenue and the path connecting the crosswalk to the new campus for access to the project site. The project plan includes 24 bicycle parking spaces and 6 lockers, as required by the Bicycle Plan.

Therefore, bicycle impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Transit
VINE Transit operates routes in Napa and the greater Napa area. Route 7 provides loop service connecting the project site with the Redwood Park and Ride via Jefferson Street. The nearest stop is at Jefferson Street and Trower Avenue. Route 7 connects to multiple other VINE routes at various locations. The project site will not generate new transit trips as the users of the site will be existing students and staff of Vintage High School. Therefore, transit impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? No Impact. The project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management plan. The care of animals would require additional trips during the evening hours and on weekends, but these are not periods ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis

of peak congestion, so they are not covered by congestion management plans. As the project is not adding any vehicle trips during the peak hours, no impact will occur to level of service or other such standards. c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns nor would any of the buildings be of sufficient height to impact air traffic. Therefore, no impact to air traffic patterns would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significa nt Impact. The project would not change existing roadway geometrics that could increase hazards related to design features. The project would include farm equipment and other hazardous machinery, but they would be contained to the project site without the need to access public streets.

Therefore, the project would have a less- than-significant impact related to an increase in hazards due to design features or incompatible uses.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Im pact. The project site is located at what is currently the eastern terminus of Trower Avenue. The project would install a gravel roadway as an interim improvement until the roadway extension is built, including sidewalk along the northerly side of the future street. The site design maintains the width needed for the future roadway extension. Under short- term conditions the site would have adequate emergency access via the gravel roadway extension together with on- site drive aisles that circumnavigate the site and could accommodate emergency response vehicles. In the longer term, the project provides a first step toward extending Trower Avenue to Big Ranch Road, resulting in improved connectivity and shorter response times for emergency responders than currently exist.

Most of the project structures are located near the planned Trower Avenue extension, and the project site has an internal network of roads in case additional access is necessary. The project would not impact emergency access on nearby streets. The project site would have adequate emergency access and would result in a less- than-significant impact related to emergency access.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact . The project site is located within close proximity to existing pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities. The project would not physically alter any existing facilities and therefore would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative modes. The planned improvements include a crosswalk connecting the site to the existing high school campus and a pathway between the crosswalk and on-site sidewalks to adequately serve pedestrian and bicycle trips. The project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bi cycle, or pedestrian facilities.

ATTACHMENT 8

VINTAGE HIGH SCHOOL FARM

NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

3. Environmental Analysis
November 2018 Page 97

3.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ( WQCB), which establishes requirements for treatment of wastewater discharged through its MS4 permit. However, a s explained in Section 3.7e, the proposed farm would include an on-site septic system designed and constructed per the County’s OWTS Standards. As explained by the WQCB, “m ost on -site wastewater systems, especially septic tanks, are regulated by local agencies (e.g., counties), and these agencies are best able to provide permitting information at this time .”80 As a result, the project would not exceed SFBRWQCB requirements. The impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact . Water for the proposed project would be supplied entirely by groundwater.

As such, existing water treatment facilities that serve Napa County would not be impacted and no new construction or expansion of off-site treatment facilities would be required. As explained in Section 3.7e, the proposed farm would include the development of an on- site septic system, pending annexation to the NSD .

The system would be design ed and constructed per the County’s OWTS Standards. As outlined in Section

3.7e, these standards include rigorous site evaluation, soil suitability and construction inspection provisions that would ensure that the environmental impact of the proposed wastewater treatment system would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Off-site improvements to storm water drainage facilities are not included as a part of the proposed project. This Initial Study evaluates all impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. As described in Section 1.4.4.1, the project would include an underground storm drain system that would collect and temporarily detain overflow, then release stormwater in a controlled manner, allowing it to drain southeasterly via historic overland drainage patterns.

The proposed project would also be required to adhere to a WQMP with specified BMPs for minimizing water pollution through project design features, and a SWCP specifying BMPs for minimizing water pollution during project construction. Construction of storm water drainage facilities on- site would be completed in

80 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board website, On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems webpage, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/on_site_wastewater_treatment_systems.html, accessed September 21, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 8