Napa City Council
April 2, 2024

Initial Study/Addendum
First & Oxbow Gateway Project
Prepared by the
June 2020
In Consultation with
ATTACHMENT 13

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 4 Section 3.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 24 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 24 Proposed Development ......................................................................................................... 24 Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ........................................... 36 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 37 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................... 46 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 49 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 59 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 65 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 71 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 74 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 81 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 86 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 92 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 98 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 101 Noise & Vibration............................................................................................................... 103 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 116 Public Services.................................................................................................................... 118 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 121 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 123 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 134 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 138 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 142 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 144 Section 5.0 References ................................................................................................................... 147 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ..................................................................................... 148 Lead Agency ....................................................................................................................... 148 Consultants ......................................................................................................................... 148 Section 7.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 149

ATTACHMENT 13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures

Figure 2.7-1: Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 2.7-2: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2.7-3: Aerial Map .................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3.2-1: Conceptual Site Plan (Ground Floor) ........................................................................ 27 Figure 3.2-2: Conceptual Site Plan (Second Floor) ........................................................................ 28 Figure 3.2-3: Building Elevations (South & East) .......................................................................... 29 Figure 3.2-4: Building Elevations (North & West) ......................................................................... 30 Figure 3.2-5: Subgrade Parking Garage Plan .................................................................................. 31 Figure 3.2-6: Landscape Plan .......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.2-7: Utility Plan ................................................................................................................ 33 Figure 3.2-8: Proposed Relocation Site .......................................................................................... 34 Figure 3.2-9: Proposed Property Acquisition .................................................................................. 35 Figure 4.13-1: Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................ 105 Figure 4.17-1: Study Intersections .................................................................................................. 127

Photos
Photos 1 & 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 39 Photos 3 & 4 ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Photos 5 & 6 ......................................................................................................................................... 41 Photo 7 ................................................................................................................................................. 42

Tables
Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures .................................. 50 Table 4.3-2: Construction Period Emissions ................................................................................. 52 Table 4.3-3: Construction Risk and Combined Source Impacts .................................................... 54 Table 4.8-1: Annual Project GHG Emissions ................................................................................ 82 Table 4.13-1: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data ................................................ 104 Table 4.13-2: Noise Levels by Construction Phase ....................................................................... 107 Table 4.13-3: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................ 109 Table 4.17-1: Project Trip Generation Estimates .......................................................................... 125 Table 4.17-2: Project Trip Generation Comparison ...................................................................... 125 Table 4.17-3: Project Level of Service Summary .......................................................................... 126

Appendices

Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Appendix B: Riparian Area Assessment
Appendix C: Relocation Project Evaluation
Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix F: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
ATTACHMENT 13
Appendix G: Floodplain Analysis
Appendix H: Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment Appendix I: Traffic Impact Study
ATTACHMENT 13
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
As the Lead Agency, the City of Napa has prepared this Initial Study/Addendum for the First and Oxbow Gateway Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Napa, California.

The City of Napa adopted the Downtown Specific Plan (DNSP) in May 2012. The specific plan provides a long-term vision for Downtown, and identifies implementation policies, that direct how that vision may be achieved over the life of the document.

The DNSP Planning Area (Planning Area) encompasses Downtown Napa, which is bounded on the east by the eastern bank of the Napa River, on the south by Division and Third Streets, and on the west by Jefferson Street. The northern boundary generally follows the edge of the “Downtown Commercial” zoning area boundary adjacent to northern residential neighborhoods along Polk and Caymus Streets west of Soscol Avenue. The Planning Area boundaries extend east to include the Oxbow Market and former Copia area east of Soscol Avenue. The Planning Area encompasses approximately 210 acres.

The City of Napa prepared and certified the Downtown Napa Specific Plan Program EIR (SCH# 2010042043) in May 2012 to address future development under the DNSP. The EIR analyzed projected development capacity of the Downtown by increasing potential residential units from 125 units to 642 units. In addition, the Specific Plan provides the opportunity for an additional 470,600 square feet office space, a 303-room hotel and conference center, and 108,590 square feet of additional retail space over existing development capacity under the General Plan.

The EIR included analyses for all applicable CEQA resource areas and identified the following impacts as significant and unavoidable with the assumption of full buildout of the project:

• Air quality impact,
• Greenhouse gas impact, and
• Transportation/traffic impact.

In certifying the DNSP EIR, the City of Napa City Council adopted a statement of overriding consideration for the DNSP for the above mentioned significant and unavoidable impacts, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

The purpose of this Initial Study/Addendum is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the First and Oxbow Gateway Project (as described in Section 3.0) and determine whether the project is within the scope of development program described in the DNSP and evaluated in the Downtown Napa Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (the “DNSPEIR” or “EIR”) (State Clearinghouse No. 2010042043), and whether the project has the potential to result in any new environmental impacts.

The project is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to relocate two historic structures from the project site to 58 Randolph Street, a Demolition Permit to demolish five existing non-historic ATTACHMENT 13
structures, and a Design Review Permit and Use Permit to redevelop the site with two, four-story hotel buildings on an approximately 0.8-acre site in Downtown Napa. Other related approvals include a Sign Permit, Right-of-Way Abandonment, and a Lot Merger. This Initial Study/Addendum evaluates the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.

The DNSP EIR was a “Program EIR”, which is defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as:

(a) General. A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
i) Geographically,
ii) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, iii) In connection with issues of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
iv) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), Program EIRs may be used for subsequent activities contemplated in the Program EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) states:

c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. i) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. ii) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.
iii) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program.
iv) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR.
v) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 states that when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the Lead Agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

ATTACHMENT 13

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in 15162 (see above) calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164(d), the Lead Agency shall consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project.

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
This addendum will not be circulated for public review, but will be attached to the EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164(c).

ATTACHMENT 13
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT TITLE
First and Oxbow Gateway Project

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Erin Morris, Planning Manager
City of Napa
Community Development Department
1600 First Street,
Napa, CA 94559
(707) 257-9530

PROJECT APPLICANT
JB Leamer
438 Technology Way
Napa, CA 94558

PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 0.8-acre site is located in Downtown and is bounded by First Street to the north, Soscol Avenue to the west, a single-family residence accessed from McKinstry Street to east, and Water Street to the south. Regional and vicinity maps and an aerial photograph of the project site are shown on Figures 2.7-1, 2.7-2, and 2.7-3, respectively.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
003-235-003, -004, -005, -006, -007 and 003-241-003, -005, -006

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
Zoning Designation: OBC – Oxbow Commercial
General Plan Designation: Oxbow Commercial

PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS
• Design Review
• Certificates of Appropriateness
• Use Permit
• Sign Permit
• Right-of-Way Abandonment
• Lot Merger
• Demolition Permit

ATTACHMENT 13
Vacaville
Allendale
Fairfield
Bay Point
Napa
Oakville
St Helena
Kenwood
Petaluma
Sonoma
Novato Vallejo
Santa Rosa
Vacaville
Allendale
Fairfield
Bay Point
Napa
Oakville
St Helena
Kenwood
Petaluma
Rohnert Park
Sonoma
Novato Vallejo
Santa Rosa
Rohnert Park
101
101
101 12
12 37
37 29
29 121
128
128
128
121
113
116
505
680
780
80 80
80 Project Site
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.7-1
0 5 25 Miles
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
5 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
Hayes Street
Eggleston Street
Brown Street
Yajome Street
Yount Street
Vallejo Street
Napa Street
Clinton Street
Pearl Stre
et
Calistoga Avenue
Polk Street
Clay Street
1st Street
1st Street
1st Street
1st Street
3rd Street
3rd Street
Taylor Street
Post Street
2nd Street
4th Street
2nd Street
Main Street
Main Street
Coombs Street
Division Street
McKinstry Street
Juarez Street
Berna Avenue
East Avenue
Evans Avenue
Davis AvenueLinnell Avenue
Fairview Drive
Hannessy Drive
Burnell Street
Soscol Avenue
Soscol Avenue
Jefferson Street
Jefferson Street
Hayes Street
Eggleston Street
Brown Street
Yajome Street
Yount Street
Vallejo Street
Napa Street
Clinton Street
Pearl StreetCalistoga Avenue
Polk Street
Clay Street
1st Street
1st Street
1st Street
1st Street
3rd Street
3rd Street
Taylor Street
Post Street
2nd Street
4th Street
2nd Street
Main Street
Main Street
Coombs Street
Division Street
McKinstry Street
Juarez Street
Berna Avenue
East Avenue
Evans Avenue
Davis A
ve
nue
Linnell Avenue
Fairview Drive
Hannessy Drive
Burnell Street
Soscol Avenue
Soscol Avenue
Jefferson Street
Jefferson Street
N
a
p
a
River
N
apa Ri v er
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.7-2
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 200 1000 2000 Feet
Downtown Specific Plan Area
Project Site
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
6 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
Water Street
Vernon Street
Soscol Avenue
Soscol Avenue
1st Street
1st Street
Water Street
Vernon Street
Soscol Avenue
Soscol Avenue
1st Street
1st Street
Napa Valley W
ine Train
Napa Valley Wine Train
Napa
ValleyW
ine
Train
Napa Valley Wine Train
N a p a R i v er
N
apa
River
Commercial
Park/Recreational Facility
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Office
Office
Office
Office
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.7-3 Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Dec. 18, 2018. Photo Date: Feb. 2018 0 50 200 250 Feet
Project Boundary
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
7 ATTACHMENT 13

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?

1. Aesthetics
Would the project:
a) Conflict with City goals and
policies related to visual
quality, to other applicable
aesthetic or visual policies
or standards?
Yes No No No Not Applicable (N/A)
b) Significantly alter the
existing natural viewsheds,
including changes in natural
terrain or vegetation?
Yes No No No N/A
c) Significantly change the
existing visual quality of the
region or eliminate
significant visual resources?
Yes No No No N/A
d) Significantly increase light
and glare in project vicinity?
Yes No No No N/A
e) Significantly reduce sunlight
or introduce shadows in
areas used extensively by
the public?
Yes No

No No N/A

2. Agricultural & Forestry
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
Yes No

No No

N/A

ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
b) Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act
contract?
Yes No

No No N/A
c) Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land,
timberland, or timberland
zoned Timberland
Production?
Yes No

No No N/A
d) Result in a loss of forest
land or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Yes No

No No N/A
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?
Yes No

No No N/A

3. Air Quality
Where available, the significance criteria established the applicable air 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?
Yes No No No No
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any nonattainment pollutant
for which the project region
is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or State
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing
emissions, which exceed
Yes No No No Yes
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Yes No No No Yes
d) Result in substantial
emissions (such as odors)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Yes No No No No

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 (CDFW) or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)?
Yes No No No Yes
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by
the CDFW e or USFWS?
Yes No No No No
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but
Yes No No No No
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) 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, or substantially
reduce the number or restrict
the range of an endangered,
rare, or threatened species?
Yes No No No No
e) Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Yes No No No No
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?
Yes No No No No

5. Cultural Resources
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
a historical resource as
defined in 15064.5?
Yes No No No Yes
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to 15064.5?
Yes No No No Yes
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside of formal
cemeteries?
Yes No No No Yes

6. Energy
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, or
wasteful use of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Yes No No No Yes
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Yes No No No N/A

7. 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:

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
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
evidence of a known
fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Yes No No No N/A
iii. Seismic related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
Yes No No No N/A
iv. Landslides? Yes No No No N/A
b) Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Yes No No No N/A
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?
Yes No No No N/A
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?
Yes No No No N/A
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 wastewater?
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
d) Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Yes No No No N/A

8. Greenhouse Gases
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Yes No No No Yes
b) Conflict with any applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purposes of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Yes No No No Yes

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?
Yes No No No N/A
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?
Yes No No No N/A
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
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?
Yes No No No N/A
e) Result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working
in the project area for a
project within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or within an
airport land use plan?
Yes No No No N/A
f) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Yes No No No N/A

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Yes No No No N/A
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
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been
granted)?
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 substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
Yes No No No N/A
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 that
would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
Yes No No No N/A
e) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
Yes No No No N/A
f) 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?
Yes No No No N/A
g) Place within a 100-year
flood hazard area structures
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
that would impede or
redirect flood flows?
h) Expose people or structures
to a substantial risk of loss,
injury or death involving
flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
Yes No No No N/A
i) Result in inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow
Yes No No No N/A

11. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an
established community?
Yes No No No N/A
b) Cause a significant
environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Yes No No No N/A
c) Conflict with any
applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation
plan?
Yes No No No N/A

12. Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that will
be of value to the region
and the residents of the
state?
Yes No No No N/A
b) Result in the loss of
availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on
a local general plan,
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
specific plan or other land
use plan?

13. Noise and Vibration
Would the project:
a) Result in generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in
excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
Yes No No No Yes
b) Result in generation of,
excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne
noise levels
Yes No No No Yes
c) Be located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip
or an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or
public use airport. The
project would not expose
people residing or working
in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Yes No No No N/A

14. Population and Housing
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial
unplanned population
growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displacement of existing
residents or housing units?
Yes No No No N/A

15. Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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:
i. Fire Protection? Yes No No No No
ii. Police Protection? Yes No No No No
iii. Schools? Yes No No No No
iv. Parks? Yes No No No No
v. Other public
facilities?
Yes No No No No

16. Recreation
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
accelerated?
No No No N/A
b) Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion
of recreational facilities,
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
Yes No No No N/A

17. Transportation
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
Yes No No No Yes
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
roadways, bicycle lanes and
pedestrian facilities?
b) For a land use project,
conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
No No No No N/A
c) Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible land uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Yes No No No No
d) Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Yes No No No N/A

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) 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)?
Yes No No No N/A
b) 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 this
criteria, the significance of
the resource to a California
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
Native American tribe shall
be considered.

19. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
Yes No No No N/A
b) Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that it
does not have adequate
capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand
in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Yes No No No N/A
c) Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the
construction of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
Yes No No No N/A
d) Generate solid waste in
excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Be noncompliant with
federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Yes No No No N/A

20. Wildfire
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
Yes No No No N/A
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Yes No No No N/A
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources,
power lines or other
utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the
environment?
Yes No No No N/A
d) Expose people or structures
to significant risks,
including downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope
Yes No No No N/A
ATTACHMENT 13
Issues and Supporting Data
Sources
Was Impact
Analyzed in Prior
Environmental
Document(s)?
Does proposed
project involve new
significant impacts
or substantially
more severe
impacts?
Any new
circumstances
involving new
significant impacts or
substantially more
severe impacts?
Any new
information
requiring new
analysis or
verification?
Prior environmental
document’s mitigation
implemented to
address impacts?
instability, or drainage
changes?

ATTACHMENT 13
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

OVERVIEW
The approximately 0.8-acre project site is comprised of multiple parcels (APN 003-235--003, - 004, - 005, -006, -007 and 003-241-003, -006) located on the south side of First Street, bounded by Soscol Avenue and McKinstry Street in Downtown Napa. The portion of the site located east of the Napa Valley Wine Train railroad tracks is currently developed with one single-story, single-family residence and a one-story commercial structure that was formerly a single-family residence. The portion of the site located west of the Napa Valley Wine Train railroad tracks is currently undeveloped.

The project site is designated Oxbow Commercial in the City of Napa General Plan and zoned Oxbow Commercial. The Oxbow Commercial zoning district applies to the eastern portion of the Downtown area and is generally located between Soscol Avenue and the Napa River. The district allows for uses oriented to tourists such as hotels and their related amenities; recreational facilities; community and visitor-serving retail, commercial, entertainment and restaurants; and similar compatible uses in addition to live/work opportunities.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

3.2.1 Hotel
The project proposes to develop the site with two, four-story hotel buildings with two subterranean levels totaling approximately 184,106 square feet. The two hotel buildings would be constructed on the east and west sides of the Napa Valley Wine Train railroad tracks. The proposed building west of the railroad tracks (West Building) would be 91,027 square feet in size and contain approximately 37 hotel rooms, a 2,787 square-foot ground floor retail area for a café, accessed from First Street, a pool, gym and spa available for hotel guests and two levels of subterranean parking accessed from a driveway on First Street. The proposed building east of the railroad tracks (East Building) would by 93,079 square feet in size and contain 37 hotel rooms, 3,507 square feet of ground floor retail, conference rooms, and two levels of subterranean parking accessed from a driveway on Water Street.

The fourth floor of each building would contain an outdoor lounge area that would each include a bar.

The proposed buildings would have varying roof heights with a maximum height of 60 feet for each building. The West Building would be set back approximately 11 feet from the First Street property line and approximately 16 feet from the Soscol Avenue property line. The East Building would be set back approximately 11 feet from the First Street property line and approximately eight feet from the east property line that is shared with an existing single-family home. The proposed setbacks are consistent with the setback requirements prescribed in the DNSP.

The conceptual site plan and building elevations for the proposed project are shown on Figures 3.2-1 to 3.2-4.

ATTACHMENT 13

3.2.2 Site Access and Parking
The project would provide a total of 121 parking spaces in two separate subgrade parking garages (see Figure 3.1-5). Vehicle access to the proposed project would be provided via two proposed driveways. The West Building would be accessed via a driveway east of the existing driveway curb- cut on First Street and would be right-in/right-out only. The East Building would be accessed via a new driveway on Water Street, located just east of the railroad tracks. Traffic exiting (and entering) the East Building would gain access to Water Street via McKinstry Street. The applicant has requested the City to abandon a portion of Water Street. If the City approves the abandonment of Water Street, Water Street would revert to the adjacent property owners, and a portion of Water Street would be converted from a public street to a private street. The proposed subgrade garages would be operated via valet parking. A valet dropoff zone would be provided on First Street.

Pedestrian access to the hotel would be provided by the existing sidewalk along First Street. The project would install an ADA-compliant pathway to allow for public access from the First Street to Water Street, adjacent to the river. The project would provide parking for 16 bicycles.

3.2.3 Landscaping and Stormwater Control
The proposed buildings would be built around a central interior courtyard which would include ornamental landscaping and trees. Each of the buildings would have three outdoor terraces with planted trees, providing views to First Street. The project would install ornamental landscaping on the ground floor. See Figure 3.2-6. Street trees would be added in the planter strip on Soscol Avenue and on First Street.

Runoff from the project site would be conveyed to four bioretention facilities for onsite stormwater treatment. The bioretention facilities would be 1,709 sf in total and would be generally located in landscape areas along the perimeters of the eastern and western buildings and outside of riparian areas.

3.2.4 Utility Improvements
The project would connect to existing storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in First Street. The project would replace the existing four-inch sewer lateral line with a six-inch sanitary sewer line (see Figure

3.2-7). The project would also connect to an existing 12-inch water line in First Street.

3.2.5 Green Building and Energy Efficiency
The project would incorporate rainwater collection and harvesting, water conservation and green building technologies.

3.2.6 Public Art
The project would install public artwork at the project’s interface with the First Street and Soscol Avenue intersection to signify entrance into the Oxbow District of Downtown Napa.

ATTACHMENT 13

3.2.7 Bu ilding Relocation
The project proposes to relocate the historic single-family residence and one-story commercial building on the project site to 58 Randolph Street, located approximately 1.3 miles north of the project site (see Figure 3.2-8). The 58 Randolph Street site is zoned Traditional Residential Infill (RT-5). The 58 Randolph Street site is currently developed with a building that is identified on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. That building occupies the southern half of the 58 Randolph Street site. The relocated buildings from the project site would be placed on the northern half of the 58 Randolph Street site. The relocated buildings would adhere to the height and setback requirements of the Traditional Residential Infill zoning district.

3.2.8 Property Acquisition and Easements
Implementation of the project would require acquisition of land currently owned by the Napa County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District and the City of Napa. The project would incorporate approximately 6,518 square feet of Napa County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District-owned parcels (APN 003-241-005 and 003-235-007) located on the east and west side of the Napa Valley Wine Train railroad tracks, as shown in Figure 3.2-9. The Flood Control District would grant an easement to the project for the land. In addition, if the City of Napa abandons Water Street as requested by the applicant, the project would acquire a 10,018 square-foot portion Water Street from the City. The Napa County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District would retain ownership of the existing parking lot (APN 003-242-001) located to the south of Water Street.

3.2.9 Project-Related Approvals
The project would require the following approvals:
• Design Review Permit and Use Permit to redevelop the site with two, four-story hotel buildings on an approximately 0.8-acre site in Downtown Napa. • Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation of the two historic structures from the project site to 58 Randolph Street.
• Right-of-Way Abandonment to allow Water Street to revert to the adjacent property owners and a portion of Water Street to be converted from a public street to a private street. • Lot Merger to assemble multiple existing parcels into a single parcel for hotel development. • Demolition Permit to demolish five existing structures. • Sign Permit.

3.2.10 C onstruction
Project construction would last approximately 13 months (270 construction working days). The two buildings would be constructed concurrently. Project construction would require 18,140 cubic yards of soil to be exported for construction of the proposed underground garages.

ATTACHMENT 13
Source: Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects, August 2019.

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN (GROUND FLOOR) FIGURE 3.2-1
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
27 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
Source: Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects, August 2019.

CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN (SECOND FLOOR) FIGURE 3.2-2
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
28 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
South Elevation
East Elevation
Source: Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects, August 2019.
20’-0”12’-0”12’-0”16’-0”7’-0”20’-0”12’-0”12’-0”16’-0”7’-0” BUILDING ELEVATIONS SOUTH/EAST FIGURE 3.2-3
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
29 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
North Elevation
West Elevation
Source: Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects, August 2019.

Level 4 +40’-0”
Roof/Max Bldg HT +60’-0”
Level 3 +28’-0”
Level 2 +16’-0”
Ground Level ±0”
Level 4 +40’-0”
Roof/Max Bldg HT +60’-0”
Level 3 +28’-0”
Level 2 +16’-0”
Ground Level ±0”
BUILDING ELEVATIONS NORTH/WEST FIGURE 3.2-4
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
27 27
30 ATTACHMENT 13
Source: Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects, August 2019.

SUBGRADE PARKING GARAGE PLAN FIGURE 3.2-5
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
31 ATTACHMENT 13

PLANTERS WITH EVERGREEN
SHRUB, TYP .

NORTH ELEVATION TREES, TYP .

PATIO TREES, TYP .

PLANTERS WITH

TRELLIS VINES &
ACCENT SHRUBS, TYP.

BIORETENTION AREA - PLANT SPECIES
PER BASMAA, APPENDIX “F”, TYP .

FIRST STREET - STREET
TREE, TYP .

SOSCOL AVENUE -
STREET TREE, TYP .

COURTYARD TREES, TYP.

PLANTERS - SOUTH,
WEST ELEVATIONS, TYP .

PLANTERS - NORTH,
EAST ELEVATIONS, TYP .

PLANTERS WITH
ACCENT SHRUBS, TYP.

Source: Backen Gillam Kroeger Architects, August 2019.

LANDSCAPE PLAN FIGURE 3.2-6
32First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
Source: , August 2019. RSA+
UTILITY PLAN FIGURE 3.2-7
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
33 ATTACHMENT 13
Ash Str
eet
Randolph Street
Spruce Street
Coombs Street
Ash Street
Randolph Street
Spruce Street
Coombs Street
PROPOSED RELOCATION SITE FIGURE 3.2- 8
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Nov. 4, 2019. Photo Date: Sep. 2018 0 25 100 200 Feet
58 Randolph Street
Proposed
Relocation Area
Proposed
Relocation Area
34 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
ATTACHMENT 13
+ 198
est
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301707|
+S
Source: RSA, 4/25/2019.

PROPOSED PROPERTY ACQUISITION FIGURE 3.2- 9
35First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND

IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:

4.1 Aesthetics

4.2 Agri culture and Forestry Resources

4.3 Air Quality

4.4 Biological Resources

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.6 Energy

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.13 Noise

4.14 Population and Housing

4.15 P ublic Services

4.16 Recreation

4.17 Transportation

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.20 Wildfire

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:

• Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection 1) includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts and 2) discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is numbered to correspond to the checklist question being answered. For example, Impact BIO-1 answers the first checklist question in the Biological Resources section.

ATTACHMENT 13

AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Impact Discussion

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Aesthetics Conclusion The Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR (DNSP EIR) concluded that implementation of the Downtown Napa Specific Plan (Specific Plan) would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts.

No mitigation was incorporated into the DNSP EIR.

The DNSP contains standards and design guidelines applicable to development projects located within the Planning Area. The proposed project includes Design Guidelines specific to development within the Oxbow District of Downtown Napa. The intent of the guidelines is to guide and define the character of new development in Downtown and implement the vision of the Specific Plan. The guidelines are related to the following: site layout and building design, massing and scale, building heights and stepbacks, building setbacks, building façade articulation, materials, lighting, building signage, and awnings. Applicable guidelines to the proposed project are listed under the Specific Plan Policies and Design Standards following the Aesthetics Impact discussion.

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Conflict with City goals and policies
related to visual quality, to other
applicable aesthetic or visual policies or
standards?

2) Significantly alter the existing natural
viewsheds, including changes in natural
terrain or vegetation?

3) Significantly change the existing visual
quality of the region or eliminate
significant visual resources?

4) Significantly increase light and glare in
the project vicinity?

5) Significantly reduce sunlight or
introduce shadows in areas used
extensively by the public?

Note: Certain projects within transit priority areas need not evaluate aesthetics (Public Resources Code Section 21099).

Impact AES-1: The project would not conflict with City goals and policies related to visual quality, to other applicable aesthetic or visual policies or standards. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
The project would be required to adhere to the standards and design guidelines found in the DNSP and would require the issuance of a Design Review permit. With adherence to the guidelines and approval of the Design Review permit, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The DNSP EIR determined that implementation of the Specific Plan EIR would not conflict with the goals and policies of the General Plan EIR and the aesthetic impact of project implementation would be less than significant. The DNSP EIR did not identify officially designated scenic views or vistas; however, State Routes 29 and 121, which runs in the north-south directions within the Planning Area are eligible scenic highways. Other view corridors, including views of the hills from the Oxbow area, Jefferson Street, Soscol Avenue, and First, Second, and Third Streets could be affected from buildout of the Specific Plan. Given that the Planning Area is relatively flat, largely built-out, and contains many street trees, public views from and through the Downtown corridors are already somewhat obstructed. Project implementation, therefore, would not significantly impact viewsheds in the area.

Buildout of the Specific Plan would result in increased density of structures within the Planning Area through the construction of buildings on undeveloped lots or redevelopment of existing ones. The proposed project would conform to the building heights and stepback guidelines of the Specific Plan and the Oxbow District, which are listed in the Specific Plan Policies and Design Standards that follow the Aesthetics Impact discussion.

As stated in Impact AES-1, the project would adhere to the Downtown Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Historic Guidelines which would ensure consistency with the Specific Plan. As shown in Photos 1-7, the project site is partially developed with five existing structures and the remainder of the site is undeveloped. Project implementation would result in the loss of 21 trees on- site; however, the project would install ornamental landscaping throughout the site to enhance the streetscape and surrounding area. The project would also construct a pedestrian path to provide public access from First Street to the Napa River. Additionally, the proposed hotel would include terraces and windows that would provide views of the Napa River to hotel users.

The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact AES-2: The project would not significantly alter the existing natural viewsheds, including changes in natural terrain or vegetation. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
Photo 1: View of project site from Soscol Ave. & First Street intersection.

Photo 2: View of riparian corridor from the western portion of the project site.

PHOTOS 1 AND 2
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
39 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
Photo 3: View of Napa Valley Wine Train tracks from western portion of project site facing south.

Photo 4: View of Napa Valley Wine Trail tracks and adjacent single family home from eastern portion of project site.

PHOTOS 3 AND 4
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
40 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
Photo 5: View of single family home facing north from Water Street.

Photo 6: View of driveway aisle extending to First Street from single family residence on-site.

PHOTOS 5 AND 6
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
41 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
Photo 7: View of single family residence on-site from Water Street.

PHOTO 7
42 First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13

The project design would be consistent with the buildout of the Specific Plan which would improve the vitality and character of the Downtown area. The project would include public amenities to continue to provide public access to the Napa riverfront. As described in Impact AES-2, the project would install ornamental landscaping throughout the project site and place artwork to further enhance the visual character of the area. The project would not remove any significant visual resources from the site.

The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines that would address potential light and glare impacts, specify exterior lighting where the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge or wall; verify that fixtures do not cast light directly into adjacent residential windows; a translucent or optical lens diffuser globe or shield is recommended; balance the need to provide illumination and security with the desire to maintain the ambience of Downtown and minimize light pollution. Adherence to the Specific Plan guidelines would ensure that the project would not result in light spillover or glare onto adjacent properties or the riparian corridor.

Consistent with the DNSP EIR, the project would be required to conform to the Design Guidelines, as listed in the Specific Plan Policies and Design Standards that follow the Aesthetics Impact discussion. With conformance, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines related to massing and scale of future development.

The project would be required to adhere to the massing and scale design guidelines, as listed in the Specific Plan Policies and Design Standards that follow the Aesthetics Impact discussion. The proposed building massing would be consistent with the vision of the Specific Plan and would not introduce shadows in areas used extensively by the public. As described in Impact AES-2, the project would construct a pedestrian path from First Street to provide public access to the Napa River, a public use.

Impact AES-3: The project would not significantly change the existing visual quality of the region or eliminate significant visual resources. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact AES-4: The project would not significantly increase light and glare in the project vicinity. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact AES-5: The project would not significantly reduce sunlight or introduce shadows in areas used extensively by the public. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
With conformance to the applicable policies, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no General Plan Policies that were used to reduce potential impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan to a less than significant level.

The Specific Plan includes Design Guidelines intended to guide future development within the Planning Area and ensure consistency in visual character within the defined subareas. The following are some of the Design Guidelines that would shape the visual character within the Planning Area.

Site Layout and Building Orientation. Orient buildings so that primary façades and key pedestrian entries face major streets; locate semi-private open spaces, such as common courtyards, to face major streets, activating the corridor and providing “eyes on the street”; design river and creek frontages to activate the promenade and take advantage of views, encourage through-block pedestrian connections, discourage service access and service areas on the river side of any property, and discourage surface parking lots between buildings and the river edge.

Building Setbacks. Setbacks and overall building form should maintain the human scale of Downtown, with emphasis on maintaining an active street edge; the character of the setback area should respond to the surrounding context, whether it be the heart of Downtown on First Street or a tree-lined street on the edge of Downtown.

Building Heights and Stepbacks. New buildings and building additions should reinforce the historic pattern with heights and setbacks oriented to the many existing two- and three-story buildings; on taller buildings, retain pedestrian scale with design strategies such as upper-story stepbacks; where neighboring buildings are three stories or lower in height, match the height of street façades to adjoining buildings. Where applicable, building heights must also be sensitive to adjacent historic properties.

Building Façade Articulation. Regardless of architectural style, new infill development should reinforce the existing character of finely detailed building façades, with attention to the design details and articulation of façades. Enliven the façade and provide human scale with generous reveals such as inset doorways and windows, as well as projecting elements such as entrance porches, porticoes, canopies, awnings and trellises; on commercial façades, include the elements that make up a complete storefront including doors, display windows, bulkheads, signage areas; utilize architectural elements such as cornices, lintels, sills, balconies, awnings, porches and stoops to enhance building façades. Include a level of architectural detailing and quality of materials that complements historical buildings; for new projects located adjacent to residential neighborhoods, reflect the transition in use and scale with design elements such as porches, roof slope and architectural features.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts ATTACHMENT 13
Massing and Scale. Ensure that building mass and scale does not overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street; utilize special architectural features such as gables, turrets, towers, and loggias to accent buildings at major street corners, at the terminus of a street corridor, at gateway locations, and/or at other highly-visible building locations; break up the mass of large-scale buildings with articulation in form, architectural details, and changes in materials and colors, and other similar elements; encourage distinctive landmark buildings at gateway locations to have architectural elements such as a tower at the corner, articulation or unique roof silhouettes, providing a corner plaza, and/or a recessed building entrance at the corner.

ATTACHMENT 13

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

4.2.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?

2) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?

3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?

4) Result in a loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?

5) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Agricultural and Forestry Resources Conclusion The DNSP EIR found Agricultural and Forestry related impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan would not be significant as the Planning Area is mapped as urban and built up land by the Department of Conservation.

ATTACHMENT 13

The project site is not designated as farmland or used for agricultural purposes. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to agricultural resources. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The project site is not designated as farmland or used for agricultural purposes and is not under a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The project site is partially developed with commercial uses and is not zoned forest land or timberland. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for Timberland Production. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The project site does not contain forest land and, therefore, development of the site with the proposed hotel building would not result in the loss of forest land. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The project site is not designated as farmland or used for agricultural or forestry purposes. The project, therefore, would not cause any changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversation of forest land to non-forest use. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
Impact AG-1: The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
Impact AG-2: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)] Impact AG-3: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
Impact AG-4: The project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)] Impact AG-5: The project would not 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no General Plan Policies that were used to reduce potential agricultural and forestry impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan to a less than significant level.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

As agricultural and forestry resources were found not to be impacted in the DNSP EIR, there were no policies identified in the Specific Plan to reduce impacts.

ATTACHMENT 13

AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in March 2019. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix A to this Initial Study/Addendum.

4.3.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?

2) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?

3) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any nonattainment
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)?

4) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?

5) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Air Quality Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that despite incorporation of project mitigation measures, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased long- term emissions of criteria pollutants from increased vehicle traffic and from exceeding the growth assumptions of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.

The DNSP EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to the project and implementation of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, since the Specific Plan would exceed the Impact AIR-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
population projections.1 However, the DNSP EIR introduced land use designations that would place future residents in proximity to transit, which would reduce potential air quality and greenhouse gas emissions associated with traditional single-use vehicle ridership, reducing the potential air quality impact.

Construction activities for the proposed project would generate criteria pollutant emissions. These emissions would be temporary and would not impact any long-term air quality improvement plans or policies and would not interfere with the goals and policies of the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan (2017) for ozone compliance. The Specific Plan implemented measures listed in the General Plan Policies and Specific Plan Policies section immediately following the Air Quality Impact Discussion.

The proposed project would generate 834 vehicle trips per day, which would not exceed the trip generation assumptions of the DNSP EIR. The proposed project’s consistency with the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan is summarized in Table 4.3-1 below. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control
Measures Description Project Consistency
Transportation Control Measures
Trip Reduction
Programs
Encourage trip reduction policies and
programs in local plans, e.g., general
and specific plans. Encourage local
governments to require mitigation of
vehicle travel as part of new
development approval, to develop
innovative ways to encourage
rideshare, transit, cycling, and
walking for work trips.

The project includes the construction of a pedestrian
path on the project site that connects to Water Street, adjacent to the Napa River. Pedestrian improvements
through the site would facilitate walking and bicycling as modes of transportation within the project vicinity.

The proposed parking would include 16 bicycle
parking spaces to encourage visitors to bike during
their stays. The project, therefore, is consistent with this measure.

Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Access and
Facilities
Encourage planning for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities in local plans,
e.g., general and specific plans, fund
bike lanes, routes, paths and bicycle
parking facilities.

The proposed project would provide 16 bicycle
parking spaces for future hotel users and employees.

The project would also construct a pedestrian path
extending from First Street to the Napa River that
would be accessible to the public. The project,
therefore, is consistent with this measure.

Land Use
Strategies
Support implementation of Plan Bay
Area, maintain and disseminate
information on current climate action
plans and other local best practices.

This control measure is not applicable to the proposed
project.

Building Control Measures
Green Building Identify barriers to effective local
implementation of the CalGreen
(Title 24) statewide building energy
code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement.

The project would be built to comply with CalGreen
Standards. The project, therefore, is consistent with
this measure.
1 Note that at the time of the preparation of the DNSP EIR, the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan was the most recent Clean Air Plan available. In April 2017, the Clean Air Plan was updated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and remains the most recent Clean Air Plan.

ATTACHMENT 13
Table 4.3-1: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control
Measures Description Project Consistency
Engage with additional partners to
target reducing emissions from
specific types of buildings.

Urban Heat
Island
Mitigation
Develop and urge adoption of a
model ordinance for “cool parking”
that promotes the use of cool surface
treatments for new parking facilities.

Develop and promote adoption of
model building code requirements
for new construction or re-roofing/
roofing upgrades for commercial and
residential multi-family housing.

The proposed project would be constructed to conform
to the City’s Specific Plan sustainability measures,
High Performance Building Ordinance, and the
Citywide Sustainability Plan. The project, therefore, is consistent with this measure.

Waste Management Control Measures
Recycling and
Waste
Reduction
Develop or identify and promote
model ordinances on community-
wide zero waste goals and recycling
of construction and demolition
materials in commercial and public
construction projects.

The project would be required to comply with the
City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance
(Chapter 15.32), which would require that 50 percent
of waste be diverted from landfill disposal. The
project, therefore, would be consistent with this
measure.

Water Control Measures
Support Water
Conservation
Develop a list of best practices that
reduce water consumption and
increase on-site water recycling in
new and existing buildings;
incorporate into local planning
guidance.

The project would comply with CalGreen and reduce
outdoor water use by planting drought tolerant non-
invasive landscaping. The project, therefore, would be
consistent with this measure.

The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The Bay Area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

Impact AIR-2: The project would not 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
Construction Period Emissions
Construction of the project would occur over 13 months (approximately 270 workdays), beginning in January 2020, and would result in the export of approximately 18,140 cubic yards of soil and import of 1,097 cubic yards of soil. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to predict emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residents of a single-family home adjacent to the eastern portion of the site.

Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. CalEEMod provides annual emission estimates for total PM10 exhaust emissions for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles, with total emissions as 0.13 tons (260 pounds). Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were calculated by CalEEMod as 0.12 tons (240 pounds) for the overall construction period. For both the total PM10 exhaust emissions and fugitive PM2.5 emissions, project construction emissions would be less than the BAAQMD thresholds of 82 pounds/day for PM10 exhaust and 54 pounds/day for PM2.5 exhaust. Table 4.3-2 displays the total construction period emissions from the project.

Table 4.3-2: Construction Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Total construction emissions (tons) 0.77 tons 2.62 tons 0.13 tons 0.12 tons Average daily emissions (pounds)1 5.74 lbs/day 19.41 lbs/day 0.94 lbs/day 0.90 lbs/day
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per
day)
54 lbs/day 54 lbs/day 82 lbs/day 54 lbs/day
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1 Assumes 270 workdays.

Consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR and Mitigation Measure 4.B-2, the project would implement the following BAAQMD recommended best management practices to control fugitive dust during project construction:

Best Management Practice:

During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.B-

2. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level.

Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

ATTACHMENT 13

3. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

7. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

8. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

9. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

The proposed project would implement BAAQMD Best Management Practices for construction dust to ensure implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B-2 and reduce the contribution of construction dust to health risks. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Operational Period Emissions
Based on the BAAQMD operational-related criteria air pollutant screening level, the operational air quality emissions from the proposed hotel would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and precursors. The proposed hotel would have 74 rooms, which is below the BAAQMD threshold screening size of 489 rooms for a hotel. The project operational emissions would be less than significant.

The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Less Impact than Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known toxic air contaminant (TAC). Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.B-2, a community risk assessment was completed to evaluate potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from project construction TAC emissions, which included diesel particulate matter (DPM) dispersion Impact AIR-3: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
modeling to predict DPM concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors to find the maximally exposed individuals (MEIs).2

The residential construction MEI was identified at a single-family residence at 903 McKinstry Street, adjacent to the eastern portion of the project. Table 4.3-3 below displays the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project construction activities and combined sources affecting the residential MEI. Non-construction sources of emissions within the project vicinity include traffic along Soscol Avenue, which has approximately 19,055 vehicles per day. No stationary sources of TAC emissions are present within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Results of the assessment indicate that the maximum residential cancer risks would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of greater than 10 in one million and the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration significance threshold of greater than 0.3 µg/m3. The maximum computer Hazard Index based on the DPM concentration would not exceed the significance threshold of greater than 1.0.

Table 4.3-3: Construction Risk and Combined Source Impacts at the Offsite MEI
Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction
Unmitigated
Mitigated

61.6 (infant)

7.8 (infant)

0.47 0.09

0.07 0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >0.1
Significant?

Unmitigated
Mitigated
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Soscol Avenue (north-south roadway) with MEI 80 feet east, ADT 19,830 1.1 0.04 <0.03
Combined Sources
Unmitigated
Mitigated

62.7 (infant)

8.9 (infant)

0.51 0.13
<0.10
<0.04
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0
Significant?

Unmitigated
Mitigated
No
No
No
No
No
No

2 The maximally exposed individual (MEI) is the individual that is exposed to the highest concentration of a pollutant.

ATTACHMENT 13
To reduce the potential significant health risk impacts, the project would implement the following Condition of Approval to ensure implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B-2:

Condition of Approval:

The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 84-percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:

• All diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3 engines and this equipment shall include CARB- certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or equivalent. Additionally, equipment that meets U.S. EPA Tier 4 interim standards or use of equipment that is electrically powered or uses non-diesel fuels would meet this requirement.

Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.B-2, the above Condition of Approval would ensure the maximum increased lifetime residential cancer risk from construction, assuming infant exposure, would be 7.8 in one million or less, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would be 0.09 µg/m3, and the Hazard Index would be 0.01. The project impacts would be below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and would be consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR. The project, therefore, would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Project implementation would not result in the generation of permanent or long-term objectionable odors. Odors associated with the intermittent operation of diesel-powered equipment might be detected by nearby sensitive receptors at adjacent residences; however, these odors would be temporary (less than 13-month construction period) and would not affect a substantial number of people. Once construction activities are completed, there would be no potential for odor impacts at surrounding sensitive receptors. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy NR-5.4: The City shall, during discretionary review, require that development proposals comply with federal and state air quality standards, or make findings that the project has overriding benefits to the community that outweigh nonattainment of the standards.

Impact AIR-4: The project would not result in substantial emissions (such as odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant)]
ATTACHMENT 13
Policy NR-5.5 The City shall, during early consultation with project proponents, encourage project design that minimizes direct and indirect air emissions. Projects should consider the following air quality concerns:
a) Land use and design measures to encourage alternatives to the automobile and to conserve energy;
b) Land use and design measures to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to odors, toxics, and criteria pollutants; and c) Applicable Bay Area Air Quality Management District rules, regulations, and permit requirements.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure 4.B-1: In order to be consistent with the MSM A-1 and MSM A-2 transportation control measures (TCMs) listed in Table 4.B-4, the City shall require that the following measures be included as potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to be implemented by individual project applicants, where feasible and appropriate:

• Install charging units for electric vehicles at residences and businesses.
• Develop incentives for businesses to include preferential parking for electric and/or hybrid vehicles.

Mitigation Measure 4.B-2: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards incorporate the following measures to reduce or avoid exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs:

For construction activities, measures may include, but not limited to, the following:

• Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes (as required by the state airborne toxics control measure [Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site. • Use new diesel engines that are designed to minimize DPM emissions (usually through the use of catalyzed particulate filters in the exhaust), or retrofitting older engines with catalyzed particulate filters which would reduce up to 85 percent of DPM emissions.

For operational activities, in order to comply with the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (ARB 2005) ATTACHMENT 13
and achieve an acceptable interior air quality level for sensitive receptors, appropriate measures, shall be incorporated into residential building design. For projects to be developed under the Specific Plan that include residential receptors within 1,000 feet of a source of TACs (stationary or CNR railroad), the appropriate measures shall include one of the following methods:

1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a health risk assessment (HRA) in accordance with the ARB and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard
Assessment requirements to determine the exposure of project residents to TACs prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit. The HRA shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. The applicant shall implement the approved HRA recommendations, if any. If the HRA
concludes that the air quality risks from nearby sources are at or below acceptable levels, then additional measures are not required.

2. The project applicant shall implement the following features that have been found to reduce the air quality risk to sensitive receptors and shall be included in the project construction plans.

These shall be submitted to the Planning Division and the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit and ongoing.
a. Do not locate sensitive receptors near distribution
center’s entry and exit points.
b. Do not locate sensitive receptors in the same building as a perchloroleythene dry cleaning facility.
c. Maintain a 50’ buffer from a typical gas dispensing
facility (under 3.6 million gallons of gas per year).
d. Install, operate and maintain in good working order a central heating and ventilation (HV) system or other air take system in the building, or in each individual
residential unit, that meets the efficiency standard of the MERV 13. The HV system shall include the following
features: Installation of a high efficiency filter and/or carbon filter to filter particulates and other chemical matter from entering the building. Either HEPA filters or ASHRAE 85% supply filters shall be used.
e. Retain a qualified HV consultant or HERS rater during the design phase of the project to locate the HV system based on exposure modeling from the mobile and/or
stationary pollutant sources.
f. Maintain positive pressure within the building.
g. Achieve a performance standard of at least one air
exchange per hour of fresh outside filtered air.

ATTACHMENT 13
h. Achieve a performance standard of at least 4 air
exchanges per hour of recirculation
i. Achieve a performance standard of 0.25 air exchanges per hour of in unfiltered infiltration if the building is not positively pressurized.
j. Project applicant shall maintain, repair and/or replace HV system or prepare an Operation and Maintenance
Manual for the HV system and the filter. The manual
shall include the operating instructions and maintenance and replacement schedule. This manual shall be included in the CC&R’s for residential projects and distributed to the building maintenance staff. In addition, the applicant shall prepare a separate Homeowners Manual. The
manual shall contain the operating instructions and
maintenance and replacement schedule for the HV
system and the filters. It shall also include a disclosure to the buyers of the air quality analysis findings.

Mitigation Measure 4.B-3: The City shall ensure that the Specific Plan design guidelines and development standards incorporate the following measures to reduce or avoid exposure of sensitive receptors to odors during development under the Specific Plan:

• Consider the odor-producing potential of land uses when the exact type of facility that would occupy areas zoned for commercial or mixed-use land uses is determined. Facilities that have the potential to emit objectionable odors would be located with appropriate buffers from existing and proposed sensitive receptors.
• Identify odor control devices within building permit applications to mitigate the exposure of receptors to objectionable odors if a potential odor producing source is to occupy the Planning Area.

The identified odor control devices would be installed before the issuance of certificates of occupancy for the potentially odor- producing use.

Mitigation Measure 4.B-4: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.B-1 to ensure consistency with the BAAQMD TCMs to promote clean, fuel efficient and zero emission vehicles.

ATTACHMENT 13

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Riparian Area Assessment prepared by Zenter Planning & Ecology, in February 2018. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix B to this Initial Study/Addendum.

4.4.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) 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 (CDFW) or United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?

2) 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 CDFW or USFWS?

3) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?

4) Have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plan or animal community, or
substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of an endangered,
rare, or threatened species?

5) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?

ATTACHMENT 13

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
6) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or
state habitat conservation plan?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Biological Resources Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant biological resource impacts to special-status wildlife species and migratory fish or wildlife species in the area through incorporation of mitigation measures.

The DNSP EIR found that the Specific plan had the potential to adversely impact special-status species; however, implementation of General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts to special- status species occurring in the area to a less than significant level. A Riparian Assessment, including evaluation of existing biological resources on-site, was prepared for the project and is discussed below.

Plant Species
Vegetation on-site consists of live oak, willow, and cottonwood trees and non-native acacia.

Dominant native tree species on-site include Coast live oak and Cottonwood. The current species on- site are not consistent with tree species of the original riparian corridor. Other dominant non-native tree species observed on-site include Black locust and Australian blackwood. Upland of the riparian corridor, the larger project site is dominated by ruderal grassland.

Wildlife Species
The project site is surrounded by development, degrading its potential habitat value for special-status species in the area to utilize the site. Urban environments can provide habitat for wildlife species adapted to human habitation, such as striped skunk, Virginia opossum, raccoon, European starling, American robin, and mourning dove. The project would implement MM 4.C-1b and MM-4.C-1c to reduce potential impacts to special status and nesting birds within the project vicinity to a less than significant level. Additionally, the proposed hotel would be consistent with the Bird-safe Building Guidelines of the DNSP to further reduce potential impacts to bird species within the project area.

Impact BIO-1: The project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)] ATTACHMENT 13
With implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.C-1b and 4.C-1b of the DNSP EIR, and adherence to the Bird-safe Building Guidelines of the Specific Plan, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is adjacent to the Napa River riparian corridor on its southern boundary. The Napa River is classified as “waters of the United States” and the bank and channel are under jurisdiction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of the remaining riparian habitat of the Napa River has been replaced with rip rap and concrete.

The project would be constructed upland of the Napa River, entirely outside of the riparian corridor.

As such, the project would have a less than significant impact to the already highly-disturbed riparian corridor. The project, therefore, would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As described in Impact BIO-2, the project would be constructed entirely outside of the delineated riparian zone of the Napa River. There are no wetlands located on the project site.

Since the project would be replacing more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area on the project site, the project would comply with the state’s Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) General Permit (see Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality). Consistent with General Plan Policies NR-1.10 and NR-4.4 and Provision E.12 of the state’s Phase II Small MS4 Permit, the project would incorporate bioretention facilities to treat stormwater and reduce potential impacts to water quality to a less than significant level. Consistency with the permit conditions would further reducing potential effects to Napa River and its associated wetlands.

For these reasons, the proposed project would not impact federally protected wetlands. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact BIO-2: The project would not 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 CDFW or USFWS. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact BIO-3: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

The project site is within a developed and disturbed area of Downtown Napa and does not propose construction activities within the riparian corridor of Napa River. There are no wildlife nursery sites within the project boundary. To the extent that waterway and adjacent upland is used for fish and wildlife movement, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with these corridors.

Therefore, no impacts related to interference with wildlife movement corridors or waterways suitable for migratory fish are expected to occur from project construction. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The Municipal Code designates specific parts of the City where a tree permit is required for tree removal or impacts, tree replacement ratios for removed trees, and tree protection measures for retained trees.

The project proposes to remove 21 trees on-site. These trees are not located within the adjacent riparian corridor and one (1) coast live oak is identified as a protected native tree, as defined by the City’s Municipal Code. The project would replace trees consistent with the City’s Municipal Code and would implement tree preservation measures, as applicable.

The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

Impact BIO-4: The project would not 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact BIO-5: The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] Impact BIO-6: The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy NR-1.2 The goal of this policy is aimed at protecting wildlife corridors such as Napa Creek and Napa River and these shall be protected by not severing or obstructing them. All developments which proposed to cross or alter Napa Creek and Napa River shall take into consideration the potential impact the development may have upon its ability function as a wildlife corridor.

Policy NR-1.10 The City shall pursue appropriate new management practices for reducing the impact of pollution from urban activities.

Policy NR-4.4 The City shall adopt standards and regulations for the reduction and/or elimination of nonpoint sources of pollution.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Bird-safe Building Guidelines

a) Minimize the use of reflective glass at lower building levels, especially where vegetation or water features may be reflected;
b) Minimize bird habitat near ground stories, place new landscaping far enough away from glass building facades such that no vegetation reflection occurs, or situate trees and shrubs immediately adjacent to glass walls at a distance of less than three feet from the glass; c) Minimize the reflection of rooftop landscaping in adjacent building features and design with adequate space for birds to fly safely into and out of any rooftop gardens; d) Avoid placing water features in close proximity to glazed facades, or place soil berms, furniture, landscaping, or architectural features to prevent reflection of water in glass; e) Design to avoid monolithic, undistinguishable expanses of glazing by maximizing “visual noise” both on the building scale and individual glass units; f) Utilize glass that has been treated to reduce reflectivity, such as low-e patterning[3], etching, or low reflectivity glazing;
g) Where appropriate use plastic or metal screens over windows, especially on the ground levels, incorporate louvers, awnings, sunshades or other exterior shading/shielding devices to reduce reflection and give birds an indication of a visual barrier; h) Angle glass to reflect the ground instead of nearby habitat and sky; i) Minimize the number of, and co-locate, rooftop antennas and other structures; j) Utilize self-supporting lattice or monopole structures that do not require guy wires.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure 4.C-1b: Pre-Construction Special-Status Avian Surveys. No more than two weeks in advance of any tree or shrub pruning, removal, or ground- disturbing activity that will commence during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys of all potential special status bird ATTACHMENT 13
nesting habitat in the vicinity of the planned activity. Pre-construction surveys are not required for construction activities scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (August 31 through January 31).

Construction activities commencing during the non-breeding season and continuing into the breeding season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any breeding birds taking up nests would be acclimated to project-related activities already under way). Nests initiated during construction activities would be presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer zone around such nests would not be necessary. However, a nest initiated during construction cannot be moved or altered.

If pre-construction surveys indicate that no nests of special-status birds are present or that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied: no further mitigation is required.

If active nests of special-status birds are found during the surveys:
implement Mitigation Measure 4.C-1c.

Mitigation Measure 4.C-1c: Avoidance of active nests. If active nests of special- status birds or other birds are found during surveys, the results of the surveys would be discussed with the California Department of Fish and Game and avoidance procedures will be adopted, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis. In the event that a special-status bird or protected nest is found, construction would be stopped until either the bird leaves the area or avoidance measures are adopted. Avoidance measures can include construction buffer areas (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors), relocation of birds, or seasonal avoidance. If buffers are created, a no disturbance zone will be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The size of the buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted will take into account factors such as the following:

1. Noise and human disturbance levels at the Plan area and the nesting site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity;

2. Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the Plan area and the nest; and

3. Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.

ATTACHMENT 13

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Archaeological Literature Search prepared by Holman & Associates in March 2019, which is on file with the City of Napa. A Historic Project Evaluation and Relocation Project Evaluation were prepared by Preservation Architecture in September 2018 and October 2018, respectively. Copies of the evaluations are attached as Appendix C to this Initial Study/Addendum.

4.5.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?

2) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource as pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5?

3) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Cultural Resources Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant cultural resource impacts with mitigation incorporated, including project-level review for Downtown Historic Design Guideline consistency, review of the City’s “Pastfinder” database, and adherence to standard procedures in the event human or archaeological remains are discovered during construction activities. The mitigation incorporated into the DNSP is applicable to the proposed project and described in the impact discussions herein.

The project site contains two historic buildings located at 731 First Street and 718 Water Street.

These two structures on the project site have previously been identified by the City of Napa as a Local Landmark and a Neighborhood Conservation Property. The Oxbow District of Napa was reviewed in 2011 for designation of a potential historic district. The Oxbow District was determined not to be eligible for listing on national, state, or local historical registers. The single-family Impact CUL-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
residence at 718 Water Street and the commercial building at 731 First Street, therefore, are historic based on their individual merits and not part of any larger historic district.

The commercial building located at 731 First Street was a residence from its original construction date of approximately 1880 until the 1970s. The building has undergone elemental building alterations since its construction and, consequently, the remaining and potentially historic integrity is compromised. The remaining character-defining features of the building include:

• The single-story, front and east side gabled-roof building forms; • The covered front porch with its wood porch posts and low-hipped roof; • The pattern of door and window openings at the front (north) elevation; and • Clapboard-siding and flat wood-trim work of the original/early building exteriors.

The single-family residence located at 718 Water Street was constructed circa 1890 and has remained a single-family residence since its construction. The house has undergone extensive modification to its exterior. The structure’s character-defining features include:

• Original L-shaped form under a front-gabled roof;
• Shed-roofed front porch and entry door opening;
• Window openings with wood trims and sills (in original building); and • Wood drop-sided exterior walls (on original building).

The project proposes to relocate the existing single-family residence and commercial building at 731 First Street and 718 Water Street, respectively, currently located within the project site boundaries to 58 Randolph Street, located approximately one mile south of the site in the Napa Abajo Neighborhood. The Relocation Project Evaluation prepared for the project found that the two properties at 731 and 718 Water Street are not part of any collection of resources and their specific sites are not relevant to their identified significance. As such, the character-defining forms and features of these structures may be relocated to an appropriate receiver site or sites and would retain the structures integrity.

The proposed relocation site at 58 Randolph Street is located within the Napa Abajo Neighborhood.

A portion of the Napa Abajo Neighborhood is a National Register historic district; however, the district lies several blocks north of the proposed relocation site. The existing structure at the relocation site is listed on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory as a Listed Resource. However, the existing residence does not appear to be from 1890, and the county assessor identifies the construction date as 2013. The existing residence is located on the southern half of the site and the two relocated structures would be located on the northern half of the site. The 718 Water Street building would face the street and the 731 First Street residence would be located in the rear of the property facing south. The proposed relocated houses fit the context of the surrounding neighborhood and their relocation would not have any direct impact on any adjoining, identified or potential historic resources, including residences on the south side of Ash Street (nos. 1229 and 1247) that are identified on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory as Listed Resources.

Pursuant to the DNSP EIR and MM 4.D-1, projects affecting any identified historic properties are required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness prior to any substantial alteration or construction proposed that would be visible from a public way. Consistent with this requirement, the ATTACHMENT 13
Applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for relocation of the two historic structures at 731 First Street and 718 Water Street to 58 Randolph Street as part of the project entitlements. The Certificate of Appropriateness will be considered by the City Council concurrently with its consideration of the Use Permit and Design Review Permit for the project. Approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303, 15331, and 15332 as 58 Randolph Street satisfies the criteria set forth therein.”

The DNSP EIR concluded that with implementation of City of Napa Downtown Historic Design Guidelines, which requires a Certificate of Appropriateness, impacts to historic resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

An Archaeological Literature Search was prepared for the project by Holman & Associates in March 2019. The Archaeological Literature Search consisted of a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine if there are any identified archaeological sites within a quarter of a mile, and all other cultural resources and all studies within 100 meters of the project site.

The results of the Archaeological Literature Search indicate that there are no known cultural resources on the project site. The Caltrans First Street Bridge over the Napa River (No. 21C0091) is not eligible to either the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. The CHRIS identified four other resources near the project site, including the Southern Pacific Railroad, two depots associated with the railroad, and the two-story single-family house at 876 Water Street. None of the resources are eligible for the National or California Registers.

There is one recorded archaeological site documented along the Napa River within the project vicinity. Given that the project site is adjacent to the Napa River, the project site has a high sensitivity for uncovering unknown Native American resources. The project site is also located within the former historic Chinese neighborhood of Napa; therefore, project construction activities may uncover unknown buried archaeological resources. On March 21, 2019, an archaeological survey was completed for the entire project site to determine if there were any observable archaeological or cultural resources. No visible resources were found during the field survey.

Given the high archaeological sensitivity of the site and location within the former Chinese neighborhood of Napa, project construction may encounter buried archaeological resources. The project would be required to implement the following Condition of Approval:

Condition of Approval

• Consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.D-2a, an archaeological literature search was completed and found the project site is highly sensitive for archaeological resources. As a Impact CUL-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
condition of approval, a program of subsurface exploration to sample the historically sensitive areas and the deeper native soils that could contain remnant archaeological resources shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist immediately following building demolition and prior to project grading. In the event archaeological materials are discovered, the resources will be assessed consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.D-2b.

The proposed project would be developed consistent with Mitigation Measures 4.D-2a and 4.D-2b of the DNSP EIR. With the implementation of the above condition of approval and previously identified mitigation measures, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

The project is located in an area of high archaeological sensitivity; however, no burials are known to be present on the site. The DNSP EIR included Mitigation Measure 4.D-4 to reduce potential impacts to human remains to a less than significant level. Consistent with the DNSP EIR, the project would stop work within 50 feet of any burial in the event that human remains are discovered at any point during project construction. The project, therefore, would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy HR-1.6: The City shall use the State Historical Building Code to preserve historic resources consistent with protection of life safety.

Policy HR-1.M: The City shall adopt design guidelines and standards to guide rehabilitation, infill and new development in historic areas.

Policy HR-6.1: The City shall enforce current federal and state and procedures for identifying, preserving and protecting prehistoric sites.

Policy HR-6.2: The City shall require investigation during the planning process for all proposed developments in archaeologically sensitive areas in order to determine whether prehistoric resources may be affected by the project and, if so, require that appropriate mitigation measures be incorporated into the project design.

Policy HR-6.3: Recognizing that Native American burials or archaeological artifacts may be encountered at unexpected locations, the City shall continue to enforce state mandates with its current mitigation requirement, applied to all development permits and tentative subdivision maps, that upon discovery of remains Impact CUL-3: The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
during construction, all activity will cease until qualified professional archaeological examination and reburial in an appropriate manner is accomplished.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure 4.D-1: The City shall require that any future development under the Specific Plan to meet the intent and goals of the City of Napa Downtown Historic Design Guidelines. This includes any project that would alter historic resources or would be constructed adjacent to a historic resource. Alternatively, the General Plan shall include a new policy which requires that any development in the Downtown Area adhere to the goals identified in the City of Napa Downtown Historic Design Guidelines.

Mitigation Measure 4.D-2a: When specific projects are proposed under the Specific Plan t hat involves ground-disturbing activity into native soils, the City's Pastfinder archaeological database shall be consulted.

Recommendations provided by the Pastfinder database shall be implemented based on a parcel’s archaeological sensitivity. In those cases where a site-specific cultural resources study is necessary, it shall be performed by qualified cultural resources professional. The study will include an updated records search, pedestrian survey of the project area, development of a historic context, sensitivity assessment for buried prehistoric and historic-period deposits, and preparation of a technical report that meets federal and state requirements. If significant resources are identified and cannot be avoided, treatment plans will be developed in consultation with the City and Native American representatives to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 4.D-2b: Should any archaeological artifacts be found during construction in the Planning Area, all construction activities within 50 feet shall immediately halt and the City must be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of the discovery. If the site is determined to contain significant cultural resources, funding will be provided to identify, record, report, evaluate, and recover the resources as necessary. Construction within the area of the find shall not recommence until impacts on the historical or unique archaeological resource are mitigated.

Mitigation Measure 4.D-4: The treatment of any human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during soil-disturbing activities shall comply with applicable state laws. Such treatment would include ATTACHMENT 13
immediate notification of the Napa County Coroner. In the event of the coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American, the coroner shall notify of the Native American Heritage Commission, which would appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC § 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, the Event Authority, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of any human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5[d]). The agreement would take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The PRC allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. If the MLD and the other parties could not agree on the reburial method, the Event Authority shall follow Section 5097.98(b) of the PRC, which states that “the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.”

ATTACHMENT 13
ENERGY

4.6.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, or wasteful use
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Energy Conclusion
The impacts of energy use were analyzed in the DNSP EIR in the context of criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the project.

Construction
The project would be constructed over a period of approximately 13 months. Project construction would include grading, excavation, site preparation and construction of the proposed hotel.

The overall construction schedule and process is designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. That is, equipment and fuel are not typically used wastefully on the site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment, maintaining it, and fueling it. Therefore, the opportunities for future efficiency gains during construction are limited. However, the proposed project does include several measures that would improve the efficiency of the construction process.

Implementation of the BAAQMD Best Management Practices (BMPs) detailed in Section 4.3 Air Quality would restrict equipment idling times to five minutes or less and would require the applicant to post signs on the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment.

Construction of the project would require the use of fuels and energy related to the manufacturing and transportation of building materials that are fundamental to construction of the proposed project.

With implementation of the air quality related BMPs and mitigation measures (refer to Section 4.3 Air Quality), construction of the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary Impact EN-1: The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
consumption of energy resources. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Operation
As disclosed in the DNSP EIR, new development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in the commitment of existing and planned sources of energy, which would be necessary for the operation of the proposed hotel development. However, the Specific Plan incorporates energy- conserving features, as required by the California Building Code and California Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) and the City’s adopted High-Performance Building Ordinance which provides for 15 percent higher energy efficiency than Title 24 for new development. The Specific Plan also incorporates sustainable construction policies and features where feasible or as otherwise required by law that would strive to meet the LEED Program over the long-term, resulting in a more energy efficient development and reduced consumption using local materials and labor.

Operation of the proposed hotel and commercial/retail space would use approximately 951,415 kWh annually.3 The proposed project would incorporate energy-efficiency features to comply with the City’s adopted High-Performance Building Ordinance. The proposed green building measures ensure the project would not use energy in an inefficient or wasteful manner. The project would incorporate the following green building measures:

• Bicycle parking to reduce vehicular load
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging
• EV trash collection via 'private garbage' system
• Light pollution reduction
• energy efficient standards per code
• PV electric production
• Cool roof design
• Reduced indoor / outdoor water use
• Increased daylighting thru design
• Building & material design to improve longevity of materials and prevent water intrusion • Construction waste and recycling plan
• Building operations plan for recycling and waste reduction • Building operations plan for energy efficient operation and monitoring • Building material selection to reduce pollutants and improve indoor air quality

The project, therefore, would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

3 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. First & Oxbow Hotel Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment. March 29, 2019.

ATTACHMENT 13

As described in Impact EN-1, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in significant energy-related impacts. The Specific Plan includes policies to encourage energy efficiency and green building techniques for project-level implementation. Since the proposed project would comply with applicable building efficiency standards and regulations, such as the City’s High- Performance Building Ordinance and Title 24, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the General Plan that would be applicable to the proposed project.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Refer to Sections 4.3 Air Quality and 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions for applicable air quality and greenhouse gas emission measures that would be incorporated into the project and would reduce potential energy impacts.

Impact EN-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Miller Pacific Engineering Group in November 2018. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix D to this Initial Study/Addendum.

4.7.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

- 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)?

- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?

- Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?

3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that will become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?

4) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in the current California
Building Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property?

5) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?

ATTACHMENT 13

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Geology and Soils Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant geology and soils impacts. Mitigation was incorporated into the DNSP EIR to address paleontological impacts. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR.

Fault Rupture
As disclosed in the DNSP EIR, the Specific Plan area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone. The nearest active fault to the project site is the West Napa Fault, located approximately 1.9 miles from the site. As such, people or structures would not be exposed to substantial adverse effects from a rupture of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR, the potential for fault rupture on the project site is very low.

Seismic Ground Shaking
The DNSP Planning Area is located in a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of development. The DNSP EIR concluded that the potential for damage or loss during an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7 or greater would be considered a potentially significant impact. Analyses completed for the Geotechnical Investigation indicated the potential for strong seismic shaking at the project site is moderate. Consistent with the DNSP EIR, the project would be designed in compliance with the 2019 California Building Code. In addition, the project would implement the following Standard Permit Conditions to reduce seismic hazards and impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact GEO-1: The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
Standard Permit Condition:

• To avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking, the project shall be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques. Building design and construction at the site shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of an approved geotechnical investigation. The buildings shall meet the requirements of applicable Building and Fire Codes, as adopted or updated by the City.
• All Project-related grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Napa Public Works Department Standard Specifications.
• All construction activities shall meet the California Building Code regulations for seismic safety (e.g., reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets). • Developer shall provide an erosion and sediment control plan and a schedule for implementation of approved measures to the Public Works Director for approval prior to the issuance of any grading permits. No grading and excavation shall be performed except in accordance with the approved plan and schedule.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Liquefaction
Analyses completed for the Geotechnical Investigation indicated that zero to three inches of post liquefaction settlement may be anticipated across the site following a major earthquake. The adverse effects of liquefaction include potential loss of foundation bearing capacity, post liquefaction settlement, lateral spreading, and other issues. Loss of bearing capacity and resulting building settlements/rotations can occur during liquefaction of soils immediately below the building foundations.

The DNSP EIR concluded that impacts from liquefaction would be less than significant since all new development would comply with current industry standard geotechnical practices and seismic structural design according to the requirements found in the most recent version of the California Building Code. Implementation of the following Standard Permit Condition would reduce seismic hazard impacts related to liquefaction to a less than significant level.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying soil toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. This movement is often associated with liquefaction. Due to the close proximity of the Napa River and known liquefiable soils, lateral spreading is considered a moderate to significant risk at the project site. With implementation of standard permit conditions, construction of the project would not result in seismically induced lateral spreading. Therefore, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR.

Standard Permit Condition:

To avoid or minimize potential impacts resulting from liquefaction and seismically induced lateral spreading, the proposed project would be built using standard engineering and seismic safety design ATTACHMENT 13
techniques. Building design and construction at the site will be completed in conformance with the recommendations of a design-level geotechnical investigation (including ground improvement systems).

Landslides
The project site is not located within a landslide hazard zone. The project site is relatively flat and is not located in the vicinity of any slope that could be affected by a landslide.

The project site is located along the Napa River, where erosion would be anticipated to occur. Sandy soils on moderate slopes or clayey soils on steep slopes are susceptible to erosion when exposed to concentrated water runoff. Development of the site under the proposed project would disturb the ground and expose soils, thereby increasing the potential for wind- or water-related erosion and sedimentation at the site until the completion of construction. The proposed project would direct stormwater runoff from the site to bioretention areas prior to discharge to the City storm drainage system. The project, therefore, would not contribute to any bank erosion along the Napa River from stormwater runoff. No modifications to the existing riverbank adjacent to the site are proposed.

Implementation of the Standard Permit Conditions listed in Impact GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts related to loss of topsoil to a less than significant level. The project would not result in new or greater erosion impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As described in Impact GEO-1, the project site is not located within a landslide hazard zone and is not in the vicinity of a slope that could be affected by a landslide. The project site is mapped in an area with high susceptibility to liquefaction.4 With implementation of the standard permit conditions listed under Impact GEO-1, the project would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The project would not result in new or greater soil hazard impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4 Association of Bay Area Governments. Resilience Program. Site accessed on May 21, 2019. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=cgsLiqZones Impact GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] Impact GEO-3: The project would not 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

Expansive soils will shrink and swell with fluctuations in moisture content and are capable of exerting significant expansion pressures on building foundations, interior floor slabs, and exterior flatwork. Distress from expansive soil movement can include cracking of brittle wall coverings (stucco, plaster, drywall, etc.), racked door and/or window frames, and uneven floors and cracked slabs. Flatwork, pavements, and concrete slabs-on-grade are particularly vulnerable to distress due to their low bearing pressures.

As part of the Geotechnical Investigation, existing structures at the site were observed for signs of distress associated with expansive soils. Significant heave or distress to pavements/curb and gutter or other surfaces was not observed. Additionally, the surficial soils observed in the reference borings were generally lower plasticity; therefore, expansive soils are not considered a significant geologic hazard at the site. The project would implement standard permit conditions, which would require that the project’s building design and construction shall be completed in conformance with the recommendations of an approved geotechnical investigation.

Implementation of standard permit conditions listed under Impact GEO-1 above would ensure that development of the site would not exacerbate existing soil conditions on the project site, nor exacerbate risks to life and property. The project would not result in new or greater impacts related to expansive soils than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is located within an urbanized area of Napa and sewers are available to dispose of wastewater from the project site. Therefore, redevelopment of the site would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The DNSP EIR found that development facilitated by the DNSP could potentially adversely affect unidentified paleontological resources. The majority of the Planning Area is underlain by a geologic unit (Pleistocene alluvium) with high paleontological potential, the EIR concluded that subsurface Impact GEO-4: The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact GEO-5: The project would not 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact GEO-6: The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)] ATTACHMENT 13
excavations beyond previously disturbed soils could disturb or destroy paleontological resources.

Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources could be potentially significant.

Consistent with DNSP EIR, the project would be required to implement MM 4.D-3, thereby reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level by educating earth moving crews on the appearance of fossils, procedures to follow if any are discovered, and ensuring that a paleontologist assess the significance of any fossil find, and recovers it, if appropriate. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy HS-1.1: The City shall require that all new buildings be designed and constructed to resist stresses produced by earthquakes. To this end, the City shall require all new buildings to conform to the structural requirements of the most recently adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code (the Uniform Building Code was replaced by the International Building Code in 2000. As noted above, the California Building Code [CBC] is based on the IBC).

Policy HS-1.3: The City shall require soils and geologic studies for proposed development with large client populations (such as schools and convalescent centers) within areas subject to very strong, violent, or very violent ground shaking, as indicated in the ABAG Shaking Intensity Map. Such studies should determine the actual extent of the seismic hazards, optimum location for structures, the advisability of special structural requirements, and the feasibility and desirability of a proposed facility in a specified location. Mitigation measures shall be incorporated as conditions of any project approval.

Policy HS-1.4: The City shall require special construction features in the design of structures where site investigations confirm potential seismic hazards.

Policy HS-2.1: The City shall seek to minimize grading and impermeable surfaces in high- erosion areas. If grading or impermeable surfaces are necessary, they shall be properly engineered and drained to reduce runoff and erosion.

Policy HS-2.2: The City shall consider natural landform contours and geologic conditions in the development of roadways and individual project design.

Specific Plan Policies and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure 4.D-3: Prior to the start of any subsurface excavations that would extend beyond previously disturbed soils, all construction forepersons and field supervisors shall receive training by a qualified professional paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology ATTACHMENT 13
(SVP), who is experienced in teaching non-specialists, to ensure they can recognize fossil materials and will follow proper notification procedures in the event any are uncovered during construction.

Procedures to be conveyed to workers include halting construction within 50 feet of any potential fossil find and notifying a qualified paleontologist, who will evaluate its significance. Training on paleontological resources will also be provided to all other construction workers, but may involve using a videotape of the initial training and/or written materials rather than in-person training by a paleontologist. If a fossil is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will develop and implement an excavation and salvage plan in accordance with SVP standards.

ATTACHMENT 13

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in March 2019. A copy of the report is included as Appendix A to this IS/Addendum.

4.8.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?

2) Conflict with any applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purposes of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas impacts related to the Specific Plan’s GHG emissions exceeding BAAQMD thresholds for 2020 emissions. A mitigation measure was incorporated into the DNSP EIR which required development projects reduce their GHG emissions by 30 percent in order to achieve statewide targets in 2020.

Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed hotel would temporarily generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the operation of construction equipment and vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

Construction-related GHG emissions vary depending on the amount, duration, and type of construction. Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions totaling approximately 379 metric tons of CO2 (MT CO2e). Because project construction would be temporary and would not result in a permanent increase in emissions that would interfere with long-term GHG reduction goals, the temporary increase in emissions would be less than significant and the proposed project would not result in new or greater greenhouse gas emission impacts than identified in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Significant and Unavoidable)]

Impact GHG-1: The project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Significant and Unavoidable Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
Operational Emissions
The DNSP EIR determined that operational DNSP-related greenhouse gas emissions would be approximately 23,089 metric tons/year of CO2e (including emissions from vehicle trips, space heating, landscape equipment, and indirect emissions from the use of electricity, solid waste generation, and water and wastewater treatment and conveyance). However, implementation of the City’s Specific Plan sustainability measures, High Performance Building Ordinance, and the Citywide Sustainability Plan would result in reduced GHG emissions. The values presented in the DNSP EIR were found to be higher than the actual emissions.

The proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use designation (Oxbow Commercial) and zoning district (Oxbow Commercial). The project would construct a 74-room hotel on a partially undeveloped site. The project would, therefore, intensify uses on the project site, increasing vehicle trips and energy usage compared to existing conditions.

The CalEEMod model and project vehicle trip generation rates were used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully developed site under the proposed project. The estimated construction period GHG emissions are shown in Table 4.8-1.

Table 4.8-1: Annual Project GHG Emissions
Source Category Proposed Project in 2022 Proposed Project in 2030 Area <1 <1
Energy Consumption 312 312
Mobile 609 488
Solid Waste Generation 23 23
Water Usage 3 3
Total (MT CO2//year) 948 827
Bright-line 2030 Threshold 660 MT CO2e
Significant? Yes Yes

BAAQMD adopted revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in June 2010 and then adopted a modified version of the Guidelines in May 2017. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. The BAAQMD GHG thresholds include a specific plan- and project-level GHG emission bright-line threshold of 1,100 MT of CO2e or 4.6 MT of CO2e per service population (residents and workers) per year for projects to achieve the 2020 AB 32 statewide targets. Although BAAQMD has not published a quantified threshold for 2030 yet, this assessment uses a bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year based on the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15. The 2030 bright-line threshold is a 40 percent reduction of the 2020 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold.

Annual emissions resulting from operation of the project would be 948 MT of CO2e for the assumed first full operational year of 2022 and 827 MT of CO2e for the year 2030. The GHG emissions in 2020 would exceed the bright-line threshold of 660 MT of CO2e. Consistent with Mitigation Measure

4.B-5 of the DNSP EIR, the project would implement a GHG Reduction Plan to reduce operational GHG emissions to a less than significant level. The project proposes the following design and ATTACHMENT 13
operational measures to reduce GHG emissions that would be incorporated in the GHG Reduction Plan:

• Bicycle parking to reduce vehicular load
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging
• EV trash collection via ‘self-haul’ system
• Light pollution reduction
• Energy efficient standards per code
• PV electric production
• Cool roof design
• Reduced indoor/outdoor water use
• Increased daylighting thru design
• Building & material design to improve longevity of materials and prevent water intrusion • Construction waste and recycling plan
• Building operations plan for recycling and waste reduction • Building operations plan for energy efficient operation and monitoring • Building material selection to reduce pollutants and improve indoor air quality

Condition of Approval

The project applicant shall prepare a GHG Reduction Plan that includes the proper elements to reduce emissions from the project below 660 MT of CO2e annually. Elements of this plan may include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Installation of solar power systems or other renewable electric generating systems that provide electricity to power on-site equipment and possibly provide excess electric power; • Install efficient space and water heating systems;
• Develop and implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program to further reduce mobile GHG emissions.
• Construct onsite or fund off-site carbon sequestration projects (such as a forestry or wetlands projects for which inventory and reporting protocols have been adopted). If the project develops an off-site project, it must be registered with the Climate Action Reserve or otherwise approved by the BAAQMD in order to be used to offset Project emissions; • Purchase of carbon credits to offset Project annual emissions. Carbon offset credits must be verified and registered with The Climate Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, or another source approved by the California Air Resources Board or BAAQMD. The preference for offset carbon credit purchases include those that can be achieved as follows: 1) within the City; 2) within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of California; then 4) elsewhere in the United States. Provisions of evidence of payments, and funding of an escrow-type account or endowment fund would be overseen by the City.

Implementation of the Condition of Approval would reduce the project’s operational GHG emissions below the 2030 thresholds, resulting in a less than significant impact. The GHG emissions from the hotel would be reduced consistent with DNSP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.B-5; however, the project would contribute to the significant unavoidable GHG emissions impact identified in the DNSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 13
The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Significant and Unavoidable)]

The proposed project is consistent with the land use and development assumptions of the Specific Plan. The proposed project would comply with the DNSP Design Guidelines and sustainability requirements and mitigation measures MM 4.B-1 through 4.B-5. The proposed hotel would incorporate Green Building and Development Measures into the project design to demonstrate GHG emissions from operations would adhere to the City’s reduction goals.

By incorporating the measures discussed under Impact GHG-1, the proposed project would be consistent with the DNSP and would not otherwise conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted to reduce emissions of GHG. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the General Plan that would be applicable to the proposed project.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure 4.B-1: In order to be consistent with the MSM A-1 and MSM A-2 transportation control measures (TCMs) listed in Table 4.B-4, the City shall require that the following measures be included as potential Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to be implemented by individual project applicants, where feasible and appropriate:

• Install charging units for electric vehicles at residences and businesses.
• Develop incentives for businesses to include preferential parking for electric and/or hybrid vehicles.

Mitigation Measure 4.B-5: The City shall ensure that applicant(s) for individual projects to be developed under the Specific Plan would incorporate Green Building and Development Measures as listed in Appendix D (AIR-2). Each Impact GHG-2: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
increment of new development under the Specific Plan requiring a discretionary approval from the City (e.g., proposed tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit), would demonstrate that GHG emissions from operation would be reduced by 30 percent from business-as-usual 2020 emissions levels, in order to achieve 1990 levels by 2020.

ATTACHMENT 13

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Odic Environmental in January 2018. A subsequent Phase II was prepared by Odic Environmental in February 2019. Copies of these reports are attached as Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively.

4.9.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as “Approved
Project”
Less
Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

2) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?

3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

4) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?

5) Result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area
for a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or within an airport land
use plan?

6) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. Impacts from hazards and hazardous materials ATTACHMENT 13
were found to be adequately addressed with the implementation of General Plan policies and no additional mitigation measures were required in the DNSP.

The proposed project is construction of a 74-room hotel and 6,294 square feet of retail space. As described in the DNSP EIR, implementation of the Specific Plan would require temporary construction activities that would likely involve the transport and use onsite of hazardous materials, such as limited quantities of gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, and paints for the construction of individuals projects within the Planning Area. These materials would be transported along the roadways and temporarily stored onsite.

The proposed hotel would routinely use limited amounts of cleaning materials and would not generate substantial hazardous emissions from hazardous materials use. As applicable, the current regulations and programs for regulated hazardous materials use would ensure potential impacts from the use of these chemical would be less than significant. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Consistent with the DNSP EIR, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the project to identify potential impacts of the project site to the existing environment.

On-site Sources of Contamination
Lead
Lead was detected in soils on-site in excess of ESLs for a proposed residential land use scenario, but below the commercial/industrial land use ESL. Background concentrations of lead could vary significantly across the area and were evaluated against the regulatory standards applicable to the planned future use. In this instance, the lead concentrations would be below the commercial / industrial land use ESL threshold. However, given that the contaminated soil is directly exposed and accessible to human exposure, the Phase I ESA determined that the contaminated soil would need to be removed. Consistent with General Plan policies and the findings of the DNSP EIR, the project would be required to adhere to the following Condition of Approval:

Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact HAZ-2: The 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
Condition of Approval

• The project shall prepare a Soil Management Plan, Health and Safety Plan, and a Human Health Risk Assessment to Construction Workers to ensure contaminants of concern do not pose human health risks to future construction and utility workers and general public.

Vapor Intrusion
The existing structure at 731 First Street, currently occupied by Trade Brewing, was formerly a dry- cleaning business that operated from approximately 1982 to 1988, and from 2003 to 2014. The western portion of the project site (831 First Street) was previously developed with a gas plant operated by Napa Gas & Electric Company. A machine shop with a foundry later occupied this portion of the project site. Structures on the western portion of the project site were demolished to allow for the realignment of Soscol Avenue.

A limited subsurface investigation was conducted in 2015 at the former dry-cleaning site. The investigation included soil and groundwater sampling. Results of the sampling indicate that there is no evidence of soil or groundwater impacts from previous dry-cleaning operations. However, based on historical uses of the area, there is a potential vapor intrusion condition. Consistent with General Plan policies and the findings of the DNSP EIR, the project would be required to adhere to the Condition of Approval described above.

Adherence to the Condition of Approval would ensure potential impacts to future construction workers would be less than significant.

Off-site Sources of Contamination
Former Dry Cleaner – 712-714 First Street
A former dry cleaner’s (“Valet Cleaners & Tailors”) at 712-714 First Street was located approximately 90 feet to the north of the project site. It was identified as having operated from 1965 to 1985. It is unknown if this site was a dry-cleaning plant or a drop-off location. This site is located up-gradient from the project site and groundwater in the vicinity flows to the southwest, towards the project site and the Napa River. As such, there is a potential vapor intrusion condition (VIC) that exists from the Valet Cleaners & Tailors site that is located north of the project site. This is considered a recognized environmental concern (REC).

A subsequent Phase II Soil and Groundwater investigation was completed to determine the extent of possible contamination on-site. The limited subsurface investigation determined that the presence of perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE) in soil gas and soil around the building exceed the respective environmental screening level (ESL) thresholds. This presents a potential risk of vapor intrusion resulting in an incremental lifetime carcinogenic risk and non-cancer hazard. Consistent with Policy HS-7.2 and 7.3, the project would be required to participate in the County’s Certified Unified Program Agency, which would ensure the potential impact from historic releases of hazardous materials are remediated prior to reuse of contaminated sites.

ATTACHMENT 13
Former Gas Plant and Machine Shop – 831 First Street
Based on Sanborn Fire Insurances Maps from 1901 and 1910, the west-adjacent property that is currently Soscol Avenue was a former Napa Gas & Electric Company gas plant that became a machine shop that also operated an onsite foundry. Although this site became part of Soscol Avenue, since no known assessments have been conducted at the property, a VIC exists. Consistent with Policy HS-7.2 and 7.3, the project would be required to participate in the County’s Certified Unified Program Agency, which would reduce the potential impact from historic releases of hazardous materials by requiring an evaluation for potential risks and remediation, if necessary, prior to reuse of contaminated sites.

Groundwater
Groundwater on the site is anticipated at 10 feet below ground surface (bgs); however, due to seasonal fluctuations no groundwater was present to depths of 15 feet bgs in samples taken for the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Although it is unlikely that contamination found in shallow soil samples on the site has impacted groundwater, the vertical extent of chlorinated organic solvents on the site has not been defined. Excavation on the site is anticipated to depths of approximately 15 feet to construct the proposed parking garages. The project is likely to encounter groundwater during construction and may require dewatering over the life of the project. To avoid the spread of potential harmful levels of contamination, the discharge of any water from dewatering activities would be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements or wastewater discharge permit conditions to the sanitary sewer, which may involve installation of a treatment system(s) at the dewatering locations. The implementation of General Plan Policy HS-7.3 would ensure potential groundwater contamination is addressed consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR.

With adherence to Policy HS-7.2 and 7.3 of the City’s General Plan, the project would be consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The nearest school to the project site is Alta Heights Elementary, located at 15 Montecito Boulevard, approximately 0.8 mile east of the project site. There are no existing or proposed schools within one- quarter mile of the project site. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

The building at 731 First Street on-site is identified in the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (Small Quantity Generators), Facility Index System (FINDS), Napa County Division of Environmental Health, Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste Tracking System (DTSC HWTS), and EDR Historical Cleaners databases. As described in Impact HAZ-2, as a condition of project approval, the project would adhere to Policies HS-7.2 and 7.3 of the City’s General Plan, which would reduce potential on-site sources of contamination to a less than significant level to future construction workers and site users. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is located outside of the Airport Land Use Plan of the nearest airport, Napa County Airport. The project would, therefore, not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the area.

As described in Section 4.13 Noise and Vibration, the project would not result in excessive noise for people working or residing in the area. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is not located within an identified wildfire hazard zone.5 The project would not result in new or greater wildland fire impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR.

5 City of Napa. Downtown Napa Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. January 2012.

Impact HAZ-4: The project would not 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, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact HAZ-5: The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact HAZ-6: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy HS-7.1: The City shall continue to monitor, modify if necessary, and implement goals of the Household Hazardous Wastes Element.

Policy HS-7.2: The City shall support the Countywide Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan.

Policy HS-7.3: The City shall support the county’s role as the Certified Unified Program Agency for all County jurisdictions.

Policy HS-7.4: The City shall seek to further develop and support policies such as green chemistry and Extended Producer Responsibility that will reduce the overall generation of hazardous wastes and/or provide more sustainable funding and collection opportunities for the local residents and businesses.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

The policies listed in the General Plan were used to ensure potential hazards or hazardous materials impacts from the DNSP would be less than significant. No new policies or mitigation measures were included in the DNSP and DNSP EIR to address hazards or hazardous materials.

ATTACHMENT 13

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Floodplain Analysis prepared by River Focus in January 2018. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix G to this Initial Study/Addendum.

4.10.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?

2) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or 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?

3) 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 substantial

4) 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 that would result in flooding
on-or off-site?

5) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?

6) 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?

7) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows?

ATTACHMENT 13

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
8) Expose people or structures to a
substantial risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?

9) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Hydrology and Water Quality Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts. Hydrology and water quality impacts were found to be adequately addressed with the implementation of City ordinances and General Plan policies. No mitigation measures, therefore, were incorporated into the DNSP EIR.

The DNSP EIR found that future development under the Specific Plan could potentially violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality by increasing nonpoint source pollutants in stormwater runoff. Consistent with the DNSP EIR, the project would adhere to the City of Napa Storm Water Management Plan, City of Napa Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance Code, and the City of Napa General Plan policies to reduce potential hydrology and water quality impacts from project implementation to a less than significant level.

A portion of the project site is developed with a commercial building, three residences, and associated driveways. The remainder of the project site is undeveloped. As a condition of approval, the proposed project would comply with the City’s Storm Water Management Plan, Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance, and the DNSP Design Guidelines. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact HYD-1: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not impact the underlying groundwater aquifer in the Planning Area since the aquifer is not used by the City for water supply purposes, no groundwater extraction would result beyond minor temporary dewatering activities that may be required for construction facilitated by the DNSP, the Planning Area is largely developed and covered in impervious surfaces, and the DNSP included stormwater management guidelines to encourage design features that would increase pervious surfaces and groundwater recharge.

Depending on the final foundation design, dewatering may be required to address seasonal fluctuations in groundwater levels over the life of the project. Given the occasional nature of any required dewatering, operation of the project would not substantially deplete groundwater. The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan, therefore, would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies.

The proposed project would not 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. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Flooding
The western portion of the project site is located within FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone X which is outside the 100-year floodplain. The eastern portion of the site is located in Zone AE of the 100- year floodplain. Base flood elevations (BFEs) on the project site range from 18.3 feet (NAVD6) on the westernmost portion of the site to approximately 19 feet on the eastside of the site. . As such, a FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) was prepared to reflect the flood reduction provided by the Napa River Dry Bypass and other flood protection project features that are currently being processed by FEMA. The LOMR removed an area from the one-percent annual chance floodplain to reflect the placement of fill.

6 The North American Vertical Datum (NAVD) is the data set used to determine surface elevation.

Impact HYD-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
Consistent with General Plan Policies HS 3.2-3.4, a flooding analysis was prepared by River Focus in January 2018 to analyze the impact of the proposed project on computed flood elevations and flood flow under the current LOMR revisions. Two conditions were modeled in the analysis, which included the existing conditions with structures near the project site and the proposed conditions with the proposed project. Results of the hydraulic analysis indicate there would be minimal impact (less than 0.1-foot increase) on offsite flood elevations with implementation of the proposed project.

Modeling of the proposed project indicates that the proposed building west of the Napa Wine Train tracks would have no impact on the floodplain while the proposed building east of the tracks would have a minimal impact on flow conveyance and storage reduction compared to existing conditions.

As a result of project implementation, there would be an onsite increase of 0.04 feet in base flood elevation (BFE) in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure and an increase of 0.01 feet in offsite flood elevations upstream of the site. There would be no increase in offsite flood elevation downstream of the proposed project. Consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR, implementation of the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance and General Plan Policies HS-3.1 through HS-3.8 would ensure the flooding impacts of the project would be less than significant. Consistent with General Plan policies, the project would be required to implement the following Condition of Approval. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less Than Significant Impact)]

Condition of Approval:

• The project shall be designed to ensure the project would not cause significant off-site flooding impacts as defined by Chapter 17.38 of the Napa Municipal Code.

Erosion
Project construction would disturb soils on-site, which could potentially lead to a loss of topsoil.

Consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR, the project would be required to adhere to the City’s Storm Water Management Plan and Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance. Erosion resulting from project construction activities, therefore, would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

The project would not result in new or greater flooding and erosion impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As described in Impact HYD-3, with the approval of the LOMR, the east side of the project site will be removed from the FEMA 100-year floodway and will have a base flood elevation of 18.6 feet (NAVD88). As a result of project implementation, there would be an onsite increase of 0.04 feet in BFE in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure and an increase of 0.01 feet in offsite flood elevations upstream of the site. There would be no increase in offsite flood elevation downstream of the proposed project. The project would not use or store substantial quantities of hazardous materials that would have the potential to be released due to flooding on the site.

Impact HYD-4: The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones and would not result in new or greater impacts than identified in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As described in Impact HYD-1, the project would comply with the City of Napa Storm Water Management Plan, City of Napa Stormwater Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance Code, City of Napa Floodplain Management Ordinance, and the City of Napa General Plan policies. The DNSP EIR also concluded the underlying groundwater aquifer in the Planning Area is not used for water supply purposes and the DNSP facilitated development would not deplete groundwater supplies.

Compliance with these regulations would ensure that the project would not conflict with water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy HS-3.1 The City shall continue to provide for floodplain management to protect its residents and property from the hazards of development in the floodplain of the Napa River and its tributaries.

Policy HS-3.2 The City shall continue to apply flood plain management regulations for development in the floodplain and floodway.

Policy HS-3.3 The City shall continue to participate in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Insurance Program.

Policy HS-3.4 The City shall continue to utilize the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Map to define the flood hazard areas, the floodway and the floodplain.

Policy HS-3.5 The City shall balance the housing needs of its residents against the risk from potential flood-related hazards.

Policy HS-3.6 The City shall support programs and methods to reduce the flooding of the Napa River and its tributaries.

Policy HS-3.7 The City shall continue to assist the Army Corps of Engineers, Napa County, other responsible agencies, and the public to maintain funding for the development of the Napa River Flood Management Project.

Policy HS-3.8 The City shall continue to cooperate with Napa County to maintain a reliable funding source for the local share of flood control costs.

Impact HYD-5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 13

LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.11.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established
community?

2) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?

3) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Land Use and Planning Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant land use and planning impacts. No mitigation was incorporated into the DNSP EIR.

The proposed hotel is consistent with the General Plan land use designation (Oxbow Commercial) and zoning (Oxbow Commercial) for the site. The DNSP EIR concluded that the Specific Plan would not result in significant land use and planning impacts and would not create new physical barriers in the planning area.

Implementation of the project would require acquisition of land currently owned by the Napa County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District and the City of Napa. The project would incorporate approximately 6,518 square feet of Napa County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District-owned parcels (APN 003-241-005 and 003-235-007) located on the east and west side of the Napa Valley Wine Train railroad tracks, as shown in Figure 3.2-8. The Flood Control District would grant an easement to the project for the property. In addition, the project would acquire a 10,018 square-foot portion Water Street from the City of Napa. The City would abandon the portion of Water Street to the project. The Napa County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District would retain ownership of the existing parking lot (APN 003-242-001) located to the south of Water Street. The project would continue to allow access to properties along Water Street and would not physically divide the community.

Impact LU-1: The project would not physically divide an established community. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
As the project is consistent with the land use assumptions of the Specific Plan and the DNSP EIR determined that the proposed Specific Plan would not result in significant land use and planning impacts, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As stated in Impact LU-1, the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and zoning for the site. The proposed hotel and commercial/retail use would be consistent with the vision of the Specific Plan and would be consistent with the General Plan Policies LU-1.3, -6.1, -6.2, -6.4, -

6.5, -6.8, and -6.10. In addition, the project is requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow for the hotel development. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is not located within an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The project would not result in greater impacts than those identified in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy LU-6.1: The City shall require retail and commercial uses to orient to the sidewalk or public spaces and to maintain an active street frontage in the pedestrian oriented parts of downtown.

Policy LU-6.2: The City shall work with local preservation groups and downtown property owners to improve building facades and exteriors consistent with the historic and visual character of downtown.

Policy LU-6.4: The City shall promote riverfront development that reorients downtown to the Napa River and shall encourage creative designs during the development review process.

Policy LU-6.5: The City shall provide for development of hote l and conference facilities in the downtown area. The City shall encourage any hotel developer to tie the Impact LU-2: The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact LU-3: The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
facility to downtown and riverfront restoration through physical improvements and joint promotional involvement.

Policy LU-6.8: The City shall identify key entry points and blighted conditions on the edges of downtown and support programs and projects that enhance downtown gateways and transitional zones between downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The City shall seek to remove blighting conditions at key entry points to make downtown more inviting for residents and visitors.

Policy LU-6.10: The City shall continue to support development of public amenities along the Napa Riverfront such as parks, plazas, trails, docks and landscaping.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 13

MINERAL RESOURCES

4.12.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that will be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?

2) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Mineral Resources Conclusion The DNSP EIR found that mineral resources are not present in the Planning Area. Implementation of the Specific Plan, therefore, would have no impact on mineral resources.

There are no known mineral resources located within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project, therefore, would not impact mineral resources. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

There are no known mineral resources located within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project, therefore, would not impact mineral resources. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the General Plan that are applicable to the proposed project.

Impact MIN-1: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
Impact MIN-2: The project would not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 13

NOISE & VIBRATION
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in March 2019. A copy of the report is attached as Appendix H to this Initial Study/Addendum.

4.13.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project result in:
1) Generation of a substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other
agencies?

2) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?

3) For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Noise and Vibration Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant noise and vibration impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Such mitigation measures include utilizing best available control techniques, limiting hours of construction to the least disturbing times of the day, and preparing detailed noise and vibration studies for specific projects, as necessary.

ATTACHMENT 13
Impact NOI-1: The project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. [Same Impact as Approved Projects (Less than Significant Impact)
Existing Noise Environment
A noise monitoring survey was completed in the vicinity of the project site beginning Wednesday, February 27, 2019 and concluding on Friday, March 1, 2019. The monitoring survey included two long-term noise measurements and two short-term measurements, as shown in Figure 4.13-1. The summary of the short-term noise levels collected during the monitoring survey are displayed in Table

4.13-1.

Table 4.13-1: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data Short
Term
Location
Location (Start Time)
Measured Noise Levels,
dBA
Primary
Noise
Source L10 L50 L90 Leq
1 West property line of 711 First Street site, 65
feet from Soscol Avenue
(12:00 pm to 12:10 pm)
72 67 63 69
Traffic on
Soscol
Avenue
2 40 feet from First street and train tracks
(12:20 pm to 12:30 pm) 62 58 54 59
Traffic on
First Street
and Soscol
Avenue
The two long-term noise measurements were taken at approximately 150 feet from the centerline of First Street, at the intersection of Water Street and McKinstry Street to the east of the project site, and at 711 First Street, approximately 140 feet from First Street and 175 feet from Soscol Avenue.

The primary noise at the long-term noise measurement locations was a result of vehicular traffic on First Street, and traffic along First Street and Soscol Avenue, respectively. The day-night average noise level at the first measurement location was 59 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL at the second location.

Vibration measurements of train passbys were taken on March 1, 2019 at setbacks of 25 feet and 50 feet from the center of the track. The measurements were taken approximately 0.3 mile north of the project site, 750 feet north of the Napa Train Station, and west of the train track.

Construction Noise
The Napa Municipal Code limits construction hours to between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, with no startup of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 AM, no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 AM nor past 5:00 PM, no cleaning of machines nor equipment past 6:00 PM, and no servicing of equipment past 6:45 PM. Construction on weekends or legal holidays is limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM. In addition, all muffler systems on ATTACHMENT 13
Water Street
Soscol Aven
ue
1st Street
Water Street
Soscol Avenue
1st Street
Napa Valley Wine TrainNapa Valley Wine Train
N
a
p
a
R
ive
r
McKinstry StreetMcKinstry Street
LT-2
LT-1
ST-1
ST-2
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.13-1
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Dec. 18, 2018. Photo Date: Feb. 2018 0 50 200 Feet
Project Boundary
Long-Term Noise Measurement
Location
Short-Term Noise Measurement
Location
LT-#
ST-#
First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
105 Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
construction equipment are required to be properly maintained, all construction equipment is prohibited from being placed adjacent to developed areas unless said equipment is provided with acoustical shielding, and all construction and grading equipment is required to be shut down when not actively in use.

Neither the City of Napa nor the State of California specify quantitative thresholds for the impact of temporary increases in noise due to construction. The threshold for speech interference indoors is 45 dBA. Assuming a 15-dB exterior-to-interior reduction for standard residential construction with windows open and a 25-dB exterior-to-interior reduction for standard commercial construction, assuming windows closed, this would correlate to an exterior threshold of 60 dBA Leq at residential land uses and 70 dBA Leq at commercial land uses. Therefore, the project would be considered to generate a significant temporary construction noise impact if project construction activities exceed 60 dBA Leq at nearby residences or exceed 70 dBA Leq at nearby commercial land uses and exceed the ambient noise environment by five dBA Leq or more for a period longer than one year.

Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.

Construction activities would be carried out in stages. During each stage of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by stage and vary within stages, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. Construction activities generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during demolition and earth-moving activities when heavy equipment is used. At this time, pile driving is not proposed for project construction; however, as a worst-case scenario, it is assumed that pile driving would occur during construction of building foundation.

The construction of the proposed project would involve demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, building erection, and paving. The hauling of excavated materials and construction materials would generate truck trips on local roadways as well. The anticipated construction noise levels are displayed in Table 4.13-2.

ATTACHMENT 13
Table 4.13-2: Noise Levels by Construction Phase
Construction Phase
Maximum Noise Level
(Lmax, dBA)
Hourly Average Noise Level
(Leq[h], dBA)
50 ft. 80 ft. 150 ft. 50 ft. 80 ft. 150 ft.

Demolition 90 86 80 88 84 78
Site Preparation 94 80 74 84 80 74
Pile driving 105 101 95 105 101 95
Grading Excavation 85 81 75 89 83 77
Trenching 94 80 74 82 78 72
Building Exterior 94 80 74 85 81 75
Building Interior 78 74 68 75 71 65
Paving 90 86 80 84 80 74

Noise levels would exceed 60 dBA Leq and ambient levels by more than five dBA at adjacent residences. In addition, pile driving activities may occur over a period of several weeks in which hourly average noise levels would be substantially higher than the average noise levels during other phases of construction. Duration of construction is estimated to exceed 12 months.

Implementation of the mitigation measures included in the General Plan and Specific Plan would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Those mitigation measures include HS-9.1, -9.6, -9.9 to -9.12 and -9.14 of the General Plan and mitigation measures 4.I-1a, 4-I-1b, 4.I-1c, 4.I-3 of the Specific Plan. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Operational Noise
Noise generating on-site operational components of the project would include mechanical equipment and parking lot activities. The Napa General Plan establishes 60 dBA CNEL as the “normally acceptable” noise exposure level for single family residential land uses, which are located to the east of the site, and 65 dBA CNEL as the “normally acceptable” noise exposure level for multi-family residential land uses, which are located to the west and south of the site.

Parking Lot Noise
Parking would be provided in a garage located on each of the below-grade parking levels of the proposed buildings. Surface parking spaces are not proposed. Access to the site and parking would be provided from First Street, to the north of the proposed buildings. Parking activities occurring in a closed garage would not be anticipated to be audible outside the West Building, and from Water Street for the East Building parking structure. Parking lot activities would not exceed the City’s noise limits and would not measurably contribute to the existing ambient noise environment.

ATTACHMENT 13
Mechanical Equipment Noise
As currently proposed, all mechanical equipment would be contained inside an equipment room located at the southwest corner on the parking level of both buildings. Indoor mechanical equipment is not anticipated to be audible at adjacent off-site uses. Rooftop equipment is not proposed.

Traffic Related Noise
A significant noise impact would occur if traffic or activities generated by the project would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if: a) the noise level increase is five dBA CNEL or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA CNEL, or b) the noise level increase is three dBA CNEL or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or greater. Based on a comparison between traffic volumes under the existing plus project scenario and existing conditions, the traffic noise increase attributable to the project would be less than one dBA.

The project would result in a less than significant operational noise impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Construction Vibration
The City of Napa’s General Plan does not specify a vibration limit for construction. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings. The 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would be applicable to properties in the vicinity of the project site.

The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. pile drivers, jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include site demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, building erection, and paving. Pile driving could be used as a method of construction. Table 4.13-3 below presents the typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet, as given by the Federal Transit Authority, and at a distance of 20, 70, and 120 feet, representative of the nearest structures.

\
Impact NOI-2: The project would not result in generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13

Table 4.13-3: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 20
ft. (in/sec)
PPV at 25
ft. (in/sec)
PPV at 70
ft. (in/sec)
PPV at
120 ft.
(in/sec)
Pile Driver (Impact) upper range 1.480 1.158 0.373 0.206 typical 0.823 0.644 0.207 0.115
Pile Driver (Sonic) upper range 0.938 0.734 0.236 0.131 typical 0.217 0.170 0.055 0.030
Clam shovel drop 0.258 0.094 0.065 0.036
Hydromill (slurry
wall)
in soil 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.001
in rock 0.022 0.017 0.005 0.003
Vibratory Roller 0.268 0.098 0.068 0.037
Hoe Ram 0.114 0.042 0.029 0.016
Large bulldozer 0.114 0.042 0.029 0.016
Caisson drilling 0.114 0.042 0.029 0.016
Loaded trucks 0.097 0.035 0.024 0.014
Jackhammer 0.045 0.016 0.011 0.006
Small bulldozer 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.001

Construction activity could occur as close as 20 feet and 120 feet from the residences east of the site, 70 feet from commercial buildings to the north of both sites and 120 feet from the restaurant to east of the site. As indicated in Table 4.13-3, at a distance of 20 feet, ‘upper range’ impact pile driving would be anticipated to generate vibration levels as high as 1.48 in/sec PPV, with ‘typical’ levels anticipated approximately 0.823 in/sec PPV. Based on the California Department of Transportation’s recommended vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV to avoid potential structural damage, the project would exceed this threshold at 20, 25, and 70 feet for an impact pile driver, and would exceed this threshold at 20 and 25 feet for sonic pile drivers.

‘Upper range’ impact pile driving would have the potential to produce vibration levels of 0.3 in/sec PPV or more at buildings within 90 feet, with ‘typical’ impact pile driving generating levels producing vibration levels of 0.3 in/sec PPV or more at buildings within 50 feet. Project construction vibration levels of 0.823 in/sec PPV would result in a 12 percent probability of no observable minor or major structural damage. Based on the proposed construction, cosmetic or threshold damage (e.g. hairline cracking in plaster, opening of old cracks, loosening of paint of the dislodging of loose objects etc.) would be anticipated at the nearest structure. Major structural damage is not anticipated since the anticipated vibratory levels would not exceed the 1.48 in/sec PPV threshold. The project would implement the following Condition of Approval to ensure implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.I-3 of the DNSP EIR:

ATTACHMENT 13
Condition of Approval:

The following measures are required to reduce vibration impacts from construction activities:
• Avoid impact pile driving where possible. Drilled piers or rammed aggregate piers cause lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use. • Phase demolition, earth-moving, and ground impacting operations so as not to occur during the same time period.
• A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project and anticipated time duration of using the equipment that is known to produce high vibration levels (clam shovel drops, vibratory rollers, tracked vehicles, vibratory compaction, jackhammers, hoe rams, etc.) shall be submitted to the City by the contractor. This list shall be used to identify equipment and activities that would potentially generate substantial vibration and to define the level of effort for reducing vibration levels below the thresholds. • If pile driving is required, notify neighbors within 500 feet of the construction site of the construction schedule and that there could be noticeable vibration levels resulting from pile driving.
• If pile driving is required, foundation pile holes shall be pre-drilled to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
• If pile driving is required, jet or partially jet piles into place to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
• A construction vibration monitoring plan shall be implemented to document conditions at all structures located within 50 feet of construction. If pile driving is used the construction vibration monitoring plan shall document all structures within 125 feet prior to, during, and after pile driving. The plan shall be finalized upon receipt of the final foundation design. All plan tasks shall be undertaken under the direction of a licensed Professional Structural Engineer in the State of California and be in accordance with industry-accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks:
o Identification of sensitivity to ground-borne vibration of nearby structures. Vibration limits should be applied to all vibration-sensitive structures located within 50 feet of any pile driving activities.
o Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for each of structure of normal construction within 90 feet of pile driving activities and/or within 25 feet of other construction activities identified as sources if high vibration levels. Surveys shall be performed prior to any pile driving activity, in regular interval during pile driving, and after completion and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in structures, settlement, and distress and shall document the condition of foundations, walls and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structures.
• Conduct post-survey on structures where complaints of damage have been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.
• Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.

ATTACHMENT 13
Implementation of the above Condition of Approval would reduce construction vibration to a less than significant level, consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Operational Vibration
Operation of the proposed hotel would not generate vibration. The project is, therefore, consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is located 0.7 miles north of Napa County Airport. Aircraft noise exposure would be considered significant if the project site were exposed to aircraft noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL. Based on review of the 2002 CNEL Contours for Airport Master Plan7, the project site is located outside of the 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. As described in Impact NOI-1, the primary noise source at the site is traffic on First Street and Soscol Avenue, which generates noise levels as high as 65 dBA CNEL at the site. Aircraft noise is generally not audible above traffic noise at the site. The project is, therefore, consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.13.2 Non-CEQA Effects
Future Exterior Noise Environment
The primary noise sources at the site would continue to be vehicular traffic on First Street and Soscol Avenue, with elevated noise levels occurring during train operations. Based on future traffic volumes, the future traffic noise level would increase by one to two dB above existing conditions along First Street and are not anticipated to increase under future conditions along Soscol Avenue.8 It is assumed that future train operations would continue to be occasional and during daytime hours only.

Proposed noise sensitive exterior uses areas would include a pool located on the ground level in the southern portion of west-building and a central courtyard on the first level in both buildings. The future pool area would be exposed to noise levels of up to 60 dBA CNEL, the courtyard of the West Building would be exposed to up to 60 dBA CNEL, and the courtyard in the east building would be exposed to 48 dBA CNEL. Noise levels at the exterior use areas of the proposed hotel buildings would not exceed the City’s acceptable exterior noise level criteria of 65 dBA CNEL for transient 7 Napa County General Plan Update, Chapter 4.7-Noise, Fig 4.7-1: 2002 Noise Contours Napa County Airport; Source: Jones and Stokes; 2005.
8 Traffic volumes taken from Traffic Impact Study for First and Oxbow Hotel (April 23, 2019), prepared by W- Trans.

Impact NOI-3: The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
lodging, hotels, and motels or the 70 dBA CNEL criteria for commercial uses. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Future Interior Noise Environment
Interior noise levels within hotel rooms are required to be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL by City and State Standards. The CalGreen Code limits noise level inside occupied non-residential interior spaces to 50 dBA Leq (1-hr) during any hour of operation. Due to the low and daytime only occurrence of train movements near the site, sleep and speech disturbance is not anticipated.

Interior noise levels in hotel rooms of the West Building with standard construction and windows partially open for ventilation would range from 45 to 58 dBA CNEL, with the highest levels inside units facing Soscol Avenue. Interior noise levels in hotel rooms of the East Building are calculated to range from 43 to 49 dBA CNEL with standard construction and windows partially open for ventilation.

Noise levels inside south and west facing hotel units of the East Building would achieve the 45 dBA CNEL interior threshold with standard construction and windows in the open or closed position.

Standard construction with the inclusion of forced-air mechanical ventilation to allow occupants the option of keeping windows closed to control noise would be sufficient for east facing rooms of the West Building and north and east facing rooms of the East Building. Interior noise levels inside rooms with west, north, and south facing façades of the West Building would achieve 45 dBA CNEL with forced air mechanical ventilation and windows and doors with STC ratings of 26 to 30.

Loudest hour noise levels would be anticipated to be one to three dBA Leq(1-hr)9 higher than CNEL levels during periods with train movements, resulting in loudest hour interior noise levels of 44 to 59 dBA Leq(1-hr) with windows open and 34 to 49 dBA Leq(1-hr) with windows closed. The commercial and retail spaces on the second floor would comply with the CalGreen Code standard of 50 dBA Leq(1-hr), assuming standard construction and the inclusion of forced-air mechanical ventilation to allow occupants the option of keeping windows closed to control noise.

Consistent with the DNSP EIR and General Plan policies, the project would be required to adhere to the following Condition of Approval:

Condition of Approval:

• Provide a suitable form of forced-air mechanical ventilation, as determined by the local building official, for all buildings so that windows can be kept closed to control noise.

• Provide sound rated windows to north, south, and west facing hotel room façades of 711 First Street to maintain interior noise levels at acceptable levels. Preliminary calculations show that sound-rated windows with minimum STC Ratings of 26 to 30 or higher would be satisfactory to achieve acceptable interior noise levels, assuming a window to wall ratio of 40 percent or less. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary shall be conducted on a room-by-room basis during final design of the project once final building plans are available.
9 Leq(1-hr) represents the change in sound levels recorded over a one-hour period.

ATTACHMENT 13
Adherence to the Condition of Approval would ensure that ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project would not exceed applicable standards. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Groundborne Vibration
The Napa Valley Wine Train railroad tracks bisect the site. Approximately four to six passenger trains per day travel the route, with only occasional daytime trains traveling south of the Napa Train Station to the portion of the track near the site. The tracks are not used by other commuter or freight trains.

Vibration measurements of a train passby event were conducted on March 1, 2019, at setbacks of 25 feet and 50 feet from the center of the track. The vibration measurements were located approximately

0.3 miles north of the project site, 750 feet north of Napa Train Station, and west of the train track.

The occasional, day-time Napa Wine train passbys through the project site would result in vibration impact of up to 74 VdB on the west-building. Based on the calculated drop-off rate between the vibration monitoring positions, train vibration levels would be 80 VdB or higher within a distance of 16 feet from the center of the train track. Project structures would be located 30 feet to the west and 60 feet to the east of the tracks and would not be exposed to vibration levels exceeding the vibration threshold for infrequent events. This would represent a less than significant impact.

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy HS-9.1: The City shall require new development to meet the exterior noise level standards set out in Table 8-1. For residential areas, these exterior noise guidelines apply to backyards; exceptions may be allowed for front yards where overriding design concerns are identified.

Policy HS-9.2: The City shall use CEQA and the development review processes to ensure that new development does not exceed City standards.

Policy HS-9.6: The City shall use the development and building permit review processes to site new construction in ways that reduce noise levels.

Policy HS-9.9: When feasible and appropriate, the City shall limit construction activities to that portion of the day when the number of persons occupying a potential noise impact area is lowest.

Policy HS-9.10: The City shall encourage new development to maintain the ambient sound environment as much as possible.

Policy HS-9.11: The City shall regulate construction in a manner that allows for efficient construction mobilization and activities, while also protecting noise sensitive land uses.

ATTACHMENT 13
Policy HS-9.12: The City shall evaluate and modify as necessary the City's designated truck routes to minimize noise impacts for sensitive land uses.

Policy HS-9.14: The City shall encourage new development to identify a lternatives to the use of sound walls to attenuate noise impacts. Appropriate techniques include site planning such as incorporating setbacks, revisions to the architectural layout such as changing building orientation to provide noise attenuation for portions of outdoor yards, and construction modifications. In the event that sound walls are the only practicable alternative, such walls should be designed to be as visually pleasing as possible, incorporating landscaping, variations in color and patterns, and/or changes in texture or building materials.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure 4.I-1a: Construction contractors for subsequent development projects within the Planning Area shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically- attenuating shields or shrouds, etc.) when within 400 feet of sensitive receptor locations. Additional techniques shall include, but not be limited to the following noise control elements:

• Non-residential construction project activities (Monday through Friday) shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM with no start up of machines or equipment prior to 8:00 AM. No delivery of materials nor equipment shall occur prior to 7:30 AM or after 5:00 PM. No cleaning of machines or equipment shall occur after 6:00 PM. No servicing of equipment shall occur past 6:45 PM. Construction of weekends and holidays shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM, unless a permit allows otherwise.
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler shall achieve lower noise levels from the exhaust by approximately 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible in order to achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible;
ATTACHMENT 13
• All construction equipment shall not be placed adjacent to developed areas unless said equipment is provided with acoustical shielding.
• Signs shall be posted at all construction site entrances to the property upon commencement of project construction, for the purposes of informing all contractors and subcontractors, their employees, agents, materialmen, and all other persons at the construction site, of the basic requirements of Mitigation Measures 4.1-a through 4.1-c.

Mitigation Measure 4.I-1b: Should pile-driving be necessary for a proposed project, the project sponsor would require that the construction contractor limit pile driving activity to the least disturbing hours of the day. To further mitigate pile driving and/or other extreme noise-generating construction impacts, a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures shall be completed under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant. No extreme noise-generating activities shall be allowed on weekends and holidays. Techniques included may include but not be limited to the following:

• Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the construction site,
• Implement “quiet” pile-driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions; • Use noise control blankets on building structures as buildings are erected to reduce noise emission from the site;
• Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and
• Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

Mitigation Measure 4.I-1c: The City shall condition approval of projects in the Planning Area near receptors sensitive to construction noise, such as residences and schools, such that, in the event of a justified complaint regarding construction noise, the City would have the ability to require changes in the construction practices to address the noise complaints.

Mitigation Measure 4.I-3: Groundborne vibration exposure to proposed Specific Plan residences within 200 feet of the mainline track shall be analyzed in a detailed vibration study by a qualified acoustical engineer to determine if vibration isolation shall be required in building design, such as supporting the new building foundations on elastomer pads similar to bridge bearing pads. The results of each study shall be submitted to the City prior to project approval.

ATTACHMENT 13

POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.14.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Induce substantial unanticipated
population, housing, or employment
growth in excess of local share of
regional projections that has the
potential to result in adverse physical
environmental effects?

2) Displacement of existing residents or
housing units?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Population and Housing Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant population and housing impacts since the Specific Plan would replace any lost housing units with additional housing units, resulting in an increase in residential units available in the Downtown area. No mitigation was incorporated into the DNSP EIR.

The proposed project would not involve the construction of new housing, nor would it generate any long-term employment opportunities that would cause substantial population growth. The construction workers needed for the project would be relatively few and these jobs would likely be filled by the local work force. No new long-term employment opportunities or substantial population growth would result from construction activities. The proposed hotel would have approximately 46 employees, and the proposed retail/commercial space would employ approximately 38 employees, which would not result in a substantial population growth.

The project, therefore, would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact POP-1: The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13

There are currently three single-family residences located on the project site (718 – 730 Water and 731 First Street). The project proposes to relocate the 718 Water Street and 731 First Street structures to 58 Randolph Street, approximately 10 blocks to the south and west of the site, within the Napa Abajo neighborhood. The remainder of the project site is currently undeveloped and does not contain any residences.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would increase the number of housing units in the Downtown area by 627 residential units, which would generate approximately 1,378 new residents within the area.10 As described in the DNSP EIR, the Specific Plan would establish additional housing within the Downtown area and would therefore, not displace housing or people such that construction of replacement housing would be required elsewhere. More residential units would be constructed than would be demolished with implementation of the Specific Plan.

Since the relocation site for the two single-family residences on-site has been identified as part of the Specific Plan, the relocation of these residents was accounted for in the DNSP EIR and is therefore, consistent with the conclusions of the DNSP EIR. The project would not result in new or greater population and housing impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the General Plan that are applicable to the proposed project.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

10 City of Napa. Downtown Napa Specific Plan. Draft PEIR. January 2012.

Impact POP-2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13

PUBLIC SERVICES

4.15.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the 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:
1) Fire Protection?
2) Police Protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other Public Facilities?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Public Services Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant public service impacts. No mitigation was required for public services in the DNSP EIR.

The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in demand for fire protection services. However, City review of individual development projects would reduce the potential for project-related service deficiencies, should any occur. The project site is located within one mile of Fire Station No. 1 which would allow the City to meet their response time policy for the site without the need for additional facilities. Since the proposed project is consistent with the land use assumptions of the Specific Plan, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact PS-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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 fire protection services. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in demand for police protection services. However, City review of individual development projects would reduce the potential for project-related service deficiencies, should any occur. The project includes a café and other ground floor retail space which would increase “eyes of the street” to deter crime in Downtown. The project also includes pedestrian walkways and valet only parking which further increases pedestrian activity in Downtown and reduces opportunity for crime. Since the proposed project is consistent with the land use assumptions and furthers the goals of the Specific Plan, the project, therefore, would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project is the construction of a 74-room hotel and 6,294 sf of commercial/retail space and does not include residential uses. The project would not generate new students. The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact to schools.

Since the project would not generate students, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Future hotel patrons may use City parks, trails, or other recreational facilities; however, the increase in use of these facilities would not place a major physical burden on existing park facilities that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of these facilities and would not, therefore, require the construction or expansion of facilities in the area. The project proposes to construct a connection Impact PS-2: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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 police protection services. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact PS-3: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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 schools. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact PS-4: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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 parks. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] ATTACHMENT 13
point to a future Napa Flood Control path extending from the West Building. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Future hotel patrons may use City public facilities within the project vicinity; however, the increase in use of these facilities by hotel users would not place a major physical burden on other public facilities that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of these facilities and would not, therefore, require the construction or expansion of facilities in the area. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy CS-1.3: The City shall ensure through the development review process that adequate public facilities and services are available to serve new development.

Policy CS-1.7: The City shall require that all new development meet adopted service levels for public facilities as established in the General Plan.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

Impact PS-5: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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 other public facilities. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

RECREATION

4.16.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
1) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility will occur
or be accelerated?

2) 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?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Recreation Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant recreation impacts. No mitigation was incorporated into the DNSP EIR.

The project is the construction of a 74-room hotel and 6,294 sf of commercial/retail space. The project does not propose residential uses. Although hotel patrons may use City parks, trails, or other recreation facilities in the area, the future patrons would not place a major physical burden on existing recreational facilities that would result in substantial physical deterioration of these facilities.

The project would not cause substantial physical deterioration of local, off-site recreational facilities and would not result in the need for construction of new facilities. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As stated in Impact REC-1, future hotel patrons may use City parks, trails, or other recreational facilities; however, the increase in use of these facilities would not place a major physical burden on Impact REC-1: The 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact REC-2: The project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction of expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
existing recreational facilities that would result in a substantial physical deterioration of these facilities and would not, therefore, require the construction or expansion of facilities in the area.

Consistent with General Plan Policy PR-6.4, the project provides access through the site to a planned public trail to enable access to the Napa River at the site of the West Building. The project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy PR-6.4: The City shall link the Napa River Trail to other trails, parklands and community resources including downtown and river-oriented businesses.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

ATTACHMENT 13

TRANSPORTATION
The following discussion is based, in part, on Traffic Impact Study prepared by W-Trans in April 2019. A copy of the Traffic Impact Study is attached as Appendix I to this Initial Study/Addendum.

4.17.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian
facilities?

2) For a land use project, conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

3) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible land uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

4) Result in inadequate emergency
access?

CEQA Guidelines Update
On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package. As part of the comprehensive update to the CEQA Guidelines, the Office of Planning and Research made the following revisions to the Appendix G environmental checklist, as it pertains to transportation:

1. Revised the questions related to “measures of effectiveness” so that the focus is more on the circulation element and other plans governing transportation.

2. Deleted the second question related to level of service (LOS), and refers to Guideline section 15064.3, subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2).

3. Clarified the question related to design features.

This Initial Study uses the updated Appendix G checklist as opposed to the checklist utilized in the DNSP EIR.

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Transportation Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts related to level of service (LOS) at study intersections. The DNSP EIR ATTACHMENT 13
identified mitigation to reduce impacts at the affected intersections; however, despite implementation of the identified mitigation, significant unavoidable impacts would remain. As a result, the City of Napa adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for transportation impacts resulting from full build out under the Specific Plan in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 (Resolution R2012 54).

Implementation of the project would contribute to the overall LOS impacts identified in the DNSP EIR. However, Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed in 2013 and requires that for land use projects, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, employee, or net VMT are to be used as metrics for transportation analysis. With the passage of SB 743 amending CEQA’s evaluation of transportation impacts and the effective date of the Guidelines implementing SB 743, the effect of a project on LOS shall no longer be considered an impact on the environment.

The following discussion is included because the City of Napa has policies that address LOS as a planning or growth management matter, outside the CEQA process. In the event a deficient LOS condition is identified, the City has discretion whether to require a project to address the deficiency by implementing roadway or other transportation improvements to restore or improve the level of service, and the relevant question under CEQA is whether those improvements would result in adverse physical changes to the environment, and not whether LOS has degraded below the condition considered acceptable.

Level of Service Policy Evaluation
The DNSP EIR included development assumptions for a variety of commercial, housing, and entertainment uses in Downtown Napa. The City has indicated that there has been a shift from some of the assumptions made in the DNSP EIR, specifically regarding hotel uses. The DNSP EIR assumed a development capacity of 303 hotel rooms in the Downtown, which would generate 2,476 daily net new trips at full build out. Planned hotel development in the Downtown has exceeded this assumption. As a result, the anticipated trip generation of the proposed hotel project was compared to the potential trip generation for retail and office uses to determine the equivalent amount of office and retail that would generate the same number of trips as the proposed project.

Trip Generation Estimates
The generation resulting from the proposed project were estimated using the trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). The project trip generation rates were estimated using the “Hotels” and “Shopping Center” land use codes.

The proposed project would generate 834 trips per day, with 40 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 66 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour (see Table 4.17-1 below).

Impact TRN-1: The project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Contribution to Significant Unavoidable Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
Table 4.17-1: Project Trip Generation Estimates
Land Use Size Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Uses
Hotel 74 rooms 619 21 14 35 23 21 44
Shopping Center 5.701 ksf 215 3 2 5 11 11 22
New Trips: 834 24 16 40 34 32 66
Notes:
ksf.= 1,000 s.f.

All rates are from Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. Average rates are used.

The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was compared to the potential trip generation for retail and office uses to determine the equivalent amount of office and retail that would generate the same number of trips as the proposed project. The trip rates were estimated using the “Shopping Center” and “General Office Building” land use codes (see Table 4.17-2 below).

Table 4.17-2: Project Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Size Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project -- 834 24 16 40 34 32 66
Shopping Center 17.4 ksf 657 10 6 16 32 34 66
Office 57 ksf 555 57 9 66 10 56 66
Notes:
ksf.= 1,000 s.f.

All rates are from Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. Average rates are used.

It was determined that 17,400 square feet of retail and 57,000 square feet of office would generate an equivalent number of PM peak hour trips as the proposed project. In comparing the proposed hotel use to shopping center uses, the traffic analysis concluded that the proposed project would have similar directionality in traffic during the more critical PM peak hour. However, there would be more traffic leaving the site during the PM peak hour for the office use. Therefore, the project would have similar or less directionality impacts compared with other allowable uses in the Specific Plan Area.

The DNSP specifies that sites within the Downtown II zone (where the project site is located) may consist of medium- to high-density development with a floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 4.0. This equates to up to approximately 139,392 square feet of development, which is considerably higher than the equivalent 17,400 square feet of retail and 57,000 square feet of office used to compare to the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would generate lower volumes of traffic than other permitted uses analyzed in the DNSP EIR.

Project Level of Service Summary
Policy T-2.1 of the City’s General Plan establishes a level of service standard of mid-LOS D or better for all signalized intersections on arterial and collector streets with the following exceptions, where midrange LOS E will be permitted.

ATTACHMENT 13
• Downtown Napa within the area bounded by Soscol Avenue, First Street, California Boulevard, and Third Street
• Jefferson Street between Third Street and Old Sonoma Road • Silverado Trail between Soscol Avenue and First Street

The results of the intersection LOS analysis under existing plus project, existing plus approved plus project,11 and future plus approved plus project conditions12 show that all the study intersections would operate at an acceptable level during both the AM and PM peak hours when measured against the City’s level of service standards (see Table 4.17-3). The study intersections included in the Traffic Impact Study are displayed in Figure 4.17-1: Study Intersections .

Table 4.17-3: Project Level of Service Summary
Number Intersection Hour
Existing Existing Plus
Project
Existing Plus
Approved
Plus Project
Conditions
Future Plus
Project
Conditions
Avg.

Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.

Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.

Delay
(Sec)
LOS
Avg.

Delay
(Sec)
LOS
1 Soscol
Avenue/McKinstry
Street
AM
PM

5.9 6.3
A
A

6.1 6.8
A
A

6.7 8.6
A
A

7.1 10.0
A
B
2 Soscol
Avenue/First
Street
AM
PM

38.3 36.7
D
D

38.1 36.6
D
D

37.2 35.9
D
D

38.0 37.2
D
D
3 McKinstry
Street/First Street
AM
PM

1.9 1.9
A
A

2.3 2.5
A
A

3.1 4.7
A
A

2.5 2.9
A
A
Northbound
(McKinstry St)
Approach
AM
PM

12.3 14.9
B
B

12.5 16.3
B
C

15.4 28.2
C
D

14.8 20.9
B
C
Southbound
(McKinstry St)
Approach
AM
PM

11.1 13.0
B
B

11.6 14.0
B
B

12.7 19.5
B
C

13.3 17.2
C
C
Delay is measure in average seconds per vehicle; LOS = Level of Service; Delay for stop-controlled approaches is shown in italics.

The LOS traffic impacts from the proposed project have already been analyzed and accounted for in the DNSP EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to the overall LOS impact on intersections in the DNSP. As previously discussed, these impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable and, as a result, the City of Napa adopted a statement of overriding consideration for the DNSP in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. The proposed project would be

11 The Existing plus Approved Projects are found on page 8 of the Traffic Impact Study. 12 Future volumes for the horizon year 2020 were calculated based on output from the Napa Solano Travel Demand Model.

ATTACHMENT 13
Source: W-Trans, April 23, 2019.

STUDY INTERSECTIONS FIGURE 4.17-1
127 First and Oxbow Gateway Project
City of Napa
Initial Study/Addendum
June 2020
ATTACHMENT 13
required to pay the City’s street improvement fee, consistent with the DNSP EIR Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, to make a fair share contribution to planned transportation improvements. For these reasons, the project would not result in any new or more significant impacts related to the City’s LOS policy than were previously identified in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Significant Unavoidable Impact)]

General Plan Crucial Corridor Policy Evaluation
The City of Napa General Plan identifies several routes that serve a particularly vital role in communitywide circulation and in providing accessibility to key community facilities as Crucial Corridors. The City's key circulation policies in its traffic management strategy have been established to reserve traffic capacity within these major corridors for communitywide circulation. In general, Crucial Corridor Policies limit additional driveways to these streets and discourage high traffic- generating uses.

According to the City of Napa Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for Private Development Review, uses along crucial corridors shall generate less than 520 daily trips per gross acre. The proposed western building is located within a City-designated crucial corridor. This portion of the project is expected to generate 380 daily trips. The proposed building would have a gross square footage of 60,307 square feet (approximately 1.38 acres). The building is estimated to generate approximately 275 daily trips per acre; therefore, the project would meet the City’s crucial corridor requirement.

Other Transportation Modes
The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan be consistent with policies, plans and programs in the General Plan, and would not cause a significant impact by conflicting with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.

In general, the pedestrian network surrounding the project site is well-connected and provides adequate access for pedestrians, especially between Downtown Napa and the Oxbow Market area.

The project would generate pedestrian traffic between the project site and the transit stop on the east side of Soscol Avenue, just south of the project site, among other destinations. There are existing pedestrian sidewalks on both sides of First Street and Soscol Avenue and marked crosswalks on all four legs of Soscol Avenue/First Street and McKinstry/First Street. The existing pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project site would adequately serve the project.

VINE Route 10 provides regional service to destinations through the City of Napa and stops on the east side of Soscol Avenue at Third Street, just south of the project site. The Soscol Gateway Transit Center is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the project site and would provide access to additional transit routes not offered at the nearest stop. The Napa Valley Wine Train McKinstry station is also located approximately 0.2 mile from the site, which is an acceptable walking distance for future hotel guests wishing to take advantage of this local attraction. Route 10 operates on weekdays and weekends with approximately one-hour headways. Existing transit routes are adequate to accommodate project-generated transit trips.

Existing bicycle facilities, including Class II bike lanes on Soscol Avenue, along with planned bike lanes on First Street outlined in the City of Napa Bicycle Plan would provide adequate access for ATTACHMENT 13
bicyclists and link the project site to the surrounding bicycle network. The project is consistent with the City’s Bicycle Plan.

Consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, nor would it decrease the performance or safety of existing facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

This CEQA checklist question specifically addresses the new transportation metric of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and whether a land use project would exceed an applicable threshold of significance. The City of Napa has not yet adopted a quantitative VMT threshold, as allowed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (c), which allows lead agencies until July 1, 2020 to start using VMT. Therefore, the project would not exceed an applicable threshold of significance.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor will have less-than-significant impacts on VMT. As previously discussed, the project site is located 0.4 mile from the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, which provides a connection between Napa and the greater Bay Area. In addition, an existing transit stop is located on the east side of Soscol Avenue, just south of the project site. Given the projects proximity to an existing major transit center, the project would be expected to have a less than significant impact on VMT. (New Less than Significant Impact)

The project design does not substantially increase hazards. Vehicle access to the proposed project would be provided via two proposed driveways. The West Building would be accessed via a driveway east of the existing driveway curb-cut and would be right-in/right-out only. The East Building would be accessed via a new driveway on Water Street, located just east of the railroad tracks. Traffic exiting (and entering) the East Building would gain access to Water Street via McKinstry Street. Valet parking services would be provided in front of the East building only, where all patrons would arrive for check-in. The existing parallel parking spaces along First Street would be removed as part of the plans to install bike lanes, and the curb set back to create the passenger loading area and valet space. The setback area would include the majority of the East building frontage (approximately 100 feet in length) and would have sufficient space to accommodate four to five vehicles.

Impact TRN-2: The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (New Less than Significant Impact) Impact TRN-3: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
The project proposes to convert Water Street from a public to private street with a reduced cross- section. The footprint of the building would extend 20 feet into the 60-foot wide Water Street right- of-way. Water Street would have an 11-foot travel lane in each direction with eight feet of parking and a ten-foot sidewalk on the south side.

Sight distances along First Street from the western project driveway were evaluated based on sight distance criteria in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. The recommended sight distance for Front Street is 150 feet. Based on field measurements taken for the traffic analysis, there is at least 150 feet of sight distance available to the west, which allows drivers to view traffic in the intersection with Soscol Avenue, and more than 250 feet of sight distance to the east along First Street. The project would remove existing on-street parallel parking along First Street. Sight distance would be adequate at the project driveway on First Street for the posted speed limit.

The DNSP EIR concluded that development facilitated by the Specific Plan could potentially result in additional automobile, bicycle, and/or pedestrian traffic at existing at-grade railroad crossings and potentially contribute to safety issues at railroad crossings. According to the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for the project, approximately four to six passenger trains (Napa Valley Wine Train) per day travel in the vicinity of the project. As determined by the project trip generation comparison conducted as part of the project's Traffic Impact Study and discussed earlier in this section, the proposed project would generate lower volumes of traffic than other permitted uses analyzed in the DNSP EIR. The project’s First Street driveway entrance is designed as a right-in/right-out only, which eliminates turning movements and vehicle queueing from westbound traffic. The project’s Traffic Impact Study analyzed sight distance for the First Street driveway and made the finding that it would be adequate for the posted speed limit. The Traffic Impact Study analyzed the pedestrian and bicycle facilities and made the finding that the pedestrian facilities and off-site bicycle facilities serving the project site are adequate. Additionally, the project is required to be constructed consistent with City of Napa Public Works Standard Specifications and Standard Plans. For these reasons, the proposed project is not expected to result in hazards between incompatible uses at at-grade railroad crossings. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

The DNSP EIR concluded that the adequacy of emergency vehicle access would be evaluated for each individual development in the study area. The DNSP EIR determined that since each individual development would be expected to be consistent with the City’s Fire Code, Subdivision and other regulations in effect at the time, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact on emergency access. The project would be built in conformance with the current building and fire codes, and be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access, including adequate fire apparatus access to buildings and adequate widths for on-site driveways and parking aisles. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact TRN-4: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13
General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy T-9.1: Require adequate short-term (i.e. bike racks) and long-term (i.e. bike lockers) bicycle parking for non-residential uses as provided in local standards.

Nonresidential uses include private commercial and industrial uses, as well as hospitals, clinics, gyms, parks and other civic facilities.

Policy T-11.A: As new private or public development is approved on or along designated bicycle routes in the City’s bicycle plan, the City shall continue to require needed bicycle improvements appropriate for the type of route, including recreational multi use trail system segments (as along the Napa River and Salvador Channel) using the BTAC as a resource to review and provide recommendations regarding such projects.

Policy T-11.B: The City shall promote bicycle access and support facilities in the design of future development.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Policy TR-1.7: Ensure all street modification, reconstruction or rehabilitation projects, whether City led or development driven, within the Planning Area implement the vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, streetscape or transit improvements identified in this Specific Plan.

Policy TR-4.1: Implement the streetscape improvements in this Specific Plan by ensuring private development enhances the public realm, as envisioned in the Streetscape Plan in Chapter 5, through careful placement and design of street trees, public art, street furnishings, bike racks, landscaping, signage, newsstands, street lights, paving and trash receptacles.

Policy TR-4.2: Require private development to expand public streetscape and open space improvements to extend the network of pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, promenades, plazas, paseos and courtyards into and through development projects.

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure 4.L-6: This mitigation measure should be applied to developments under the Specific Plan that would generate substantial multi-modal trips crossing at-grade railroad crossings that could substantially increase hazards between incompatible uses (i.e., motor vehicles and trains, or pedestrians and trains):

Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) for At-grade Railroad Crossings – The TIS, otherwise required to be prepared for proposed ATTACHMENT 13
developments under this project, in accordance with standard City policies and practices, must evaluate potential impacts to at-grade railroad crossings resulting from project-related traffic. The TIS should examine whether the proposed project would generate substantial multimodal trips crossing at-grade railroad crossings that could substantially increase hazards between incompatible uses (i.e., motor vehicles and trains, pedestrians and trains), which may include a Diagnostic Review for each railroad crossing.

If required, the Diagnostic Review must be completed with all affected properties and Stakeholders, in coordination with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). It will include:
roadway and rail descriptions; collision history; traffic volumes for all modes; train volumes; vehicular speeds; train speeds; and existing rail and traffic controls. Based on the Diagnostic Review and the number of projected trips, the TIS will evaluate if the proposed project increases hazards at the crossing. For example, vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project may cause vehicle queuing at intersections resulting in traffic spilling back onto at-grade railroad crossings.

Where the TIS identifies substantially hazardous crossing conditions caused by the proposed project, mitigations relative to the project’s contribution to the crossing as necessary shall be applied through project redesign and/or incorporation of improvements to reduce potential adverse impacts. Proposed improvements must be coordinated with CPUC and affected railroads and all necessary permits/approvals obtained, including a GO 88-B Request (Authorization to Alter Highway Rail Crossings). These
improvements may include:

• Installation of additional warning signage;
• Improvements to warning devices at existing rail crossings; • Installation or improvement to automobiles and/or pedestrian control gates;
• Installation of concrete panels to provide a smooth crossing surface;
• Reduction in the flangeway gap to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety;
• Installation of median separation to prevent vehicles from driving around railroad crossings;
• Improvements to traffic signaling at intersections adjacent to crossings (e.g., signal preemption);
• Prohibition of parking within 100 feet of the crossings to improve the visibility of warning devices and approaching trains; ATTACHMENT 13
• Where soundwalls, landscaping, buildings, etc. would be installed near crossings, maintain the visibility of warning devices and approaching trains;
• Elimination of driveways near crossings;
• Installation of vandal-resistant fencing or walls to limit the access of pedestrians onto the railroad right-of-way.

The DNSP EIR included two additional mitigation measures related to transportation and traffic (4.L-1a and 4.L-2b); however, these measures do not apply to private development projects within the DNSP. Therefore, those measures are not applicable to the proposed project.

4.17.2 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts. The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Napa has policies that address existing transportation conditions affecting a proposed project.

Parking
The DNSP EIR anticipated future review of individual development projects facilitated under the DNSP would determine the adequacy of the proposed parking supply to meet the expected parking demand based on the parking requirements presented in the DNSP. The project proposes to provide 121 parking spaces in two separate subgrade parking garages (see Figure 3.1-5).

ATTACHMENT 13

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.18.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
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:

1) 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)?

2) 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 this
criteria, the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe
shall be considered.

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Tribal Cultural Resources Conclusion The potential for archaeological resources that may be considered tribal cultural resources were addressed in the Cultural Resources section of the DNSP EIR. A representative of the Wappo Tribe commented on the DNSP Draft EIR but did not identify any tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area.

The project site does not contain any known tribal cultural resources. On May 14, 2019 the City of Napa sent a letter to six tribes that had requested project notification under AB 52. Each tribe was Impact TCR-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource 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). [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
sent a letter describing the proposed project with a map of the area and inquiring whether they had concerns. One tribe, the Middletown Rancheria tribe responded requesting notification should any new information or evidence of human habitation be discovered during project construction activities.

The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Nation) requested consultation upon receiving notice of the project from the City. The City and applicant have agreed to implement the following condition of approval:

Condition of Approval:

• A monitor, approved by the Nation tribe, will be present during all grading and other earthwork activities.
• All workers will receive training or a briefing from the Nation tribe prior to initiating work.

The implementation of DNSP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.D-2a, -2b, -3, and -4 and the Conditions of Approval identified in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources of this Initial Study/Addendum would reduce potential adverse effects on unknown archaeological resources and Native American burials, considered a tribal cultural resources, to less than significant level. The proposed project would not result in new or greater cultural resource impacts than identified in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

The City of Napa has not identified any significant tribal cultural resources on the project site.

The implementation of DNSP EIR Mitigation Measures 4.D-2a, -2b, -3, and -4 and the Conditions of Approval identified in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources of this Initial Study/Addendum would reduce potential adverse effects on unknown archaeological resources and Native American burials, considered a tribal cultural resources, to less than significant level. The proposed project would not result in new or greater cultural resource impacts than identified in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the General Plan that are applicable to the proposed project.

Impact TCR-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure 4.D-2a: When specific projects are proposed under the Specific Plan that involves ground-disturbing activity into native soils, the City's Pastfinder archaeological database shall be consulted.

Recommendations provided by the Pastfinder database shall be implemented based on a parcel’s archaeological sensitivity. In those cases where a site-specific cultural resources study is necessary, it shall be performed by qualified cultural resources professional. The study will include an updated records search, pedestrian survey of the project area, development of a historic context, sensitivity assessment for buried prehistoric and historic-period deposits, and preparation of a technical report that meets federal and state requirements. If significant resources are identified and cannot be avoided, treatment plans will be developed in consultation with the City and Native American representatives to mitigate potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 4.D-2b: Should any archaeological artifacts be found during construction in the Planning Area, all construction activities within 50 feet shall immediately halt and the City must be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of the discovery. If the site is determined to contain significant cultural resources, funding will be provided to identify, record, report, evaluate, and recover the resources as necessary. Construction within the area of the find shall not recommence until impacts on the historical or unique archaeological resource are mitigated.

Additionally, Public Resources Code § 5097.993 stipulates that a project sponsor must inform project personnel that collection of any Native American artifact is prohibited by law.

Mitigation Measure 4.D-3: Prior to the start of any subsurface excavations that would extend beyond previously disturbed soils, all construction forepersons and field supervisors shall receive training by a qualified professional paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), who is experienced in teaching non-specialists, to ensure they can recognize fossil materials and will follow proper notification procedures in the event any are uncovered during construction.

Procedures to be conveyed to workers include halting construction within 50 feet of any potential fossil find and notifying a qualified paleontologist, who will evaluate its significance. Training on paleontological resources will also be provided to all other construction workers, but may involve using a videotape of the initial training and/or written materials rather than in-person training by a ATTACHMENT 13
paleontologist. If a fossil is determined to be significant and avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist will develop and implement an excavation and salvage plan in accordance with SVP standards.

Mitigation Measure 4.D-4: The treatment of any human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during soil disturbing activities shall comply with applicable state laws. Such treatment would include immediate notification of the Napa County Coroner. In the event of the coroner’s determination that the human remains are Native American, the coroner shall notify of the Native American Heritage Commission, which would appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC § 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, the Event Authority, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of any human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5[d]). The agreement would take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The PRC allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. If the MLD and the other parties could not agree on the reburial method, the Event Authority shall follow Section 5097.98(b) of the PRC, which states that “the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

ATTACHMENT 13

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

4.19.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
Would the project:
1) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?

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

3) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
does not have adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

4) Generate solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

5) Be noncompliant with federal, state,
and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Utilities and Service Systems Conclusion The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in less than significant utilities and service systems impacts. No mitigation was incorporated into the DNSP EIR.

ATTACHMENT 13

The proposed project would connect to an existing 12-inch water line in First Street that meets current City standards. Stormwater drainage lines would connect bioretention areas on the perimeter of the site with existing storm drain lines and outfalls. The project would replace an existing outfall at the end of Water Street that is located outside the top of bank of the Napa River. The project would also connect to existing sanitary sewer, electric power, and telecommunication facilities on First Street. The existing utilities have capacity to serve the project. If the City approves the abandonment of Water Street, Water Street would revert to the adjacent property owners and water infrastructure within Water Street would also be abandoned. Any relocation of the water main to serve adjacent parcels would be completed by the project. Relocation of the water main, if required, would occur within existing City right-of-way and would result in similar impacts related to ground disturbance as disclosed elsewhere in this document. The project would not install or upgrade any off-site utilities that would have the potential to cause new significant environmental effects. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The proposed project would have a water demand of approximately 8,974 gallons per day for hotel and commercial/retail operations.13 The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would have adequate water supply sources based on the projections of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan which was recently updated in 2017. The City of Napa’s existing water supply remains adequate for normal demand through 2035 and the completed construction of a recycled water pipeline under the Napa River will reduce overall potable water demand.

Consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR, the project would be required to pay its fair share of water system improvements, as required by General Plan policies CS-1.2 and CS-1.4.

Condition of Approval:

The project applicant shall pay its fair share of water system improvements to the City of Napa.

The DNSP EIR concluded that developer-driven fees and payments in combination with other existing and proposed sources of funding for water system improvements would reduce potential impacts to water supplies and distribution. Since the project is consistent with the land use assumptions of the Specific Plan and would adhere to the Condition of Approval, the project would 13 Based on a demand factor of 100 gpd per square foot per room (assuming 74 maximum hotel rooms) and 0.25 gpd per square foot for hotel supportive retail uses, the project would generate approximately 8,974 gpd of water.

Impact UTL-1: The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)] Impact UTL-2: The project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
result in a less than significant impact to water supplies. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in wastewater generated in the Planning Area, potentially affecting the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant operated by Napa Sanitation District. The development-driven fees, as required by General Plan policies CS 1.2 and CS 1.4.

The proposed project would generate approximately 7,627 gallons per day of wastewater from hotel and commercial/retail operations.14 As described in Impact UTL-2, the project would be required to pay its fair share of water system improvements and development impact fees. In doing so, the project would be consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR and would have a less than significant impact to wastewater treatment. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project would generate approximately 59,764 tons of solid waste per year from hotel and commercial/retail operations.15 The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increase in the amount of solid waste generated. Although the increased residential population and business activities resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would incrementally increase the total waste generated by the City, the increasing rate of diversion through recycling, composting, and other methods would result in a decreasing share of total waste that would be disposed in landfills serving the City.

Since the proposed project is consistent with the land use assumptions of the Specific Plan and the DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a less than significant impact related to solid waste reduction goals, the project would not result in new or greater impacts than those disclosed in the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

14 Wastewater is assumed to be 85% of the total water demand. 15 The project’s solid waste generation is based on a solid waste generation rate of two pounds per day per hotel guest room and 2.5 pounds per 1,000 square feet per day for commercial/retail space.

Impact UTL-3: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
Impact UTL-4: The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

The DNSP EIR concluded that buildout of the Specific Plan would not impede the ability of the City to comply with applicable federal, State, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. The project would be required to meet the City’s construction and demolition requirements that 50 percent of these materials be diverted from landfills. Since the proposed project is consistent with the land use assumptions of the Specific Plan, the project would be consistent with the findings of the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

Policy CS-1.2: Where new development requires the construction of new public facilities, the new development shall fund its fair share of the construction of those facilities. The City shall require dedication of land within newly developing areas for required public facilities, as allowed by law.

Policy CS-1.4: The City shall require, to the extent legally possible, that new development pays the cost of providing new public facilities and services and/or the costs for upgrading of all existing facilities that it uses, based on the demand for these facilities attributable to the new development; exceptions may be made when new development generates significant public benefits (e.g. low-income housing, significant primary wage earner employment) and when alternative sources of funding can be identified to offset foregone revenues.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

Impact UTL-5: The project would be compliant with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

WILDFIRE

4.20.1 Impact Discussion

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:

1) Impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?

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

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

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

Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR – Wildfire Conclusion
The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would have no impacts from wildland fires due to the urbanized areas of the Specific Plan.

Impact WF-1: The project would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The project would comply with all emergency vehicle access requirements. The DNSP EIR concluded that implementation of the Specific Plan would not impede an established emergency access route or interfere with emergency response requirements and would not result in permanent road closures. The project would, therefore, be consistent with the conclusions of the DNSP EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

ATTACHMENT 13

The project site is not located in or adjacent to an identified wildfire hazard zone. The project would, therefore, not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrollable spread of a wildfire. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The project is not located in a wildfire hazard zone and would not require the installation or maintenance of infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The project is not located in or adjacent to an area identified as a wildfire hazard and, therefore, would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

General Plan Policies that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the General Plan that are applicable to the proposed project.

Specific Plan Policies, Mitigation Measures, and Design Standards that Reduce Impacts

There are no policies or mitigation included in the DNSP that are applicable to the proposed project.

Impact WF-2: The project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
Impact WF-3: The project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
Impact WF-4: The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]
ATTACHMENT 13

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Less
than
Significant
Impact
Same Impact
as
“Approved
Project”
Less Impact
than
“Approved
Project”
1) Does the project have the potential to
substantially 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, substantially 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?

2) 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)?

3) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?

As discussed in the individual sections, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment with the implementation of identified best management practices and Conditions of Approval.

Impact MFS-1: The project does not have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
The project would implement best management practices and adhere to Conditions of Approval to reduce construction dust and exhaust impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.B-2 of the DNSP DEIR. The proposed hotel would be constructed to conform with the Bird Safe Guidelines, as outlined in the DNSP to reduce potential impacts to migrating birds to a less than significant level.

The project would require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed relocation of the two existing historic structures on-site to 58 Randolph Street. The project would also adhere to Conditions of Approval related to its potential impact to hazards and hazardous materials on-site, construction noise, and the City’s water system.

The project would implement mitigation measures identified in the DNSP EIR and project-specific mitigation measures consistent with the DNSP EIR to reduce potential impacts to buried archaeological and tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

For the remaining resource sections, the project would not result in new or more significant impacts than identified in the DNSP EIR and General Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” In addition, under Section 15152(f) of the CEQA Guidelines, where a lead agency has determined that a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in a prior EIR, the effect is not treated as significant for purposes of later environmental review and need not be discussed in detail.

The proposed development would result in temporary air quality, biology, hazardous materials, and noise impacts during construction. With the implementation of the best management practices and Conditions of Approval, and consistency with adopted City policies, the construction impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. As the identified impacts are temporary and would be mitigated, the project would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, water quality, biology, and noise in the project area.

The project would have a less than significant impact on aesthetics, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, recreation, and utilities, and would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources. The project would not impact agricultural and forest resources, mineral resources or wildfire hazards. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on these resources.

Impact MFS-2: The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
The project’s contribution to a cumulative impact on greenhouse gas emissions was analyzed in the certified Downtown Napa Specific Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in a more significant cumulative impact related to these issues than disclosed within the prior EIR addressing the entire Planning Area. The project would comply with CalGreen Building standards and applicable State and local ordinances, and the Conditions of Approval implementing Mitigation Measures 4.B-5 to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions impacts to a less than significant level. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

A portion of the project site is developed with five structures, two of which are proposed for relocation while the three remaining are proposed for demolition. The remainder and majority of the project site is undeveloped. Commercial development, including the proposed uses, is consistent with the long-term goals for the site outlined in the Downtown Napa Specific Plan. The construction of the project would result in the temporary disturbance of developed land as well as an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources and energy during construction.

As discussed in Impact MFS-2, the project would implement best management practices and Conditions of Approval to reduce impacts related to project construction and operations to a less than significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measures included in the project and compliance with City General Plan policies, the proposed project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Impact MFS-3: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]
ATTACHMENT 13
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this Initial Study is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Association of Bay Area Governments. Resilience Program. Site accessed on May 21, 2019. http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=cgsLiqZones

City of Napa. City of Napa General Plan Policy Document. December 1, 1998.

City of Napa. Downtown Napa Specific Plan. May 2012.

City of Napa. Downtown Napa Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report. January 2012.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. First and Oxbow Project Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment.

March 20, 2019.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. First & Oxbow Hotel Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment.

March 29, 2019.

Miller Pacific Engineering Group. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation First and Oxbow Gateway Project. November 13, 2018.

Odic Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. September 4, 2018.

Odic Environmental. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. February 2, 2019.

Preservation Architecture. 731 First Street & 718 Water Street, Napa. Historical and Historic Project Evaluation. September 28, 2016.

River Focus. Floodplain Analysis - First and Oxbow Hotel. January 15, 2018.

W-Trans. Traffic Impact Study for First and Oxbow Hotel. August 5, 2019.

Zenter Planning & Ecology. First and Oxbow Project; Napa, California. Assessment of Riparian Area. February 8, 2018.

ATTACHMENT 13
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

LEAD AGENCY
City of Napa, Planning Department
Erin Morris, Planning and Code Enforcement Manager
Steven Rosen, Associate Planner

CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Will Burns, Principal Project Manager
Natalie Noyes, Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist

Holman & Associates, Inc.

Archaeological Consultants
Sunshine Psota, Senior Associate

ATTACHMENT 13
SECTION 7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BFE Base flood elevation
Bgs Below ground surface
BMP Best management practice
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DNSP Downtown Napa Specific Plan
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DTSC HWTS Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste Tracking System ESL Environmental screening level
EV Electric vehicle
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAR Floor area ratio
FINDS Facility Index System
GHG Greenhouse gases
HRA Health risk assessment
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
LOS Level of service
MEI Maximally exposed individual
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
MT Metric ton
NAVD North American Vertical Datum
NOD Notice of Determination
PM Particulate matter
REC Recognized environmental concern
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SQG Small quantity generators
TAC Toxic air contaminant
TCM Transportation control measures
TDM Transportation demand management
TIS Traffic Impact Studies
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

ATTACHMENT 13

FIRST & OXBOW HOTEL

AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE

GAS ASSESSMENT

Napa, CA

March 29, 2019

Prepared for:

Jeremy Sill, P.E.

RSA+
1515 Fourth Street
Napa, CA 94559

Prepared by:

James A. Reyff &
Mimi McNamara

429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400

I&R Project: #17-236
ATTACHMENT 13
Introduction

The purpose of this report is to address the air quality impacts, estimate the health risk impacts , and compute the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the proposed hotel project located at 711 First Street and 731 Water Street in Napa, California. The air quality impacts and GHG emissions would be associated with demolition of the existing uses at the site, construction of the new buildings and infrastructure, and operation of the project. Additionally, the project’s construction would be the primary source of toxic air contaminant (TAC) and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) emissions . This could increase health risks at sensitive receptors and lead to community risk impacts. This analysis addresses those issues following the guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1

Project Description

The project would demolish the existing buildings on- site and construct a boutique hotel that would be constructed over two p arcels. Each building plan provides 37 rooms, for a total of 74 rooms between the two. Ground level facilities include tenant spaces for commercial or restaurant-oriented use, along with hotel lobby and circulation areas. The proposed retail space totals 6,294 square feet (sf). A total of 124 parking spaces would also be provided in enclosed below-grade parking garages. The hotel buildings would be built over these garages.

Setting

The project is located in Napa, County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground -level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Air Pollutants of Concern

High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.

Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of

2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017.

ATTACHMENT 13
Toxic Air Contaminants

Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level.

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three - quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of dies el exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.

Regulatory Agencies

CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy - duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in -use public and utility fleets, and the heavy -duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing on -road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles. 2 The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle.

The BAAQMD is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. At the State level, the CARB (a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level. The BAAQMD has published California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines that are used in this assessment to evaluate air quality impacts of projects. 3 The detailed community risk modeling methodology used in this assessment is contained in Attachment 1.

Envision Napa 2020: City of Napa General Plan

The City of Napa General Plan includes goals, policies, and strategies to improve air quality and meet the State and National ambient air quality standards. The following goals, policies, and actions are applicable to the proposed project:
2 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: November 21, 2014. 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.

ATTACHMENT 13
Goal Natural Resources (NR)-5: To maintain acceptable levels of air quality in Napa NR-5.4 The City shall, during discretionary review, require that development proposals comply with federal and state air quality standards or make findings that eh project has overriding be nefits to the community that outweigh nonattainment of the standards.

NR-5.5: The City shall, during early consultation with project proponents, encourage project design that minimizes direct and indirect air emissions. Projects should consider the foll owing air quality concerns:
a. Land use and design measures to encourage alternatives to the automobile and to conserve energy;
b. Land use and design measures to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to odors, toxics, and criteria
pollutants; and
c. Applicab le Bay Area Air Quality Management District rules, regulations, and per requirements.

Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools. The closest sensitive receptors to the projec t site are residences of a single-family home adjacent to the western portion of the projec t. There are additional residences at farther distances from the project site. The project would not include new residents since it is a hotel and guests would only stay in the area for a temporary period.

Significance Thresholds
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the District’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA.

The thresholds were challenged through a series of court challenges and were mostly upheld.

BAAQMD updated the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 to include the latest s ignificance thresholds that were used in this analysis are summarized in Table 1.

ATTACHMENT 13
Table 1. Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds
Operational Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust
Ordinance or other Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and
Hazards
Single Sources Within
1,000-foot Zone of
Influence
Combined Sources (Cumulative from all sources
within 1,000-foot zone of influence)
Excess Cancer Risk >10.0 per one million >100 per one million Hazard Index >1.0 >10.0
Incremental annual PM2.5 >0.3 µg/m3 >0.8 µg/m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use Projects –
direct and indirect
emissions
Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
OR
1,100 metric tons annually or 4.6 metric tons per capita (for 2020) and adjusted to 660 metric tons annually or 2.6 metric tons per capita (for 2030)* Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. *BAAQMD does not have a recommended post-2020 GHG threshold.

ATTACHMENT 13
Impact 1: 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?
Less-than-significant.

The Bay Area is considered a non -attainment area for ground -level ozone and P M2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non - attainment for PM 10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both State and federal ambient air quality st andards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM 10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NO X), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation o f the site assuming full build -out of the project. The project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to CalEEMod.

The model output from CalEEMod is included as Attachment 2.

Construction Period Emissions

CalEEMod provi des annual emission estimates for both on -site and off -site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction schedule, equipment quantities, and equipment usage were based on CalEEMod defaults for a project of this type and size. The default acreage was used to account for the underground parking and to capture the height of the hotel.

The following proposed project land uses were inputted into CalEEMod:
• 74 rooms entered as “Hotel”
• 6,294 square feet (sf) entered as “Strip Mall”
• 124 parking spaces entered as “Enclosed Parking with Elevator”

Based on the CalEEMod default construction schedule, the project would be built out over 13 months, beginning in January 2020. There were an estimated 270 construction workdays.

Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction days. Table 2 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NO X, PM10 exhaust, and PM 2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 2, predicted construction period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

ATTACHMENT 13
Table 2. Construction Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Total construction emissions (tons) 0.77 tons 2.62 tons 0.13 tons 0.12 tons Average daily emissions (pounds)1 5.74 lbs./day 19.41 lbs./day 0.94 lbs./day 0.90 lbs./day BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1Assumes 270 workdays.

Additionally, construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM 10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils.

Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less -than-significant if best management practices are implemented to reduce these emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would implement BAAQMD - recommended best management practices.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Include measures to control dust and exhaust during construction.

During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to con trol dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less -than-significant level. Additional measures are identified to reduce co nstruction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

ATTACHMENT 13

6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1

The measures included a bove would be consistent with BAAQMD -recommended basic control measures for reducing fugitive particulate matter that are contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

Operational Period Emissions

Based on the BAAQMD operational -related criteria air pollutant screening level, the operational air quality emissions from this proposed hotel would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and precursors. The project size is 74 rooms for a hotel and the screening size for a hotel is 489 rooms. Therefore, operational period emissions are assumed to be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and precursors.

Impact 2: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less-than-significant with mitigation.

Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new sensitive receptor, such as a residential use, in proximity to an existing source of TACs or by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The project would not introduce new residents that are sensitive receptors, nor would the project introduce a new TAC source . However, temporary project c onstruction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Community risk impacts were addressed by increased predicting lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The methodology for computing community risks impacts is contained in Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENT 13
Construction Community Health Risk Impacts

Project Construction Activity

Construction equipment and associated heavy -duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust are known as a TAC. These exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations. Construction exhaust emissions may still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM 2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential health effects of sensitive receptors at these nearby residences from construction emissions of DPM and PM 2.5.4 Dispersion modeling was conducted to predict the off-site concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non - cancer health effects could be evaluated.

Construction Emissions

The CalEEMod model provided total annual PM 10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on -road vehicles, with total emissions from all construction stages as 0.1252 tons (250 pounds). The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from on -road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site. Fugitive PM 2.5 dust emissions were calculated by CalEEMod as 0.125 tons (25 pounds) for the overall construction period.

Dispersion Modeling

The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to p redict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors (residences) in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD -recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission ac tivities for CEQA projects. 5 The modeling utilized four area sources to repre sent the on-site construction emissions, two for exhaust emissions and two for fugitive dust emissions. To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, a n emission release height of 6 meters (19.7 feet) was used for the area source. The elevated source height reflects the height of the equipment exhaust pipes plus an additional distance for the height of the exhaust plume above the exhaust pipes to account for plume rise of the exhaust gases. For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 2 meters (6.6 feet) was used for the area source. Emissions from the construction equipment and on -road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Construction e missions were modeled as occurring daily between 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.

4 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May.

ATTACHMENT 13
The modeling used a five -year data set (2009 - 2013) of hourly meteorological data from Napa County Airport prepared for use with the AERMOD model by the CA RB. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2020 to 2021 period were calculated using the model. DPM and PM 2.5 concentrations were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors as seen in Figure 1. A receptor height of 1.5 meters (5-feet) was used to represent the breathing heights of residents in nearby single-family residences.

Community Health Risk Construction Impacts
Figure 1 shows the locations where the maximum -modeled DPM and PM 2.5 concentrations occurred. The maximum concentrations occurred at a single-family home (i.e. 1.5-meter receptor breathing height) adjacent to the western project boundary of parcel 2. The maximum increased cancer risk at the location of the maximally exposed individual (MEI) was calculated using the BAAQMD recommended methods and the maximum annual modeled DPM concentration. The cancer risk calculations are based on apply ing the BAAQMD recommended age sensitivity factors to the TAC concentrations. Age-s ensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. BAAQMD - recommended exposure parameters were used for the cancer risk calculations, as described in Attachment 1 . Third trimester , infant and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences through the entire construction period.

Figure 1. Project Construction Site and Locations of Off -Site Sensitive Receptors and TAC Impacts
ATTACHMENT 13

Results of this assessment indicate d that the maximum excess residential cancer risks would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of greater than 10 in one million and the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would exceed the significance threshold of greater than 0.3 μg/m3.

The maximum computed Hazard Index (HI) based on the DPM concentration would not exceed the significance threshold of greater than 1.0.

Cumulative Community Health Risk Impacts

Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs located within 1,000 feet of project sites. These sources include highways, busy surface streets , and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. A review of the project area indicates that traffic on Soscol Avenue is a busy roadway with an average daily traffic (ADT) of over 10,000 vehicles, which makes it a significant source of TACs. All other roadways within the area are assumed to have an ADT that is less than 10,000 vehicles. A review of BAAQMD’s stationary source Google Earth map tool identified no sources with the potential to affect the project site. Figure 2 shows the sources affecting the project site. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachment 4.

Figure 2. Project Site and 1,000-Foot Radius for Identifying TAC Sources

ATTACHMENT 13

Local Roadways

For local roadways, BAAQMD has provided the Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator to assess whether roadways with traffic volumes of over 10,000 vehicles per day may have a potentially significant effect on a proposed project. Two adjustments were made to the cancer risk predictions made by this calculator: (1) adjustment for latest vehicle emissions rates predicted using EMFAC2014 and (2) adjustment of cancer risk to reflect new Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance (see Attachment 1).

The calculator uses EMFAC 2011 emission rates for the year 2014. Overall, emission rates will decrease by the time the project is constructed and occupied . In addition, a new version of the emissions factor model, EMFAC2014 is available. This version predicts lower emission rates.

An adjustment factor of 0.5 was developed by comparing emission rates of total organic gases (TOG) for running exhaust and running losses developed using EMFAC2011 for year 2014 and those from EMFAC2014 for 2018.

The predicted cancer risk was then adjusted using a factor of 1.3744 to account for new OEHHA guidance. This factor was provided by BAAQMD for use with their CEQA screening tools that are used to predict cancer risk.

The ADT on Soscol Avenue was estimated to be 19,055 vehicles. This estimate was based past project traffic volumes for both roadways .6 The AM and PM peak -hour volumes were averaged and then multiplied by 10 to estimate the ADT.

The BAAQMD Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator for Napa County was used for the roadways. Soscol Avenue was identified as a north -south roadway with the Construction MEI east of the roadway. Estimated risk values for both roadways are listed in Table 4. Note that BAAQMD has found that non-cancer hazards (HI) from all local roadways would be below 0.03.

Stationary Sources

Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project site were identified using BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis Tool . This mapping tool uses Google Earth and identifies stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts. No stationary sources were identified using this tool.

Napa Wine Train

The Napa Wine Train, which previously utilized the adjacent railroad track, now travels primarily between the new Napa Train Station (north o f the site) and Saint Helena.

Approximately 4 to 6 passenger trains per day travel the new route, with only occasional daytime trains traveling south of the Napa Train Station to the portion of the track near the site. The tracks are not used by other commuter or freight trains. Some of the train locomotives are diesel 6 W-Trans. 2018.Traffic Impact Study for the First and Oxbow Hotel Project. November.

ATTACHMENT 13
powered and emit DPM. However, cancer risk and incremental PM 2.5 emissions are expected to be insignificant from a cumulative standpoint due to the train’s limited travel.

Cumulative Risk Impact on Construction MEI

Table 3 reports both the project and cumulative community risk impacts at the construction MEI.

Without mitigation, the project would have a significant impact with respect to community risk caused by project construction activities, since the maximum cancer risk and maximum annual PM2.5 concentration exceed their respective single -source thresholds. As mentioned above, Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would reduce these impacts to less -than-significant. The combined annual cancer risk, PM 2.5 concentration and Hazard risk values, which includes unmitigated and mitigated, would not exceed the cumulative threshold and have a less-than-significant impact.

Table 3. Impacts from Combined Sources at Construction MEI Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction
Unmitigated
Mitigated

61.6 (infant)

7.8 (infant)

0.47 0.09

0.07 0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Significant?

Unmitigated
Mitigated

Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Soscol Avenue (north-south roadway) with MEI 80
feet east, ADT 19,830 1.1 0.04 <0.03
Combined Sources
Unmitigated
Mitigated

62.7 (infant)

8.9 (infant)

0.51 0.13

<0.10
<0.04
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0
Significant?

Unmitigated
Mitigated

No
No

No
No

No
No

Mitigation Measure AQ -2: Selection of equipment during construction to minimize emissions. Such equipment selection would include the following:

The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off -road equipment used on -site to construct the project would achieve a fleet -wide average 84 -percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:

1. All diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3 engines and this equipment shall include CARB -certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters 7 or equivalent. 7 See http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
ATTACHMENT 13
Additionally, equipment that meets U.S. EPA Tier 4 interim standards or use of equipment that is electrically powered or uses non -diesel fuels would meet this requirement.

Effectiveness of Mitigation AQ-2

With mitigation, the computed maximum increased lifetime resi dential cancer risk from construction, assuming infant exposure, would be 7.8 in one million or less, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would be 0.09 μg/m 3, and the HI would be 0.01. As a result, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant with respect to community risk caused by construction activities.

ATTACHMENT 13
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Setting

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate.

The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO 2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human ac tivities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:

• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. • N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. • CH4 is commonly created by off -gassing from agricultural practices (e. g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty. • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. • PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing.

Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO 2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat -related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

Recent Regulatory Actions

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)

AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the State’s GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the State’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, the CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and Building ATTACHMENT 13
Standards Commission have all been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05.

A Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business -as-usual emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990 levels. Business -as-usual (BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020, including incre ases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non -monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and mar ket-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system.

As directed by AB 32, CARB has also approved a statewide GHG emissions limit. On December 6, 2007, CARB staff resolved an amount of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2e as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The limit is a cumulative statewide limit, not a sector - or facility -specific limit. CARB updated the future 2020 BAU annual emissions forecast, in light of the economic downturn, to 545 MMT of CO 2e. Two GHG emissions reduction measures currently enacted that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory were included, further reducing the baseline inventory to 507 MMT of CO 2e. Thus, an estimated reduction of 80 MMT of CO 2e is necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet the AB 32 target by 2020.

Senate Bill 375, California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts (2008)

California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and applicants to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This includes incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The legislation also allows applicants to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies.

Development of more alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with traffic congestion, would be encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB’s ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB works with the metropolitan planning organizations (e.g. Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG] and Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC]) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land u se plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its GHG reduction targets. A similar process is used to reduce transportation emissions of ozone precursor pollutants in the Bay Area.

SB 350 Renewable Portfolio Standards

In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which increases the states Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for content of electrical generation from the 33 percent target for 2020 to 50 percent renewables target by 2030.

ATTACHMENT 13
Executive Order EO-B-30-15 (2015) and SB 32 GHG Reduction Targets

In April 2015, Governor Brown signed Executive Order which extended the goals of AB 32, setting a greenhouse gas emissions target at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32, which legislatively established the GHG reduction target of 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, CARB issued California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan . While the State is on track to exceed the AB 32 scoping plan 2020 targets, this plan is an update to reflect the enacted SB 32 reduction target.

SB 32 was passed in 2016, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. CARB is currently working on a second update to the Scoping P lan to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B -30-15 and codified by SB 32. The proposed Scoping Plan Update was published on January 20, 2017 as directed by SB 32 companion legislation AB 197. The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CA RB on the path to obtaining an even deeper GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S -3-05. The Scoping Plan outlines the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure, providing a blueprint to continue driving down GHG emissions and obtain the statewide goals.

The new Scoping Plan establishes a strategy that will reduce GHG emissions in California to meet the 2030 target (note that the AB 32 Scoping Plan only addressed 2020 targets and a long - term goal). Key features of this plan are:

• Cap and Trade program places a firm limit on 80 percent of the State’s emissions; • Achieving a 50-percent Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2030 (currently at about 29 percent statewide);
• Increase energy efficiency in existing buildings;
• Develop fuels with an 18-percent reduction in carbon intensity; • Develop more high-density, transit-oriented housing;
• Develop walkable and bikable communities;
• Greatly increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and reduce oil demand in half;
• Increase zero-emissions transit so that 100 percent of new buses are zero emissions; • Reduce freight-related emissions by transitioning to zero emissions where feasible and near-zero emissions with renewable fuels everywhere else; and • Reduce “super pollutants” by reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs by 40 percent.

In the updated Scoping Plan, CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 metric tons CO2e per capita (statewide) by 2030 and no more than 2 metric tons CO 2e per capita by 2050.

The statewide per capita targets account for all emissions sectors in the State, statewide population forecasts, and the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 statewi de target under SB 32 and the longer-term State emissions reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

ATTACHMENT 13
Significance Thresholds

The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommended a GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons (MT) p er capita. These thresholds were developed based on meeting the 2020 GHG targets set in the scoping plan that addressed AB 32. However, development and operation of the project would occur post -2020. Therefore, this assessment uses a bright -line threshold of 660 MT CO 2e/year based on the GHG reduction goals of EO B -30-15. The 2030 bright-line threshold is a 40 percent reduction of the 2020 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold.

Impact 1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant

GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the short- term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker and vendor trips. There would also be long -term operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal.

Emissions for the proposed project are discussed below and were analyzed using the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

CalEEMod Modeling

Land Uses

The same project land uses as described above for the construction period modeling were used.

Model Year

Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased -in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. The earliest the project could possibly be constructed and begin operating would be 202 2. Emissions associated with build-out later than 2022 would be lower.

Trip Generation Rates

CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates, which were input to the model using the daily trip generation rate provided in the project trip generation table. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates were assumed to be the weekday rate adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips.

The project applicant provided project trip generation values for the proposed residential project.8 The weekday trip rate used for the project was 8.36 trips per day based on 619 hotel trips divided by 74 rooms . This changed the Saturday trip rate to 8.38 trips per day and the Sunday rate to 6.09 trips per day. For the shopping center, the weekday trip rate used was 34.16 8 W-trans, 2018, Traffic Impact Study for the First and Oxbow Hotel Project. November ATTACHMENT 13
trips per day based on 215 shopping center trips divided by 6.294 ksf. This changed the Saturday trip rate to 32.40 trips per day and the Sunday trip rate to 15.75 trips per day.

Energy

CalEEMod defaults for energy use were used, which include the 2016 Title 24 Building Standards. Indirect emissions from electricity were computed in CalEEMod. The model has a default rate of 641.3 pounds of CO 2 per meg awatt of electricity produced, which is based on PG&E’s 2008 emissions rate. The rate was adjusted to account for PG&E’s projected 2020 CO 2 intensity rate. This 2020 rate is based, in part, on the requirement of a renewable energy portfolio standard of 33 percent by the year 2020. The derived 2020 rate for PG&E was estimated at 290 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity delivered.9

Other Inputs

Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation and water/wastewater use were applied to the project. Water/wastewater use were changed to 100% aerobic conditions to represent wastewater treatment plant conditions.

Construction GHG Emissions

GHG emissions associated with construction were computed to be 379 MT of CO2e for the total construction period. These are the emissions from on -site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction -related GHG emission s, though BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable.

Operational GHG Emissions

The CalEEMod model, along with the project vehicle trip generation rates, were used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully -developed site under the proposed project.

As shown in Table 4, the annual emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be 948 MT of CO 2e for the year 202 2 and 827 MT of CO 2e for the year 2030. The 2030 metric ton GHG total exceeds the bright-line threshold of 660. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 list several ways the project could potentially reduce their total GHG emissions to a less-than- significant level.
9 Pacific Gas & Electric, 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors: Guidance for PG&E Customers. November.

ATTACHMENT 13
Table 4. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category Proposed Project in
2022
Proposed Project in
2030
Area <1 <1
Energy Consumption 312 312
Mobile 609 488
Solid Waste Generation 23 23
Water Usage 3 3
Total (MT CO2e/year) 948 827
Bright-line 2030 Threshold 660 MT CO2e
Significant? Yes

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Develop and Implement Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

A GHG reduction plan that includes the proper elements would reduce emissions from implementation of the Plan shall be developed. Elements of this plan may include, but would not be limited to, the following:

• Installation of solar power systems or other renewable electric generating systems that provide electricity to power on-site equipment and possibly provide excess electric power;

• Install efficient space and water heating systems;

• Develop and implement a transportation demand management (TDM ) program to further reduce mobile GHG emissions.

• Construct onsite or fund off-site carbon sequestration projects (such as a forestry or wetlands projects for which inventory and reporting protocols have been adopted). If the project develops an off -site project, it must be registered with the Climate Action Reserve or otherwise approved by the BAAQMD in order to be used to offset Project emissions;

• Purchase of carbon credits to offset Project annual emissions. Carbon offset credits must be verified and registered with The Climate Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, or another source approved by the California Air Resources Board or BAAQMD. The preference for offset carbon credit purchases include those that can be achieved as follows: 1) within the City; 2) within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; 3) within the State of California; then 4) elsewhere in the United States. Provisions of evidence of payments, and funding of an escrow-type account or endowment fund would be overseen by the County.

Effectiveness of Mitigation GHG-1

With this mitigation, the GHG emissions should be demonstrated to be below the 2030 thresholds. A refined analysis that incorporates final design features and utilizes the current tools for inclusion of State and local adopted measures for predicting GHG emissions should demonstrate lower emissions that do not exceed the 2030 project bright-line emission thresholds.

ATTACHMENT 13
Supporting Documentation
Attachment 1 is the methodology used to compute community risk impacts, including the methods to compute lifetime cancer risk from exposure to project emissions.

Attachment 2 includes the CalEEMod model outputs.

Attachment 3 is the construction health risk assessment. AERMOD dispersion modeling files for this assessment, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and would be provided in digital format.

Attachment 4 includes the screening community risk calculations from sources affecting the construction MEI.

ATTACHMENT 13
Attachment 1: Health Risk Calculation Methodology

A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates (TACs) requires the application of a risk characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015. 10 These guidelines incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods. 11 This HRA used the 20 15 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance. The BAAQMD has adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.12 Exposure parameters from the OEHHA guidelines and the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation.

Cancer Risk

Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs are calculated based on the TAC concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency and duration of exposure. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other sensitive receptor location.

The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg -day). As recommended by the BAAQMD for residential exposures, 95 th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures. For children at schools and daycare facilities, BAAQMD recommends using the 95 th percentile breathing rates.

Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 30 years for sources with long-term emissions (e.g., roadways). For workers, assumed to be adults, a 25-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD. 10 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

February.
11 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. 12 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment ( HRA) Guidelines. December 2016.

ATTACHMENT 13

Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors are assumed to be at their home 24 hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance, OEHHA includes adjustments to exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home (FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time, based on updated population and activity statistics. The FAH factors are age -specific and are: 0.85 for third trimester of pregnancy to less than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years. Use o f the FAH factors is allowed by the BAAQMD if there are no schools in the project vicinity that would have a cancer risk of one in a million or greater assuming 100 percent exposure (FAH = 1.0).

Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas:

Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106 Where:

CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)

Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where:

Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor

The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized as follows:

Exposure Type  Infant Child Adult
Parameter Age Range  3rd
Trimester
0<2 2 < 9 2 < 16 16 - 30
DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 80th Percentile Rate 273 758 631 572 261 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 95th Percentile Rate 361 1,090 861 745 335 Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1 1
Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70 70
Exposure Duration (years) 0.25 2 14 14 14
Exposure Frequency (days/year) 350 350 350 350 350
Age Sensitivity Factor 10 10 3 3 1
Fraction of Time at Home 0.85-1.0 0.85-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.72-1.0 0.73

ATTACHMENT 13
Non-Cancer Hazards

Potential non-cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level (REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non -cancer health hazards.

TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is calculated as the sum of the HIs for each TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a significant non-cancer health impact from a project would occur.

Typically, for residential projects located near roadways wi th substantial TAC emissions, the primary TAC of concern with non -cancer health effects is diesel particulate matter (DPM). For DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).

Annual PM2.5 Concentrations

While not a TAC, fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) has been identified by the BAAQMD as a pollutant with potential non -cancer health effects that should be included when evaluating potential community health impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The thresholds of significance for PM 2.5 (project level and cumulative) are in terms of an increase in the annual average concentration. When considering PM 2.5 impacts, the contribution from all sources of PM 2.5 emissions should be included. For projects wi th potential impacts from nearby local roadways, the PM 2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle exhaust emissions, PM 2.5 generated from vehicle tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re -suspended dust on the roads.

ATTACHMENT 13
Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Output
ATTACHMENT 13

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 74.00 Room 1.07 77,884.00 0
Strip Mall 6.29 1000sqft 0.14 6,294.00 0
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 124.00 Space 1.12 49,600.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)3.6 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
290 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
First & Oxbow Hotel AQ
Napa County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 1 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Project Characteristics - PG&E 2020 290
Land Use - Project land uses for boutique hotel
Construction Phase - Default construction schedule with default trenching Off-road Equipment - Default equipment
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Default equipment
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Demolition - Estimated demolition square footage from Google Earth Vehicle Trips - (619 hotel trips/74 rooms) = 8.36, sat 8.38, sun 6.09 (215/6.294) = 34.16, sat 32.40, sun 15.75 Water And Wastewater - 100% aerobic
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 2 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 107,448.00 77,884.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.47 1.07
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 290 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 8.38
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 32.40
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 6.09
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 15.75
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 8.36
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 34.16
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 3 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.4593 2.6148 2.1823 4.3700e-
003

0.0901 0.1265 0.2166 0.0287 0.1206 0.1493 0.0000 376.6673 376.6673 0.0626 0.0000 378.2328 2021 0.3154 5.4400e-
003

7.3700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

6.4000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1473 1.1473 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.1490
Maximum 0.4593 2.6148 2.1823 4.3700e-
003

0.0901 0.1265 0.2166 0.0287 0.1206 0.1493 0.0000 376.6673 376.6673 0.0626 0.0000 378.2328 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.4593 2.6148 2.1823 4.3700e-
003

0.0901 0.1265 0.2166 0.0287 0.1206 0.1493 0.0000 376.6669 376.6669 0.0626 0.0000 378.2324 2021 0.3154 5.4400e-
003

7.3700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

6.4000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.1473 1.1473 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.1490
Maximum 0.4593 2.6148 2.1823 4.3700e-
003

0.0901 0.1265 0.2166 0.0287 0.1206 0.1493 0.0000 376.6669 376.6669 0.0626 0.0000 378.2324 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 4 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3771 2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Energy 0.0187 0.1699 0.1427 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 310.1075 310.1075 0.0161 5.9800e- 003
312.2911
Mobile 0.2024 1.1363 2.0704 6.6000e-
003

0.5341 6.2600e-
003

0.5404 0.1434 5.8700e-
003

0.1493 0.0000 608.0379 608.0379 0.0269 0.0000 608.7107
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.5649 0.0000 9.5649 0.5653 0.0000 23.6967 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8290 1.8952 2.7242 3.0400e- 003

1.8400e-
003

3.3492
Total 0.5981 1.3062 2.2150 7.6200e-
003

0.5341 0.0192 0.5533 0.1434 0.0188 0.1622 10.3939 920.0442 930.4381 0.6113 7.8200e- 003
948.0516
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2020 3-31-2020 0.7707 0.7707
2 4-1-2020 6-30-2020 0.7414 0.7414
3 7-1-2020 9-30-2020 0.7495 0.7495
4 10-1-2020 12-31-2020 0.7762 0.7762
5 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 0.3602 0.3602
Highest 0.7762 0.7762
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 5 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3771 2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Energy 0.0187 0.1699 0.1427 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 310.1075 310.1075 0.0161 5.9800e- 003
312.2911
Mobile 0.2024 1.1363 2.0704 6.6000e-
003

0.5341 6.2600e-
003

0.5404 0.1434 5.8700e-
003

0.1493 0.0000 608.0379 608.0379 0.0269 0.0000 608.7107
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.5649 0.0000 9.5649 0.5653 0.0000 23.6967 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8290 1.8952 2.7242 3.0400e- 003

1.8400e-
003

3.3492
Total 0.5981 1.3062 2.2150 7.6200e-
003

0.5341 0.0192 0.5533 0.1434 0.0188 0.1622 10.3939 920.0442 930.4381 0.6113 7.8200e- 003
948.0516
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 6 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2020 1/28/2020 5 20
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/29/2020 1/31/2020 5 3 3 Grading Grading 2/1/2020 2/10/2020 5 6
4 Trenching Trenching 2/1/2020 2/14/2020 5 10
5 Building Construction Building Construction 2/11/2020 12/14/2020 5 220 6 Paving Paving 12/15/2020 12/28/2020 5 10
7 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 12/29/2020 1/11/2021 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 126,267; Non-Residential Outdoor: 42,089; Striped Parking Area: 2,976 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 1.12
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 7 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trenching Excavators 1 7.00 158 0.38
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 8 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.1400e-
003

0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0213 0.2095 0.1466 2.4000e-
004

0.0115 0.0115 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 21.0677 21.0677 5.4200e- 003

0.0000 21.2031
Total 0.0213 0.2095 0.1466 2.4000e-
004

1.1400e-
003

0.0115 0.0127 1.7000e-
004

0.0108 0.0109 0.0000 21.0677 21.0677 5.4200e-
003

0.0000 21.2031
Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 10.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 56.00 22.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 11.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Trenching 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 9 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e-
005

1.4900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3811 0.3811 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3815
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e-
004

3.6000e-
004

3.7400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0300e-
003

2.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.8874 0.8874 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8880
Total 5.4000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

4.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1200e-
003

2.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.2685 1.2685 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2696
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.1400e-
003

0.0000 1.1400e-
003

1.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0213 0.2095 0.1466 2.4000e-
004

0.0115 0.0115 0.0108 0.0108 0.0000 21.0676 21.0676 5.4200e- 003

0.0000 21.2030
Total 0.0213 0.2095 0.1466 2.4000e-
004

1.1400e-
003

0.0115 0.0127 1.7000e-
004

0.0108 0.0109 0.0000 21.0676 21.0676 5.4200e-
003

0.0000 21.2030
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 10 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.2 Demolition - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 4.0000e-
005

1.4900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3811 0.3811 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3815
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e-
004

3.6000e-
004

3.7400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0300e-
003

2.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.8874 0.8874 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8880
Total 5.4000e-
004

1.8500e-
003

4.0300e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.1200e-
003

2.9000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.1000e-
004

0.0000 1.2685 1.2685 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.2696
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.4800e-
003

0.0299 0.0169 4.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2551
Total 2.4800e-
003

0.0299 0.0169 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

1.1700e-
003

3.5600e-
003

2.6000e-
004

1.0700e-
003

1.3300e-
003

0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2551
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 11 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0819 0.0819 0.0000 0.0000 0.0820
Total 5.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0819 0.0819 0.0000 0.0000 0.0820
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e-
003

0.0000 2.3900e-
003

2.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 2.4800e-
003

0.0299 0.0169 4.0000e-
005

1.1700e-
003

1.1700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2551
Total 2.4800e-
003

0.0299 0.0169 4.0000e-
005

2.3900e-
003

1.1700e-
003

3.5600e-
003

2.6000e-
004

1.0700e-
003

1.3300e-
003

0.0000 3.2290 3.2290 1.0400e-
003

0.0000 3.2551
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 12 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.3 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0819 0.0819 0.0000 0.0000 0.0820
Total 5.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.5000e-
004

0.0000 9.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0819 0.0819 0.0000 0.0000 0.0820
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.7700e-
003

0.0640 0.0298 6.0000e-
005

2.9700e-
003

2.9700e-
003

2.7300e-
003

2.7300e-
003

0.0000 5.4333 5.4333 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4773
Total 5.7700e-
003

0.0640 0.0298 6.0000e-
005

0.0197 2.9700e-
003

0.0226 0.0101 2.7300e-
003

0.0128 0.0000 5.4333 5.4333 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4773
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 13 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2048 0.2048 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2049
Total 1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2048 0.2048 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2049
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.7700e-
003

0.0640 0.0298 6.0000e-
005

2.9700e-
003

2.9700e-
003

2.7300e-
003

2.7300e-
003

0.0000 5.4333 5.4333 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4773
Total 5.7700e-
003

0.0640 0.0298 6.0000e-
005

0.0197 2.9700e-
003

0.0226 0.0101 2.7300e-
003

0.0128 0.0000 5.4333 5.4333 1.7600e-
003

0.0000 5.4773
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 14 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.4 Grading - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2048 0.2048 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2049
Total 1.2000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

8.6000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

0.0000 2.4000e-
004

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2048 0.2048 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2049
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Trenching - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.9900e-
003

0.0198 0.0243 4.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

1.0900e-
003

1.0100e-
003

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.1838 3.1838 1.0300e-
003

0.0000 3.2095
Total 1.9900e-
003

0.0198 0.0243 4.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

1.0900e-
003

1.0100e-
003

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.1838 3.1838 1.0300e-
003

0.0000 3.2095
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 15 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.5 Trenching - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1707 0.1707 0.0000 0.0000 0.1708
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1707 0.1707 0.0000 0.0000 0.1708
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 1.9900e-
003

0.0198 0.0243 4.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

1.0900e-
003

1.0100e-
003

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.1838 3.1838 1.0300e-
003

0.0000 3.2095
Total 1.9900e-
003

0.0198 0.0243 4.0000e-
005

1.0900e-
003

1.0900e-
003

1.0100e-
003

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.1838 3.1838 1.0300e-
003

0.0000 3.2095
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 16 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.5 Trenching - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1707 0.1707 0.0000 0.0000 0.1708
Total 1.0000e-
004

7.0000e-
005

7.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
004

5.0000e-
005

0.0000 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1707 0.1707 0.0000 0.0000 0.1708
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2517 1.9177 1.6387 2.7500e-
003

0.1043 0.1043 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 228.4088 228.4088 0.0464 0.0000 229.5678 Total 0.2517 1.9177 1.6387 2.7500e-
003

0.1043 0.1043 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 228.4088 228.4088 0.0464 0.0000 229.5678 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 17 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.6 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0103 0.2939 0.0783 6.5000e-
004

0.0159 1.6100e-
003

0.0175 4.5800e-
003

1.5400e-
003

6.1300e-
003

0.0000 62.8087 62.8087 3.2700e-
003

0.0000 62.8905
Worker 0.0238 0.0172 0.1773 4.7000e-
004

0.0487 3.4000e-
004

0.0490 0.0130 3.1000e-
004

0.0133 0.0000 42.0496 42.0496 1.1800e-
003

0.0000 42.0792
Total 0.0341 0.3112 0.2556 1.1200e-
003

0.0645 1.9500e-
003

0.0665 0.0175 1.8500e-
003

0.0194 0.0000 104.8584 104.8584 4.4500e-
003

0.0000 104.9697
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2517 1.9177 1.6387 2.7500e-
003

0.1043 0.1043 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 228.4086 228.4086 0.0464 0.0000 229.5675 Total 0.2517 1.9177 1.6387 2.7500e-
003

0.1043 0.1043 0.1000 0.1000 0.0000 228.4086 228.4086 0.0464 0.0000 229.5675 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 18 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.6 Building Construction - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0103 0.2939 0.0783 6.5000e-
004

0.0159 1.6100e-
003

0.0175 4.5800e-
003

1.5400e-
003

6.1300e-
003

0.0000 62.8087 62.8087 3.2700e-
003

0.0000 62.8905
Worker 0.0238 0.0172 0.1773 4.7000e-
004

0.0487 3.4000e-
004

0.0490 0.0130 3.1000e-
004

0.0133 0.0000 42.0496 42.0496 1.1800e-
003

0.0000 42.0792
Total 0.0341 0.3112 0.2556 1.1200e-
003

0.0645 1.9500e-
003

0.0665 0.0175 1.8500e-
003

0.0194 0.0000 104.8584 104.8584 4.4500e-
003

0.0000 104.9697
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.7 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 5.7700e-
003

0.0579 0.0590 9.0000e-
005

3.2800e-
003

3.2800e-
003

3.0300e-
003

3.0300e-
003

0.0000 7.7529 7.7529 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8143
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.7700e-
003

0.0579 0.0590 9.0000e-
005

3.2800e-
003

3.2800e-
003

3.0300e-
003

3.0300e-
003

0.0000 7.7529 7.7529 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8143
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 19 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.7 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.9000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.5120 0.5120 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5123
Total 2.9000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.5120 0.5120 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5123
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 5.7700e-
003

0.0579 0.0590 9.0000e-
005

3.2800e-
003

3.2800e-
003

3.0300e-
003

3.0300e-
003

0.0000 7.7529 7.7529 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8143
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 5.7700e-
003

0.0579 0.0590 9.0000e-
005

3.2800e-
003

3.2800e-
003

3.0300e-
003

3.0300e-
003

0.0000 7.7529 7.7529 2.4600e-
003

0.0000 7.8143
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 20 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.7 Paving - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.9000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.5120 0.5120 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5123
Total 2.9000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.1600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

5.9000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.5120 0.5120 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.5123
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1348 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6000e-
004

2.5300e-
003

2.7500e-
003

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3837
Total 0.1351 2.5300e-
003

2.7500e-
003

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3837
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 21 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

4.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1126 0.1126 0.0000 0.0000 0.1127
Total 6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

4.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1126 0.1126 0.0000 0.0000 0.1127
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.1348 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.6000e-
004

2.5300e-
003

2.7500e-
003

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3837
Total 0.1351 2.5300e-
003

2.7500e-
003

0.0000 1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

1.7000e-
004

0.0000 0.3830 0.3830 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3837
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 22 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

4.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1126 0.1126 0.0000 0.0000 0.1127
Total 6.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

4.7000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

0.0000 1.3000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.1126 0.1126 0.0000 0.0000 0.1127
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3145 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.7000e-
004

5.3400e-
003

6.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.8936 0.8936 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8952
Total 0.3153 5.3400e-
003

6.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.8936 0.8936 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8952
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 23 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.1000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2537 0.2537 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539
Total 1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.1000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2537 0.2537 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.3145 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.7000e-
004

5.3400e-
003

6.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.8936 0.8936 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8952
Total 0.3153 5.3400e-
003

6.3600e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

3.3000e-
004

0.0000 0.8936 0.8936 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8952
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 24 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.8 Architectural Coating - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.1000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2537 0.2537 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539
Total 1.4000e-
004

1.0000e-
004

1.0100e-
003

0.0000 3.0000e-
004

0.0000 3.1000e-
004

8.0000e-
005

0.0000 8.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2537 0.2537 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.2539
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 25 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2024 1.1363 2.0704 6.6000e-
003

0.5341 6.2600e-
003

0.5404 0.1434 5.8700e-
003

0.1493 0.0000 608.0379 608.0379 0.0269 0.0000 608.7107
Unmitigated 0.2024 1.1363 2.0704 6.6000e-
003

0.5341 6.2600e-
003

0.5404 0.1434 5.8700e-
003

0.1493 0.0000 608.0379 608.0379 0.0269 0.0000 608.7107

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hotel 618.64 620.12 450.66 1,130,182 1,130,182
Strip Mall 215.00 203.93 99.13 303,182 303,182
Total 833.64 824.05 549.79 1,433,364 1,433,364
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Strip Mall 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.60 64.40 19.00 45 40 15

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 26 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 125.1508 125.1508 0.0125 2.5900e- 003
126.2353
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 125.1508 125.1508 0.0125 2.5900e- 003
126.2353
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0187 0.1699 0.1427 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.9567 184.9567 3.5500e- 003

3.3900e-
003
186.0558
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0187 0.1699 0.1427 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.9567 184.9567 3.5500e- 003

3.3900e-
003
186.0558

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.586522 0.036345 0.168625 0.112459 0.022729 0.006000 0.017299 0.036828 0.003880 0.001801 0.005497 0.001027 0.000988 Hotel 0.586522 0.036345 0.168625 0.112459 0.022729 0.006000 0.017299 0.036828 0.003880 0.001801 0.005497 0.001027 0.000988 Strip Mall 0.586522 0.036345 0.168625 0.112459 0.022729 0.006000 0.017299 0.036828 0.003880 0.001801 0.005497 0.001027 0.000988 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 27 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hotel 3.45104e
+006

0.0186 0.1692 0.1421 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.1606 184.1606 3.5300e- 003

3.3800e-
003
185.2550
Strip Mall 14916.8 8.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

6.1000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.7960 0.7960 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.8008
Total 0.0187 0.1699 0.1427 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.9567 184.9567 3.5500e- 003

3.3900e-
003
186.0558
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hotel 3.45104e
+006

0.0186 0.1692 0.1421 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.1606 184.1606 3.5300e- 003

3.3800e-
003
185.2550
Strip Mall 14916.8 8.0000e-
005

7.3000e-
004

6.1000e-
004

0.0000 6.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.7960 0.7960 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.8008
Total 0.0187 0.1699 0.1427 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 184.9567 184.9567 3.5500e- 003

3.3900e-
003
186.0558
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 28 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
290656 38.2334 3.8200e-
003

7.9000e-
004

38.5647
Hotel 593476 78.0669 7.8100e-
003

1.6200e-
003

78.7434
Strip Mall 67282.9 8.8505 8.9000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

8.9272
Total 125.1508 0.0125 2.5900e-
003
126.2353
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
290656 38.2334 3.8200e-
003

7.9000e-
004

38.5647
Hotel 593476 78.0669 7.8100e-
003

1.6200e-
003

78.7434
Strip Mall 67282.9 8.8505 8.9000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

8.9272
Total 125.1508 0.0125 2.5900e-
003
126.2353
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 29 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3771 2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Unmitigated 0.3771 2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0449 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.3320 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Total 0.3771 2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 30 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0449 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.3320 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Total 0.3771 2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 31 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 2.7242 3.0400e-
003

1.8400e-
003

3.3492
Unmitigated 2.7242 3.0400e-
003

1.8400e-
003

3.3492

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 1.87714 /

0.208571

2.0963 2.4300e-
003

1.4700e-
003

2.5962
Strip Mall 0.465916 /

0.285562

0.6279 6.1000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

0.7530
Total 2.7242 3.0400e-
003

1.8400e-
003

3.3492
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 32 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 1.87714 /

0.208571

2.0963 2.4300e-
003

1.4700e-
003

2.5962
Strip Mall 0.465916 /

0.285562

0.6279 6.1000e-
004

3.7000e-
004

0.7530
Total 2.7242 3.0400e-
003

1.8400e-
003

3.3492
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 33 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 9.5649 0.5653 0.0000 23.6967
Unmitigated 9.5649 0.5653 0.0000 23.6967
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 40.52 8.2252 0.4861 0.0000 20.3776
Strip Mall 6.6 1.3397 0.0792 0.0000 3.3192
Total 9.5649 0.5653 0.0000 23.6967
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 34 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hotel 40.52 8.2252 0.4861 0.0000 20.3776
Strip Mall 6.6 1.3397 0.0792 0.0000 3.3192
Total 9.5649 0.5653 0.0000 23.6967
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 35 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

11.0 Vegetation
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/14/2019 4:15 PMPage 36 of 36 First & Oxbow Hotel AQ - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Project Characteristics - PG&E 2020 290 race
Land Use - Existing single family homes
Construction Phase - No construction for existing site
Off-road Equipment - No equipment for existing site
Woodstoves - assuming all gas
Water And Wastewater - 100% aerobic

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 4.00 Dwelling Unit 0.44 7,200.00 11

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)3.6 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
290 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
First & Oxbow Existing Site
Napa County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 1 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 1.00 2.72
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.72 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 0.50
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.30 0.44
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 290 tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 0.00 5.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 956.80 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 2 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Maximum 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Maximum 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.8000e-
004

0.0000 2.9000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 3 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0341 6.4000e-
004

0.0299 0.0000 1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3913
Energy 6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 10.4611 10.4611 5.4000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

10.5348
Mobile 0.0104 0.0612 0.1168 3.9000e-
004

0.0325 3.7000e-
004

0.0329 8.7300e-
003

3.5000e-
004

9.0800e-
003

0.0000 36.1602 36.1602 1.4900e-
003

0.0000 36.1974
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9378 0.0000 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0922 0.2611 0.3534 3.4000e- 004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233
Total 0.0452 0.0672 0.1489 4.2000e-
004

0.0325 9.9000e-
004

0.0335 8.7300e-
003

9.7000e-
004

9.7000e-
003

1.0300 47.2705 48.3005 0.0578 4.2000e-
004

49.8702
Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2020 3-31-2020 0.0000 0.0000
Highest 0.0000 0.0000
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 4 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0341 6.4000e-
004

0.0299 0.0000 1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3913
Energy 6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 10.4611 10.4611 5.4000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

10.5348
Mobile 0.0104 0.0612 0.1168 3.9000e-
004

0.0325 3.7000e-
004

0.0329 8.7300e-
003

3.5000e-
004

9.0800e-
003

0.0000 36.1602 36.1602 1.4900e-
003

0.0000 36.1974
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.9378 0.0000 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0922 0.2611 0.3534 3.4000e- 004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233
Total 0.0452 0.0672 0.1489 4.2000e-
004

0.0325 9.9000e-
004

0.0335 8.7300e-
003

9.7000e-
004

9.7000e-
003

1.0300 47.2705 48.3005 0.0578 4.2000e-
004

49.8702
Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/15/2020 1/15/2020 5 1 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0.5
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 5 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Site Preparation Graders 0 0.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 0 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 6 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

3.2 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 7 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.2 Site Preparation - 2020
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.7000e-
004

3.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Total 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0171 0.0171 0.0000 0.0000 0.0171
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 8 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0104 0.0612 0.1168 3.9000e-
004

0.0325 3.7000e-
004

0.0329 8.7300e-
003

3.5000e-
004

9.0800e-
003

0.0000 36.1602 36.1602 1.4900e-
003

0.0000 36.1974
Unmitigated 0.0104 0.0612 0.1168 3.9000e-
004

0.0325 3.7000e-
004

0.0329 8.7300e-
003

3.5000e-
004

9.0800e-
003

0.0000 36.1602 36.1602 1.4900e-
003

0.0000 36.1974

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 38.08 39.64 34.48 87,277 87,277
Total 38.08 39.64 34.48 87,277 87,277
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.586522 0.036345 0.168625 0.112459 0.022729 0.006000 0.017299 0.036828 0.003880 0.001801 0.005497 0.001027 0.000988 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 9 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2570 4.2570 4.3000e- 004

9.0000e-
005

4.2939
Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.2570 4.2570 4.3000e- 004

9.0000e-
005

4.2939
NaturalGas
Mitigated

6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.2041 6.2041 1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.2410
NaturalGas
Unmitigated

6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.2041 6.2041 1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.2410

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 10 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
116260 6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.2041 6.2041 1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.2410
Total 6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.2041 6.2041 1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.2410
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
116260 6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.2041 6.2041 1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.2410
Total 6.3000e-
004

5.3600e-
003

2.2800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

4.3000e-
004

0.0000 6.2041 6.2041 1.2000e-
004

1.1000e-
004

6.2410
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 11 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
32362.3 4.2570 4.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

4.2939
Total 4.2570 4.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

4.2939
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
32362.3 4.2570 4.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

4.2939
Total 4.2570 4.3000e-
004

9.0000e-
005

4.2939
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 12 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0341 6.4000e-
004

0.0299 0.0000 1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3913
Unmitigated 0.0341 6.4000e-
004

0.0299 0.0000 1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

1.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 5.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3913

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

5.0700e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0281 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3396 0.3396 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3416
Landscaping 9.0000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0297 0.0000 1.6000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0497
Total 0.0341 6.3000e-
004

0.0299 0.0000 1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 6.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3913
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 13 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

5.0700e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0281 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 3.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

1.2000e-
004

0.0000 2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.3396 0.3396 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3416
Landscaping 9.0000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0297 0.0000 1.6000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

1.6000e-
004

0.0000 0.0485 0.0485 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.0497
Total 0.0341 6.3000e-
004

0.0299 0.0000 1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

1.8000e-
004

0.0000 0.3881 0.3881 6.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.3913
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 14 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.3534 3.4000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233
Unmitigated 0.3534 3.4000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

0.260616 /

0.164301

0.3534 3.4000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233
Total 0.3534 3.4000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 15 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

0.260616 /

0.164301

0.3534 3.4000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233
Total 0.3534 3.4000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

0.4233
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234
Unmitigated 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 16 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

4.62 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234
Total 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

4.62 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234
Total 0.9378 0.0554 0.0000 2.3234
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 17 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 11:33 AMPage 18 of 18 First & Oxbow Existing Site - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 124.00 Space 1.12 49,600.00 0 Hotel 74.00 Room 1.07 77,884.00 0
Strip Mall 6.29 1000sqft 0.14 6,294.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)3.6 64

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
2022Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
290 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
First & Oxbow Hotel TAC
Napa County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 10:09 AMPage 1 of 38 First & Oxbow Hotel TAC - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
Project Characteristics - PG&E 2020 290
Land Use - Project land uses for boutique hotel
Construction Phase - Default construction schedule with default trenching Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Default equipment
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Default equipment
Trips and VMT - TAC Trip length 1 mile
Demolition - Estimated demolition square footage from Google Earth Vehicle Trips - (619 hotel trips/74 rooms) = 8.36, sat 8.38, sun 6.09 (215/6.294) = 34.16, sat 32.40, sun 15.75 Water And Wastewater - 100% aerobic
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BMPs, Tier 3 DPF 3 Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 10:09 AMPage 2 of 38 First & Oxbow Hotel TAC - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation DPF No Change Level 3
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 9.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 10:09 AMPage 3 of 38 First & Oxbow Hotel TAC - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 3
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 107,448.00 77,884.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 6,290.00 6,294.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.47 1.07
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 290 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 1.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 10:09 AMPage 4 of 38 First & Oxbow Hotel TAC - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 1.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 8.38
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 42.04 32.40
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 6.09
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 20.43 15.75
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 8.36
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 44.32 34.16
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 10:09 AMPage 5 of 38 First & Oxbow Hotel TAC - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.4375 2.4761 2.0168 3.4700e-
003

0.0302 0.1249 0.1551 0.0125 0.1191 0.1316 0.0000 293.4321 293.4321 0.0606 0.0000 294.9462 2021 0.3153 5.3600e-
003

6.6400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

3.6000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

3.3000e-
004

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 0.9240 0.9240 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.9256
Maximum 0.4375 2.4761 2.0168 3.4700e-
003

0.0302 0.1249 0.1551 0.0125 0.1191 0.1316 0.0000 293.4321 293.4321 0.0606 0.0000 294.9462 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2020 0.2378 1.9074 2.0998 3.4700e-
003

0.0174 0.0159 0.0333 4.3000e-
003

0.0158 0.0201 0.0000 293.4318 293.4318 0.0606 0.0000 294.9459 2021 0.3148 4.7700e-
003

6.6900e-
003

1.0000e-
005

3.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

8.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

5.0000e-
005

6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.9240 0.9240 6.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.9256
Maximum 0.3148 1.9074 2.0998 3.4700e-
003

0.0174 0.0159 0.0333 4.3000e-
003

0.0158 0.0201 0.0000 293.4318 293.4318 0.0606 0.0000 294.9459 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

26.60 22.94 -4.10 0.00 42.19 87.30 78.53 65.44 86.70 84.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 3/15/2019 10:09 AMPage 6 of 38 First & Oxbow Hotel TAC - Napa County, Annual
ATTACHMENT 13

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.3771 2.0000e-
005

1.8800e-
003

0.0000 1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.6500e-
003

3.6500e-
003

1.0000e-
005

0.0000 3.8900e-
003
Energy 0.0187 0.1699 0.1427 1.0200e-
003

0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 310.1075 310.1075 0.0161 5.9800e- 003
312.2911
Mobile 0.2023 1.1361 2.0701 6.6000e-
003

0.5340 6.2600e-
003

0.5403 0.1434 5.8700e-
003

0.1492 0.0000 607.9546 607.9546 0.0269 0.0000 608.6273
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 9.5649 0.0000 9.5649 0.5653 0.0000 23.6967 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.8290 1.8952 2.7242 3.0400e- 003

1.8400e-
003