MI
TIGATED NEGA
TIVE DE
CLARATION
C
ommunity Development Department
1 600 First Street – PO Box 660
Napa, CA 94559
707.257.9530
STATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER: N/A
P
roject Name: Harvest Village File Number: PL15-0110
S
ite Address: 804 Capitola Drive APN: 046.020.018
General Plan: SFI-173, Single-Family Infill (4-8 du/ac) Zoning: RI-5, Single-Family Infill
A
pplicant: B
eth Farley of Harvest Village LLC
3 432 Valle Verde Drive
N
apa, CA 94558
P
hone: 707.
676.8999
S
taff Manager: Karlo Felix Phone: 707.257.9530
PRO
JECT DESCRIPTION:
Application to subdivide a 1.35 acre property into nine single- family residential lots. The lots range in size from approximately 4,607 square feet to 8,458 square feet. Four, two -story house plans are proposed that range in size from approximately 1,409 square feet to 2,203 square feet. Two of the units include a 632 square foot, attached, accessory second unit. The houses front on a central courtyard and vehicular access to rear - loaded garages is provided through a loop road along the perimeter of the site accessed off of Capitola Drive.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project site is loca ted on the east -side of Capitola Drive at intersection of Capitola Drive and Capitola Court. The property slopes towards Capitola Drive with the eastern -portion of the site approximately 17 feet higher than the western -portion of the site. The site is cur rently developed with a single -family home.
Surrounding uses are exclusively single-family residential.
DECLARATION:
Based on the Initial Study dated December 18, 2015, the Community Development Department has determined:
1. This project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the num ber 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. This project will not have a detrimental effect upon either short-term or long-term environmental goals.
3. This project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.
4. This project will not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effect upon human beings, either directly or indirectly.
These fin dings are predicated upon special mitigations or conditions that have been incorporated into this project.
ATTACHMENT 4
C
OMMENT PERIOD:
The Initial Study and other environmental documents are available for public review at the Community Development Department. The public is hereby invited to submit written comments regarding the environmental findings and Mitigated Negative Declaration determination. Such comments may be submitted prior to the Planning Commission meeting or during the Planning Commission meeting.
A
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared and posted for the period of December 18, 2015 through January 07, 2015
PRE
PARED BY:
/s
/ Karlo Felix D
ecember 18,
2015
K
arlo Felix, A
ssociate P
lanner Da
te
f
or R
ick Tooker, C
ommunity Development Director
ATTACHMENT 4
INI
TIAL STUD
Y
Co
mmunity Development Department
16 00 First Street – PO Box 660
Napa, CA 94559
707.257.9530
S
TATE CLEARING HOUSE NUMBER: N/A
Pr
oject Name: Harvest Village F
ile Number: PL15-0110
Sit
e Address: 804 Capitola Drive A
PN: 046.020.018
General Plan: SFI-173, Single-Family Infill (4-8 du/ac) Z
oning: RI-5, Single-Family Infill
Ap
plicant: Bet
h Farley of
Harv
est Vi
llage LLC
34 32 Valle Verde Drive
Na
pa, CA 94558
Ph
one: 707.676.
8999
St
aff Manager: Karlo Felix P
hone: 707.257.9530
PROJ
ECT DESCRIPTION:
Application to subdivide a 1.35 acre property into nine single- family residential lots. The lots range in size from approximately 4,607 square feet to 8,458 square feet. Four, two -story house plans are proposed that range in size from approximately 1,409 square feet to 2,203 square feet. Two of the units include a 632 square foot, attached, accessory second unit. The houses front on a central courtyard and vehicular access to rear - loaded garages is provided through a loop road along the perimeter of the site accessed off of Capitola Drive.
E
NVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
The project site is loca ted on the east -side of Capitola Drive at intersection of Capitola Drive and Capitola Court. The property slopes towards Capitola Drive with the eastern -portion of the site approximately 17 feet higher than the western -portion of the site. The site is cur rently developed with a single -family home.
Surrounding uses are exclusively single-family residential.
C
ITY APPROVALS REQUIRED:
1. Zoning Amendment to establish a Planned Development Overlay District and to establish development standards within the Overlay District;
2. Design Review of the proposed tentative map and houses;
3. Administrative Permit to authorize accessory second units;
4. Tentative Map to divide the property into nine single-family lots;
5. G
rading Permit;
6. Demolition Permit;
7. Encroachment Permit; and
8. Building Permit.
O
THER PUBLIC AGENCIES:
1. Napa Sanitation District
ATTACHMENT 4
E
NVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Th
e environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. This i
nitial study prescribes mitigation measures to reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than s
ignificant level.
A
esthetics A
griculture & Forestry Resources A
ir Quality
B
iological Resources C
ultural Resources G
eology & Soils
G
reenhouse Gas Emissions H
azards & Hazardous Materials H
ydrology & Water Quality
L
and Use & Planning M
ineral Resources No
ise
Po
pulation & Housing P
ublic Services Re
creation
Tr
ansportation & Traffic U
tilities & Service Systems M
andatory Findings of
Significance
CEQA DETERMINATION:
Th
e proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
A
lthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Th
e proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Th
e proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the e
ffect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An E
NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
A
lthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially s
ignificant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant t
o applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
A
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be prepared and posted for the period of December 18, 2015 through January 07, 2016
PRE
PARED BY:
/s
/ Karlo Felix D
ecember 18,
2015
K
arlo Felix, A
ssociate P
lanner Da
te
f
or R
ick Tooker, C
ommunity Development Director
ATTACHMENT 4
I
. AESTHETICS
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. S
ubstantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c. S
ubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
X
d. C
reate a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
D
iscussion:
W
hile there would be visual changes from the existing viewing locations a change in itself would not n
ecessarily be significant and with the imposition of the special conditions noted below, the overall impact would be reduced to less than significant. Development has been planned and endorsed by the community with the adoption of the 1998 General Plan, which allows for residential types of development. The proposed single-family residential buildings will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or result in substantial damage to scenic resources. The proposed buildings have been designed and located in a manner that is compatible with the City’s Design Guidelines and the visual character of the area. There are currently no significant views of the site or from the site normally visible to a substantial number of people.
P
otential aesthetic impacts will be reduced to a less -than-significant level through the City’s application of the standard visual mitigation measures, the architectural review process, and conditions of approval. The City requires lighting to be confined to the site. Although the project may generate light and cause reflective glare, these potential impacts will be reduced to a less -than significant level through application of the City’s standard light and glare mitigation measures. Daylight sources of light and glare can include buildings and signs, especially if they have mirrored or reflective surfaces. The imposition of the standard mitigations in Policy Resolution 27 and the special mitigation measures noted below should reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Aesthetic Mitigation Measures 1-4.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
1. A
ll exterior lighting on the site shall be property shielded and directed downward to preclude glare conditions that might impact adjacent properties or public streets.
2. All roofing, building and sign materials shall be painted or treated with a “flat” paint or treatment to reduce glare and reflective surfaces.
C
onclusion:
P
otential aesthetic impacts mitigated to less- than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
II.
AGRICULTURAL & FOREST RESOURCES
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b. C
onflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act C
ontract? X
c. C
onflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, t
imberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? X
d. R
esult in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? X
e. I
nvolve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their l
ocation or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
D
iscussion:
A
project will normally have a significant environmental effect if it will convert prime agricultural land to nonagricultural use or impair productivity of prime agricultural land. This project is located within the urban boundaries of the City of Napa on previously disturbed land. The project site has a base zoning of RM (Multi - Family Residential) which will remain. Under the City's Rural Urban Limit (RUL) policy, all urban development is to take place within the RUL boundaries, with lands outside the RUL boundaries protected for agricultural use. The project site is located within the RUL boundary and residential development of the site as proposed would not represent a conflict with the RM designation within the RUL boundaries. Moreover, the proposed project is not located on land designated by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection as farmland or farmland of importance (2004 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map). No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or F armland of Statewide Importance is located within any of the previously developed areas of the City of Napa. No land within the City of Napa is under a Williamson Act Contract. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use will oc cur. As such, the project will not result in the conversion of agricultural farmland, conflict with land zoned for agricultural use or influence land under Williamson Act contract.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
N
o impacts to agricultural resources.
ATTACHMENT 4
III
. AIR QUALITY [
significance criteria established by BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following determinations] W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. C
onflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality p
lan? X
b. V
iolate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X
c. R
esult in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
d. E
xpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. C
reate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
D
iscussion:
A
project will normally have a significant environmental effect if it will violate any ambient air quality s
tandard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is subject to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) air quality attainment plans. The BAAQMD, Association of Bay Area Governments, and Me tropolitan Transportation Commission are responsible for developing and implementing air quality plans and future strategies for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for assuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are attained and maintained in the Bay Area.
Th
e BAAQMD has adopted the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP), which serves as an update to the most recent O3 p
lan, the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy, to comply with state ai r quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health and Safety Code. The CAP provides a comprehensive multi -pollutant plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The CAP defines a control strategy that the BAAQMD and it s partner agencies will implement to (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants, (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the c ommunities most heavily impacted by air pollution, and (3) reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the climate (BAAQMD 2010).
If a project proposes development and associated growth projections that are greater than that anticipated in the local CAP, t he project might conflict with the air quality plans. The General Plan Designation for the site is SFI -173, Single-Family Residential, which provides for residential development densities between four to eight units per acre. T he subdivision of the 1.35 acre project site into nine lots results in a density of 6.6 units per acre which is consistent with the density range of this Designation. As such, the anticipated development of the project site is consistent with the growth projections assumed in the City’s General Plans. The project is proposed in an area surrounded by existing residential development. The proposed conversion is currently allowable and would be consistent with the growth forecasts upon which the CAP is based. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent at a regional level with the underlying growth forecasts.
T
he most recent clean air plan is the Bay Area 2010 CAP that was adopted by BAAQMD in September 2010.
Th
e proposed project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts since: (1) the Project would have emissions well below the BAAQMD thresholds; (2) development of the project site would be considered urban “infill”; (3) development would occur near employment centers; and (4) development would be near ex isting transit with regional connections. The project is too small to incorporate project - specific transportation control measures listed in the latest CAP (i.e., Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan).
Th
e proposed residential uses are not expected to cause or c ontribute to any violation of an air quality standard, because the emissions would not exceed BAAQMD CEQA thresholds. Although there may be a temporary degradation of air quality during the construction of this project; the imposition of the special mi
tiga
tion measures and the standard mitigation measures contained in Policy Resolution 27 will reduce any ATTACHMENT 4
III
. AIR QUALITY [
significance criteria established by BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following determinations] p
otential impact to a less than significant level. Dust is generally emitted by the action of construction equ
ipment and vehicles and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing, grading, demolition, and earthmoving activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions, although traffic and general disturbance of the soil would also generate significant dust emissions. The effects of c
onstruction activities would include increased settling of dust on horizontal surfaces in the vicinity of the pro
ject site and locally elevated levels of suspended particulate matter downwind of construction activity.
Depending on the weather, soil conditions, amount of activity, and the nature of dust control efforts, these impacts could extend downwind from the project site, thereby affecting adjacent residential uses by increasing soiling and requiring more frequent cleaning and/or maintenance activities. The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during equipment operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable from time to time by adjacent receptors. However, they would be a localized and are not likely to adversely affect people off site in that they would result in confirmed odor complaints.
The project site is not affected by existing odor sources that would cause odor complaints from new residents and the proposed residences would not generate odors that would be expected to result in odor complaints.
These impacts would occur primarily during site grading. Since the project would be developed in a single phase, the grading impacts would occur during a limited time period. Although most of t he dust-like material is expected to be generated during grading, construction emissions would occur throughout the construction period. The scale of the proposed development is too small to alter air movement or climate either locally or regionally. Bas ed on project location, potential sensitive receptors are not expected to be exposed to any known substantial pollutant concentrations.
O
dors would be generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, paving of roads and parking areas, and architectural coatings. Such odors are temporary and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Construction -related odors would not be significant. Land uses and industrial operations t
hat are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food pro
cessing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project entails residential uses and would not result in the creation of a land use that is commonly associated with odors. There are no other sources of noxious odors, such as dairies, treatment plants, or other odor causing uses associated with the project. Therefore, odors associated with project construction and project operations would result in a less -than-
s
ignificant odor impact. Although there may be a
t
emporary degradation of air quality during the construction of this project; with the imposition of the special mitig at
ion measures and the standard mitigation measures contained in Policy Resolution 27 any po
tential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
S
ensitive receptors are defined as land uses that are occupied by populations sensitive to the health impacts of air pollution such as children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular i
llnesses. Examples of sensitive receptors are residential uses, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals.
T
he project is located on a fully -developed residentially zoned property where none of these sensitive receptors, other than residential uses, are located. The nearest sensitive receptors (Redwood Middle School ) are more than 2,500 feet away to the east.
St
andard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Air Quality Mitigation Measures 1-3.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
C
onsistent with guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the following controls shall be implemented at the construction site to control construction emissions.
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.
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. Th
e contractor or City official shall post several publicly visible signs at either end of the property with the t
elephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust c omplaints. This person shall respond
ATTACHMENT 4
III
. AIR QUALITY [
significance criteria established by BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following determinations] a
nd take corrective action within 24 hours. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s phone number s
hall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
5. A
ll vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
6. 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.
7. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
8. A
ll construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s s
pecifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in pr
oper order.
9. A
ll excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
10. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast -germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
11. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground- disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
12. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
13. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
14. Any proposed fireplaces within the development shall include a gas insert and all stoves shall be required to meet EPA certification.
C
onclusion:
P
otential air quality impacts mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
I
V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. H
ave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat m
odifications, 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)?
X
b. H
ave 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?
X
c. H
ave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d. I
nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or m
igratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e. C
onflict w
ith any local policies or ordinances protecting biological r
esources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X
f. C
onflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
D
iscussion:
Th
e project site is a rectangular lot that slopes towards Capitola Drive and has been developed with a single - family house. Vegetation is limited ornamental landscape.
The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species, or habitat for such species, as none are known to occupy the project area according to the California Natural Diversity Da tabase, the City’s General Plan, and an overall sign inspection. Therefore, the project will not have a foreseeable effect on such species.
No riparian or other sensitive habitat is known to exist within the project site. No wetlands are known to existing within or near the boundaries of the subject property. The project site is located within an urbanized area and therefore would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife.
Chapter 12.45 of the Napa Municipal Code establishes regulations regarding protected native trees which are of specific trees of a specified diameter located on property one acre in size or more. There are no trees on the property that are subject to these regulations. No loss of trees on the City’s Significant Tree list is associated with this project. Therefore, the project will not have a foreseeable effect on tree reservation policies or ordinances.
The project site is not a part of an adopted Habitat Conservation P lan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other habitat conservation plan adopted locally, regionally, or by the State.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential biological resources impacts mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
V.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. C
ause a substantial adverse change in the s
ignificance of an historical
r
esource as defined in Sec.15064.5? X
b. C
ause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5? X
c. D
irectly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
d. Di
sturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal c
emeteries? X
D
iscussion:
Th
e property is not listed on a City historic database as a Historic Resources Inventory property, Neighborhood Conservation Property, a Landmark Property, or within a Landmark District. The City archeology database identifies the property as having mediu m archeological sensitivity. There are no unique known paleontological resources that have been identified on the site. No unique geologic features exist on the site. Although the proposed development of the project site would not disturb any known cult urally se
nsitive site or human remains, the site is adjacent to Napa Creek so it is possible that a culturally sensitive s
ite or human remains may be encountered during earthmoving and other construction activity at the project site. The imposition of the standard mitigations in Policy Resolution 27 and the special mitigation measures noted below should reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
St
andard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 1.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
1. I
f any archaeological materials or objects are unearthed during project construction, all work in the vicinity shall be immediately halted until a qualified archaeologist is retained by the City of Napa to evaluate the finds. The project applicant shall comply with all mitigation recommendations of the archaeologist prior to commencing work in the vicinity of the archaeological finds.
2. Th
e project applicant shall assure that project personnel (e.g., contractor, construction workers) are informed that collec t
ing significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during dev
elopment of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles as well as dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits.
C
onclusion:
P
otential cultural resources impacts mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
V
I. GEOLOGY & SOILS
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. E
xpose people or structures to potential substantial a
dverse effects,
i
ncluding the risk of loss, injury or death involving
i) R
upture 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 Pub. 42
X
ii) S
trong seismic ground shaking? X
ii
i) Seismic-r
elated ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv
) Landslides? X
b. R
esult in substantial s
oil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c. B
e located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would be
come unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse)?
X
d
. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X
e. H
ave soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
D
iscussion:
A
geotechnical study report was prepared to provide geotechnical information for the design and construction of the project (RGH Consultants 2014). The study concluded that from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, the proposed development count be constructed as planned, provided the design is performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the report. To assure adequate design, all final constructions plans are subject to review and approval of a geotechnical engineer.
A
ccording to the Geologic Hazards Map on file with the County of Napa, the subject property is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (a recognized seismic hazard area). Th e closest zoned fault
(
Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek) is located approximately 12 miles west. While no landforms were observed within the immediate area that would indicate the presence of an active fault, the project site is located approximately 0.75 miles east of the West Napa fault complex which was the source of the August 2014 South Napa E
arthquake. The City’s location within the San Francisco Bay Area subjects it to potential ground s
haking in the event of an earthquake. The study determined that lan dslides or mudflows are not a hazard at the site. The grading/filing required by the project to construct the residential building pads, drainage swales, parking lots, and driveways will be minimal with cuts and fills on the order of two to three feet which will not result in a significant -impact. . The imposition of the standard mitig ations in Policy Resolution 27 noted below should reduce the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures 1-3.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential geology and soils impacts mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
V
II. GRENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. G
enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that m
ay have a significant impact on the environment? X
b. C
onflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? X
D
iscussion:
A
ccording to the US Environmental Protection Agency, climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as average temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns over a period of time.
Climate c
hange may result from natural factors, natural processes, and human activities that change the c
omposition of the atmosphere and alter the surface and features of the land. Significant changes in global climate patterns have recently been associated with global warming, an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface, attributed to accumulation of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, which in turn heats the surface of the Earth. Some GHGs occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes, while others are created and emitted solely through human activities. The emission of GHGs through the combustion of fossil fuels (i.e., fuels containi ng carbon) in conjunction with other human activities, appears to be closely associated with global warming. State law defines GHG to include the following: carbon dioxide (CO 2)
,
methane (CH 4)
, nitrous oxide (N 2O
), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, an d sulfur hexafluoride (Health and Safety Code, section 38505(g).) The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous oxide.
A
ssembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, recognizes that California is the source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra sn
owpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and r
esidences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health -r
elated problems. In order to avert these
c
onsequences, AB 32 establishes a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (a reduction of approximately 25 percent from forecast emission levels) with further reductions to follow.
L
ead agencies are required to make a good -faith effort, based on available information, to calculate, model, or estimate the amount of CO2 an
d other GHG emissions from a project, including the emissions associated with vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities.
Th
e BAAQMD thresholds were developed specifically for the Bay Area after considering the latest Bay Area GHG emission inventory and the effects of AB 32 scoping plan measures that would reduce regional emissio n s.
B
AAQMD intends to achieve GHG reductions from new land use developments to close the gap between projected regional emissions with AB 32 scoping plan measures and the AB 32 targets. The BAAQMD applies GHG efficiency thresholds to projects with emissi ons of 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO 2e
(carbon dioxide
equivalency) or greater. Projects that have emissions below 1,100 MT of CO2e per year are considered to
h
ave less than significant GHG emissions. The significance threshold applied to projects with emissions g
reater than 1,100 MT of CO2e
annually is 4.6 MT of CO2e
per capita. The per capita emissions are computed
by dividing the proposed project CO 2e em
issions by the service population. Service population is the combined number of new residents and workers associated with the proposed project.
E
missions associated with project construction and operations were estimated using Ca lEEMod. The results of the model were used to determine if the proposed project would result in emissions of 1,100 MT of CO2e o r
greater, and if so, if the project would result in emissions greater than 4.6 MT of CO2e per capita per year.
Construction of the proposed project would temporarily generate GHG emissions from the use of construction equipment and vehicle trips made by construction workers and delivery vehicles. GHG emissions from project construction are estimated at 229.6 MT of CO
2e
total.
Oper
ation of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions from the following primary sources: energy ATTACHMENT 4
V
II. GRENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
(
electricity and natural gas used on -s
ite), mobile (on road mobile vehicle traffic generated by the project) an
d solid waste disposal by the land use, water usage by land use, and area source (landscaping equipment).
The model estimated that the proposed project would produce approximately 123.3 MT of CO 2e per year.
The construction and operation GHG emissions are below the BAAQMD recommended threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e p
er year. Therefore the GHG emissions from the proposed project would be less -than-significant.
B
ecause the City recognizes the need to a d
dress global climate change, the City’s General Plan includes s
everal City-wide policies that will help the City reduce local emissions and thereby addressing the potential increase in greenhouse gases. The following measures are currently being implemented by the City:
L
and use patterns and transportation: providing a variety of higher density land uses in proximity to each other, allowing individuals to meet daily needs without having to use a car and designed to promote ease of pedestrian and bike access.
Energy sources and energy use: increasing the use of renewable energy sources, including micro -scale energy sources such as photovoltaic solar, and also reducing energy consumption. E
nergy efficient building practices and sustainable materials: s it ing and designing buildings and
l
andscaping to reduce heating and cooling needs and provide more natural light; incorporating renewable energy and water efficiency; reducing storm runoff; using renewable, local, salvage and nontoxic building materials; improving indoor environmental [air] quality. W
aste disposal and recycling: reducing use of non -recyclable materials; replacing disposable materials with reusable materials; reducing packaging and yard wastes; increasing efficiency of reuse/recycling.
The City considers the policies, standards and practices listed above as program level mitigation that addresses the cumulative potential for increases in greenhouse gases within the local region. Therefore, this impact would be considered less-than-significant.
T
he Climate Change Scoping Plan ,
approved by the CARB on December 12, 2008, provides an outline for a
ctions to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The Scoping Plan requires the CARB and other state agencies to adopt regulations and other initiatives to reduce GHGs. At this time, the City of Napa has not adopted a GHG Reduction Strategy, and while the County of Napa has taken steps to address climate change impacts through the draft Napa County Climate Action Plan , this document has yet to be adopted. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, as none have been adopted. No impact would result.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
S
pecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential impacts to greenhouse gas emissions are less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
V
III. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. C
reate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through t
he routing, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X
b. C
reate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c. E
mit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous m
aterials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d. B
e located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials s
ites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e
. For a project located within an airport land use plan, would the pr
oject result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f.
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the pr
oject result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
g
. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted e
mergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X
h
. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands? X
D
iscussion:
Th
e proposed project would not involve the routine transport, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions. Residential occupants of the site would be expected to store and use small containerized quantities of hazardous household, yard car, and automotive products of a wide variety. This type of usage is typical of all residential development and would not constitute a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The imposition of the special mitigation measures noted below should ensure the potential impacts remain at a less-than-significant level.
The play field of the Redwood Middle School is located approximately 2,500 feet east of the project site. In any event, the proposed project would not emit hazardous gases, waste, or other substances with a potential to pose a threat to students at school in the area or to residential properties in closer proximity to the si te.
The closest airstrip in Napa County Airport approximately five miles south of the project site and is not within any airport land use plan boundaries.
The proposed project would provide adequate emergency ingress, egress, and equipment turn -around. The addition of nine residential units to the area would not have the potential to interfere with the implementation of an emergency response or emergency evaluation plan.
Th
e project is located in a fully -u
rbanized environment; there are no wildlands in proximity to the site.
Th
ere is therefore no potential to expose people or structures to significant risk of wildland fires.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
1. I
f any contamination is discovered during site grading/construction, the contractor shall stop work immediately and contact the registered geologist from the County of Napa Planning, Building, and Environmental Services Department.
2. P
roject construction plans shall include emergency procedures for responding to hazardous materials release ATTACHMENT 4
V
III. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
f
or material that will be brought onto the site as part of construction activit ies. The emergency procedures
f
or hazardous materials releases shall include the necessary personal protective equipment, spill containment procedures, and training of works to respond to accidental spills/release. The Contractor shall be required to have on-hand at all times adequate absorbent materials and containment booms to handle a spill equivalent to the largest container of fuels or oils in their possession. All use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials (including any hazardous wastes) during construction activities shall be performed in accordance with existing local, state, and federal hazardous materials regulations.
C
onclusion:
N
o impacts to hazards or hazardous materials.
ATTACHMENT 4
I
X. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. V
iolate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b. S
ubstantially deplete groundwater s
upplies or interfere substantially
w
ith groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?
X
c S
ubstantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, i
ncluding 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?
X
d.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
X
e
. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of e
xisting or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
f.
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. P
lace housing within a 100-y
ear flood hazard area as mapped on a
f
ederal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h. P
lace within a 100-y
ear flood hazard area structures which would
i
mpede or redirect flood flows? X
i. E
xpose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death i
nvolving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j. I
nundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
D
iscussion:
C
onstruction activities could potentially affect water quality as a result of erosion of sediment. In addition, leaks from construction equipment; accidental spills of fuel, oil, or hazardous liquids used for equipment maintenance; and accidental spills of construction materials are all potential sources of pollutants that could degrade water quality during construction. If not properly addressed, construction impacts on water quality could be particularly severe because extensive grading of a large area would be required. For residential development projects, the most common source of pollutants with a potential to degrade surface water quality is the automobile, which deposits oil and grease, fuel residues, heavy metals (e.g. lead, copp er, cadmium, and zinc), tire particles, and other pollutants onto roadways and parking areas. Other common suburban pollutants that contribute to surface water pollution include pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers from landscaping; organic debris (e.g. grass, leaves); weathered paint; eroded metals from painted and unpainted surfaces; organic compounds (e.g., cleaners, solvents, adhesives, etc.); nutrients; bacteria and viruses; and sediments. These contaminants can be washed by stormwater runoff into s urface waterways, degrading water quality. The project site slopes
t
owards Capitola Drive which has existing stormdrain
f
acilities and there are no adjacent streams or rivers. There are no topographic depressions or low area on the project site that coll ect stormwater runoff. While the project will introduce new impervious surfaces (
such as roadways, roofs, and driveways) which will change the rate of absorption of drainage and surface w
ater run-off; the amounts of impervious surfaces are not substantial in area and changes in absorption and run-off will be insignificant because the project will be served by the new storm drain system to be built as a part of the project. The project also proposes to include pervious surfaces that would reduce the amount of runoff entering the storm drain system. The applicant’s engineer has prepared a preliminary grading and drainage plan which has been reviewed and approved by the City. Stormwater will be run through vegetated swales to remove pollutants prior entering a detention facility underneath the courtyard. Stan dard mitigation measures for erosion control and compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System r
equirements (NPDES) would mitigate temporary and long -t erm water quality impacts to a le v
el of
ATTACHMENT 4
I
X. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
in
significance.
Th
e project site is within the Napa Valley Floor (Milliken -Sarco-T ulucay, MST) subarea and is not located
w
ithin an area designated as having good recharge potential. A recharge area is where water from precipitation percolates downward to an underground aquifer. In those areas where the soil conditions are favorable, more precipitation is able to infiltrate or percolate to an underground aquifer. These areas are often referred to as “high” or “critical” recharge areas. How much water infiltrates depends on building and vegetation cover, slope, soil composition, depth to the water table, and other factors. The majority of groundwater in the MST subarea comes from infiltration of precipitation that falls in the Howell Mountains.
The MST subarea is not considered a significant area for recharge. Therefore, the project would not significantly impact the amount of groundwater recharge that occurs at the site.
Th
e project site is not located within a flood hazard area; therefore, there would be no impact.
The project site is not located in an area affected by seiches or tsunamis; therefore, there would be no impact.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measures 1-12.
S
pecial Mitigation Measures:
1. A
ll surface drainage must be collected and conveyed to a public street, storm drain or approved outfall. If surface drainage is currently passing from adjoining properties onto the subject property, then the project shall be designed to continue to accept such drainage and easements shall be established in favor of the adjoining property to allow the existing drainage patterns to continue. In addition, site design shall allow for a 100-year overland release with all finish floor elevat ions a minimum of one foot above the 100- year overland release elevation.
C
onclusion:
P
otential hydrology and water quality impacts mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
. LAND USE & PLANNING
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. P
hysically divide an established community? X
b. C
onflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or resolution of an a
gency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c. C
onflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan o r natural
c
ommunity conservation plan? X
D
iscussion:
Th
e project site has been previously developed with a single -family home and is bounded to the west by an existing street (Capitola Drive), to the north, east, and west by existing single -family residences. As the site has previously been used for residential purposes, it does not divide an established community. Furthermore, construction of the proposed project would not result in large roadways that could physically divide an existing neighborhood.
The General Plan Designation for the site is SFI -173, Single-Family Residential, which provides for residential development densities between four to eight units per acre. The subdivision of the 1.35 acre project site into nine lots results in a density of 6.6 units per acre which is consistent with the density range of this Designation. The project site is located within the RI -5, Single-Family Infill Zoning District. The proposed single-family residential development is a land use consistent with this District.
Th
e proposed development would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community preservation plans. T
he imposition of the standard mitigations in Policy Resolution 27 noted bel
ow ensures no impacts to land use and planning.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Land Use and Planning Mitigation Measures 1-3.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
N
o impacts to land use and planning.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
I. MINERAL RESOURCES
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents of the state? X
b) R
esult in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
X
D
iscussion:
T
here are no known or documented regionally or locally significant mineral mapped on the project site; as such mitigation measures are not required.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
N
o impacts to mineral resources.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
II. NOISE
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. E
xposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of st
andards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b. E
xposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne v
ibration or ground borne noise levels? X
c. A
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise le
vels in the project
v
icinity above levels existing without the project X
d. A
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X
e. F
or a project located within a
n airport land use plan, would the
p
roject expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
D
iscussion:
Th
e subject structure is currently a single -family house. There will be short -term construction noise impacts associated with site preparation and construction. Although construction activities would be temporary and short-term in nature, impacts would be considered potentially significant due to construction activities occurring in close proximity to the residences where people may be home during the day and may be disturbed by construction noise. Compliance with Mitigation Measures listed below would ensure the project would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance that allows noise associated with construction activities to occur and would require the placement of noisy equipment in areas that would minimize disturbance to adjacent residents. The imposit
i
on of the standard mitigations in Policy Resolution 27 noted below should r
educe the potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Th
e closest airstrip is Napa County Airport approximately five miles south of the project site.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Noise Mitigation Measures 1-4.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential impacts to noise mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
III. POPULATION & HOUSING
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. I
nduce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for e
xample, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads and other infrastructure)? X
b. D
isplacing substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the co
nstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
c. D
isplace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the co nstruction
o
f replacement housing elsewhere? X
D
iscussion:
Th
e proposed project would directly generate population growth through the development of nine new single-family units. The General Plan Designation for the site is SFI -173, Single-Family Residential, which provides for residential development densities between four to eight units per acre. The 1.35 acre site could be developed with up to 10 units. The growth in population that would occur with the implementation of the proposed project was anticipated for in the General Plan, and the impacts of this grown were previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR. In addition, the project would constitute infill development within a developed urban area, and new roads and infrastructure would not be extended into an undeveloped area.
The proposed nine lot development will replace a single -family residence, which does not necessitate the construction of replacement housing.
S
tandard Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
Co
nclusion:
N
o impacts to population and housing.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
IV. PUBLIC SERVICES
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. R
esult in su
bstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
pr
ovision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services including:
X
i)
Fir
e Protection? X
ii)
Police Protection? X
ii
i) Schools? X
iv
) Parks? X
v)
Other Public Facilities? X
D
iscussion:
A
ll agencies referenced above have been contacted and reviewed the proposed development plan. Adequate fire and police protection and other facilities are available to serve the project and no significant impacts have been identified by any of the above agencies. The imposition of the standard mitigation measures of Policy Resolution 27 will further reduce any impacts to public services. The project is required to pay school impact fees to meet demand for new students consistent with State law. See “XV Recreation” for parks discussion.
St
andard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Public Services Mitigation Measures 1-6.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential impacts to public services mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
V. RECREATION
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. Inc
rease the use of existing neighborhood and r
egional parks or other
r
ecreational facilities such that a substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b. D
oes the project include recreational facilities or require the co
nstruction or expansion or recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
D
iscussion:
T
he future population within the development will not significantly impact the existing parks and recreational facilities. The Parks and Recreation element of the General Plan does not identify this area of the City as underserved with parks or creation facilities and it is not anticipated that thi s project will require any new or upgraded facilities. The proposed development of residential units at the project site is within the development potential anticipated by the General Plan, which does not represent a “significant impact” in regards to rec
r
eation. The imposition of the standard conditions found in Policy Resolution 27 (payment of qu
adrant fees, etc.) will further reduce any impacts to parks and recreation facilities.
St
andard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Recreation Mitigation Measures 1 & 2.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential impacts to recreation mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
VI. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. C
ause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the e
xisting traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X
b. E
xceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard e
stablished by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
X
c. R
esult in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d. S
ubstantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp c
urves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e. R
esult in inadequate emergency access? X
f. R
esult in inadequate parking capacity X
g. C
onflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (
e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X
D
iscussion:
Th
e scale of the proposed development of the project will not significantly impact existing roadways. The street layout for the project has taken into account the most efficient plan for overall circulation in the area.
T
he volumes of traffic associated with the project would not result in a significant individual impact on t
raffic. However, the traffic generated by the project will contribute to the cumulative impact on the City’s arterial and c
ollector street system by decreasing the available capacity of existing roadways within the pro
ject area, increasing average stopped delay for drivers using the existing facilities, decreasing average travel speed, increasing vehicle operating costs, hydrocarbon emissions, and fuel consumption, and increasing traffic safety concerns. The cumulative impact of the traffic generated by the subject project on the City’s arterial and collector street system will be mitigated by the developer paying a Street Improvement Fee in accordance with Policy Resolution 27 and Policy Resolution 16.
Th
e closest airstrip is Napa County Airport approximately five miles south of the project site. The project will not have an effect on air traffic patterns or air traffic levels.
The project proposes a new private loop street on the periphery of the site. The City Public Works Department has not identified a hazard due to project design or incompatible uses.
The project site can be adequate accessed by emergency personnel and vehicles from Capitola Drive and the proposed private street. The City Fire Department has indicated that the proposed project provides the necessary space to allow for adequate emergency access.
Chapter 17.54 of the NMC generally requires residential guest parking to be located along the frontage of each residential lots. The proposed project requests a modification to those standards to allow for the guest parking for Lots 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8 to be credited on Capital Drive rather than on the private street frontage adjacent to the lots. Sufficient linear footage along Capitola Drive is available to allow for the guest parking associated with these lots to be accommodated.
Th
e project will not physically affect existing or proposed pedes t rian, bicycle, and public transit facilities.
Th
erefore the project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.
St
andard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measures 1-5.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
VI. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential impacts to transportation and traffic mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
VII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
W
ould the project:
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Unmitigated
P
otentially
S
ignificant
Impact,
Mitigated
L
ess Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a
. E
xceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional W
ater Quality Control Board? X
b. R
equire 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? X
c. R
equire or result in the construction of new storm water drainage f
acilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
d. H
ave sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ex
isting entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e. R
esult in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which s
erves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f. B
e served by a landfill w
ith sufficient permitted capacity to
a
ccommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
g. C
omply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X
D
iscussion:
Th
e applicable utility companies or agencies have been contacted and have received copies of the proposed development plan. No significant impacts have been identified. Standard mitigation measures require water conservation and recycling measures, use of the City’s franchised garbage hauler and appropriate stormwater design. The City has entitlements to ensure that water supplies are adequate to serve the project, and Napa Sanitation District has not notified the City of any critical wastewater capacity situation. The project will not g
enerate an extraordinary amount of solid waste and both collection and disposal systems are available to a
dequately serve the proposed development. The imposition of the standard mitigations in Policy Resolution 27 noted below ensures less-than-significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
St
andard Mitigation Measures:
P
olicy Resolution 27: Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measures 1-10.
Sp
ecial Mitigation Measures:
N
one.
C
onclusion:
P
otential impacts to utilities and service systems mitigated to less-than-significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
X
VIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a
. D
oes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the h
abitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No
b.
Do
es the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively c
onsiderable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects.)
No
c.
D
oes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being s,
e
ither directly or indirectly? No
D
iscussion:
I
n regard to (a) no such effects are associated with this project due its location within an urbanized setting.
In regard to ( b) there are no cumulative impacts associated with this project. In regard to (c ) construction related activity at the project site could have a temporary adverse effect on human beings, but these impacts are effectively mitigated to a level of less -than-significant through the implementation of the Standard Mitigation Measures. No significant impacts would occur as a result of this project. The project has been modified to include the Standard Mitigation Measures contained in Policy Resolution 27 and the Special Mitigation Measures identified in this Initial Study; the overal l effect is that no significant -impacts would occur as a result of this project.
S
OURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN PREPARATION OF THIS INITIAL STUDY:
Project Development Plans (attached)
City of Napa; Policy Resolution 27 (attached)
Applicant’s Project Description & Development Plans (attached) CalEEMod Model Report (December 10, 2015)
Geotechnical Study Report (October 27, 2014) – RGH Consultants Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (October 1, 2014) – EBA Engineering City of Napa; General Plan Policy Document, Adopted December, 1998 City of Napa; General Plan Background Report, Adopted December, 1998 City of Napa; General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, Adopted December, 1998 City of Napa; Zoning Ordinance, 2003
City of Napa; Resolution 89-362 Establishing a Street Improvement Fee for all new Development within the City and subsequent Resolutions Amending this Resolution: Resolution 93-198. City of Napa, Water System Optimization and Master Plan, 1997; West Yost & Associates City of Napa; Water System Optimization and Master Plan; Final EIR; 1997 City of Napa; Big Ranch Specific Plan and Specific Plan FEIR, October, 1996; Nichols Berman City of Napa; Linda Vista Specific Plan and Specific Plan FEIR; October, 1987 County of Napa; Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, April, 1991 Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CEQA Guidelines, 1996 Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Bay Area ’97 Clean Air Plan, December, 1997 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Protection Project General Design Manual and Supplemental EIR/EIR, December, 1997.
State of California, Resources Agency; Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map
Project Description & Development Plans (applicable sheets) Policy Resolution 27 (pages 2 through 8)
ATTACHMENT 4