meeting.
If you have any other questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Eric Norris
Principal Planner
cell: 530.574.4875
website | linkedin | email
Agenda Item #5.1.
JOSHUA S. DEVORE
[email protected]
April 30, 2023
Via Email:
Mayor Paul Dohring: [email protected]
Vice Mayor Eric Hall: [email protected]
Council Member Anna Chouteau: [email protected] Council Member Lester Hardy: [email protected]
Council Member Billy Summers: [email protected] City Manager Anil Comelo: [email protected]
Community Development Director Maya DeRosa: [email protected] RE: Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, Council Members, City Manager Comelo, Community Development Director DeRosa:
As you are aware, we represent the Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future, a diverse group of City residents. We have provided several letters on this project to the Planning Commission on this project, highlighting several of the procedural and substantive deficiencies in the application process and consideration. (Those letters are included in your Agenda packet for the May 1 meeting, along with Staff’s responses, and we encourage you to review those letters in chronological order for context. We have not set out again every point in those letters for sake of brevity.)
The Planning Commission nevertheless –reluctantly as can be seen in the video of the hearing – passed the project on to the City Council. The Planning Commission appeared severely cowered by pressure to approve housing. Its referral to the City Council is thus not in any way persuasive that the tentative map nor its accompanying Environmental Impact Report warrant approval. A separate letter addresses the serious issues with the Environmental Impact Report.
This project has an extensive history. It was previously halted nearly a decade ago due to its impacts on traffic and needed improvements to the Pope Street/Silverado Trail intersection. It has recently moved forward, ostensibly on the notion that traffic is no longer an issue of concern under the California Environmental Quality Act, and thus can be ignored. This is incorrect – the impact on traffic is still highly relevant to whether the project is consistent with the General Plan.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
But there are also countless other issues with the project raised by the hundreds of public comments raised in opposition. Some of these significant items are discussed further below.
In short, this Council’s function is to determine whether the project is consistent with the City’s residents’ vision of St. Helena as described in the General Plan. Where it is not, it is the Council’s job to reject the project to protect the current residents from the deigns of out-of-town developers. Given the languishing of this project by the applicant, it is subject to the 1993 General Plan rather than the current one; but its failures to fulfill the City’s vision are nonetheless apparent.
The City Council Meeting Must Be Rescheduled Because It Does Not Comply with the Law As a preliminary matter, the City Council has set the matter for hearing on May 1, 2023. That hearing is illegal and contrary to City code. The Planning Commission was required to file its report and recommendation with the City Council prior to setting a hearing on the tentative subdivision map. (SHMC § 16.16.070. (“At the next regular city council meeting following the filing of the planning commission’s report with it, the city council shall fix the hearing date at which the tentative map will be considered by it, which date shall be within thirty (30) days thereafter.”)) That did not happen. Indeed, no Planning Commission report and recommendation was prepared separate from the Staff Report prepared by Interwest Consulting Group provided with the public agenda for the May 1, 2023 Special Meeting.
This failure to proceed as required by law has deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the legally mandated Planning Commission report and recommendation prior to the project being set for a hearing. The May 1, 2023, Special Meeting is thus contrary to law and must be rescheduled properly pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.070.
Indeed, it appears throughout the recent process that the City has been poorly served by the latest consultant on the project, Interwest Consulting Group. There has been no independent review of the project - only advocacy for the applicant by the retained outside service. The City has been repeatedly advised to ignore its municipal code to benefit the applicant. The City Council should take a sharp eye to any of the analysis provided by Interwest Consulting Group.
Indeed, as discussed further below, the analysis is repeatedly directly contrary to the facts and law.
The Tentative Map Cannot Be Approved Because the Complete Project Has Not Been Presented to the City, As Required by Law
As described extensively in our prior correspondence to the Planning Commission, the City’s code clearly and unambiguously requires the applicant to submit for all of the necessary approvals to carry out the project, including an affordable housing agreement and required multi-family use permit prior to consideration of a tentative map. The applicant has not done that. This failure to proceed as required by law is fatal to the project, and any approval will be a clear abuse of discretion.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
As we set out previously in additional detail, Title 16 of the Saint Helena Municipal Code, the City’s Subdivision Ordinance, provides unambiguously that:
All applicants for tentative maps and tentative parcel maps shall concurrently submit applications for all other discretionary approvals, including but not limited to, conditional use permits, variances, rezonings, and general plan amendments.
(Subdivision Ord., § 16.04.120 (emphasis added.)) Here, however, the Staff Report directly admits “future applications” are required for additional discretionary portions of the project. This renders the approval illegal, the record incomplete, and consideration now directly contrary to Section 16.04.120’s mandate that the requests be made “concurrently.” This isn’t just a procedural nicety. Such a system makes perfect sense, as otherwise it is impossible to consider the whole of the project. Ignoring this rule is ignoring the entirety of the Project.
Attachment 29 to the May 1 Agenda, Staff ’s second attempt at a response to our prior letter to the Planning Commission of February 6, 2023, acknowledges this failing by the applicant to submit the required approvals over the dozen years the Project has been pending. But it attempts to ignore that failure by arguing that the Applicant was supposedly not told of the requirements, and a state law adopted some six years after the application was deemed complete prevents the City from following its law now. That is wrong on both the facts and the law.
For example, the April 17, 2018 Notification of Identified Issues clearly identifies the requirement for and cites the code sections for the Affordable Housing and Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Housing. The suggestion that the Applicant was not notified of these issues previously is contrary to the record:
The type of uses conceptually proposed on Lot 52 (duet multifamily units) require Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval (see SHMC section 17.40.030.) and development of Lot 52 is required to meet the minimum gross density on the project site. Based on this, the City is following up on past requests for additional information as to the development of the multifamily parcel (and preferably Use Permit and Design Review applications) which provide more project specifics, and detail how the future development will comply with the requirements of the Medium Density Residential zoning and development standards.1 The City had plainly been requesting this information for a considerable time. The September 27, 2018, Comment Letter indicated that the Applicant had provided a draft Affordable Housing agreement that failed to meet the City’s standards. By February 2020, the Applicant had offered 1 Available at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/ project/3486/hunter_subdivision_issues_letter-april_2018.pdf Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
to enter into an Affordable Housing and Regulatory Agreement “in conjunction with the approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map.” The City soundly rejected the plan as inconsistent with inclusionary housing principles in its Notification of Final Unresolved Issues and Questions.2 It also clearly called out the need for a use permit for the multifamily development:
With 16.92 acres and a total of 87 units, the overall project density is 5.14 units per acre. The site is located within the Medium Density Residential (MDR) General Plan designation with a density range of 5.1 to 16 units per acre. The site is in the MR Zoning District that permits single family residences and Accessory Dwelling Units. Residential condominium projects, attached duplex or triplex units are permitted in the MDR District subject to the Approval of a Conditional Use Permit in each case. Based on your current subdivision plan, you should concurrently submit a Conditional Use Permit application.
(Id. Emphasis added.) The Applicant has ignored this direction for years.
Staff’s sole response is to argue the current version of the Government Code Section 65589.5(j), regarding the timing and contents of a response to a housing project application, which did not exist at the time of the project’s application, post hoc controls the project. However, statutes do not generally apply retroactively,3 and a plain reading of the timelines in Section 65589.5(j)(2) shows that applying that section retroactively to a prior application would have immediately made all actions on the Project – and every other similar project – suddenly untimely. This interpretation is unreasonable, and we are unable to locate any authority that would support Staff’s position. Indeed, the First District Court of Appeal recently found directly to the contrary in connection with another amendment to the Housing Development code. Such amendments are not retroactive unless explicitly stated in the legislation.4 Section 65589.5(j)(2) is thus inapplicable and is not a basis to ignore the City’s code.
The other applications required for the Project – an affordable housing agreement and a use permit for multifamily development – are for other discretionary approvals. They are required by code and recognized in the EIR. They are not precluded by the legal “completeness” (or not) of the tentative map application itself – they are distinct legally mandated discretionary applications.
2 Available at: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/ project/3486/02-20-2020_unresolved_issues_and_questions_hunter-final-c2.pdf 3 “Generally, statutes operate prospectively only.” Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307 [277 Cal.Rptr.3d 649, 671, 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307] (quoting cases). “[A] statute may be applied retroactively only if it contains express language of retroactivity or if other sources provide a clear and unavoidable implication that the Legislature intended retroactive application.” Id. (quoting cases.)
4 Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307 [277 Cal.Rptr.3d 649, 671, 63 Cal.App.5th 277, 307], reh'g denied (May 19, 2021), review denied (July 28, 2021.) Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
And in any event, requiring additional supporting and clarifying information after a completeness determination is routine and allowed by the Permit Streamlining Act. The Permit Streamlining Act specifically contemplates the requirement for additional information following a completeness determination, and states specifically that “[t]he agency may, in the course of processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for the application” and that a completeness determination “shall not be construed as limiting the ability of a public agency to request and obtain information which may be needed in order to comply with [CEQA].”5 Indeed, the entirety of the EIR process occurred after the completeness determination was made. The suggestion that additional information on the planned “design and improvement”6 of Lot 52 – which the Council is required to review and approve in connection with the subdivision – cannot be required after the completeness determination is specious.
The City needs to follow its own law and reject the piecemeal attempt at approval of only a part of the Project. Neither the Permit Streamlining Act nor the subsequent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act alter this; it is a failure to submit all of the information necessary to analyze the project as a whole, which the City’s Subdivision Code – and CEQA – require to be considered and analyzed collectively.
Failure to proceed as required by law is an abuse of discretion.7 The Required Findings Cannot Be Made
Without a complete collection of the required discretionary approvals, the City simply cannot make the required findings for approval. The City Council must make two findings to approve a tentative map:
1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of this code; and
2. Except for condominium conversion projects where no new structures are added, that the design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the state Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the city council. (SHMC § 16.16.080 (emphasis added.))
Put simply, one must know the entirety of what a subdivision project is in order to properly approve it. The City must approve not just the lots, but the “provisions for [their] design and 5 Cal. Gov. C. § 65944(a), (c).
6 SHMC § 16.16.080.
7 Cal. C. Civ. P. 1094.5; see, e.g., No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 88 [118 Cal.Rptr. 34, 47, 529 P.2d 66, 79], supplemented (1975) 13 Cal.3d 486 [119 Cal.Rptr. 216, 531 P.2d 784].
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
improvement.”8 The applicant continues to evade submission of those details for the most important component of the project.
The application seeks approval of 51 single family lots, and one multi-family lot with purportedly 25 units. That multi-family lot requires separate consideration and approval, as multi-family housing is a conditional use.9 Conversely, as of this moment in time, the use indicated for Lot 52, the multi-family parcel, is not allowed.10 The applicant thus is seeking to ram through its singlefamily lots without any analysis or consideration of the “design and improvement” of the multifamily portion of the project.
Doing so will severely restrict the City’s ability to shape the critical affordable housing that the property has the possibility to provide. If the tentative map is approved without consideration of all of the necessary approvals, it eliminates the ability to require a larger affordable housing component. It also locks the City into directly violating the General Plan, as Lot 52 is entirely planted with vineyards. (Contra 1993 General Plan CD 4.3.5 (4.3.5 “Require future residential development to conform to the pattern and density of older, neighboring areas of town in order to complement existing town character and ensure that densities are high enough to protect against unnecessary incursion into vineyard agricultural areas.”) Thus, directly contrary to the General Plan’s policy of designing projects to avoid removal of vineyard, the City will be left with no choice than to approve the vineyard removal for the only multi-family parcel that is part of – and required by – the project to meet the minimum density requirements of the zoning code.
The property has been described as a key component of the City’s housing plans. If that is to be true, it needs to be thoroughly and properly vetted. Rushing through an improper approval of a single-family home subdivision will have irreversible deleterious impacts on the City that will persist long after the current Council is out of office. We agree with and echo the letter from Our Town St. Helena: the discriminatory and inadequate cramming of a small multi-family development into an existing vineyard to make way for 51 luxury, likely-second homes is wholly inappropriate and contrary to the City’s urgent needs for affordable housing. It is indeed contrary to law.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the project, which depends on 11 ADUs to purportedly meet the minimum density requirements, would achieve that threshold. Studies show that only approximately half of ADUs are used as rental units.11 Thus, without deed restrictions requiring the rental of the ADUs, and conditions requiring minimum rental income and related fees, the ADUs are not meaningful additions to the City’s housing stock or the required density. But again, 8 Id.
9 10 The applicant initially submitted a map with no development shown in Lot 52 at all. (See our Letter of October 31, 2022)
11 UC Berkeley Center for Community Innovation, Implementing the Backyard Revolution: Perspectives of California’s ADU Owners, (April 22, 2021), available at: https://www.aducalifornia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/Implementing-the-Backyard-Revolution.pdf.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
the applicant has failed to submit the mandated Affordable Housing Agreement that might inform whether such conditions could or would be met.
As discussed further below, the project is inconsistent with the General Plan for a host of reasons, including but not limited to its widespread ignorance of the applicable 1993 General Plan policies, impacts on traffic, public safety, destruction of vineyard, and water usage.
But, more basically, as a result of the failure to submit the multi-family use permit application and design, there is no evidence in the record to support the required second finding on passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. There is no submitted design for Lot 52, the multifamily housing portion of the project. Although the staff report indicates that some of the singlefamily homes meet the requirement for passive or natural heating or cooling, there is no evidence that the multi-family homes will.
Put indelicately, on the current record the only finding favorable to the project the City Council could make is that it does not care whether the residents of the purportedly affordable portion of the development have had their interests in passive or natural heating or cooling attended to.
And it must make this finding now, based on evidence in the record now – not simply condition future compliance.
As the second required finding cannot be made, the Project must be rejected. The Council can reach this conclusion now without further need to wade through the lengthy issue of General Plan consistency – or lack thereof.
General Plan Inconsistencies
Returning to the larger issue of the first required finding for approval, the woeful attempt in the General Plan consistency analysis provided with the agenda to show the project is consistent with the General Plan firmly demonstrates the opposite.12 For example, and by no means exhaustive, the provided General Plan consistency analysis mentions only three of the dozens of applicable 1993 General Plan Land Use and Growth Management Elements.
Among those “LU” policies the analysis omits are the following:
2.6.5 Encourage the continuation of agricultural and low-intensity uses adjacent to the Urban Limit Line.
2.6.14 Encourage a mix of housing types and price ranges to allow choice for current and future generations of St. Helenans.
2.6.17 Minimize situations where new residential development will block public view of surrounding vineyards
12 As the Project is subject to the 1993 General Plan, all references herein are to that version of the General Plan unless otherwise stated.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
2.6.20 Encourage the subdivision and development of larger parcels (3 acres or more) as "planned unit developments" to ensure a more comprehensive and creative approach to planning the development as a single unit The "planned unit development" approach provides developers with greater design flexibility while ensuring the City adequate design review. The intent is to create developments that complement existing community character.
The City will favor planned unit developments that provide generous amounts of open space, covered parking, the separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic, and on larger tracts, a variety of housing types: single-family detached, duplex, and multi-family dwellings, in one and two-story structures.
2.6.24 Require residential developers to contribute toward the provision of community facilities and services (e.g., recreation facilities and programs, educational facilities, traffic and transportation facilities and services) consistent with State law requiring a nexus between project impacts and required mitigation.
The consistency analysis ignores these elements because the Project ignores them.
The 1993 General Plan Community Design Element reflects a general rejection of ‘suburbanization’ of the City. In response to the nature of the recent development of the time, the 1993 General Plan, 4.2 Community Form and Character Issues, provided:
Residents are clearly concerned that the special character of St. Helena is being lost through new development and growth. Although the last ten years have seen little new development, residents perceive a continuing loss of character and values. In part, this perception is the result of the growth of the valley in general as a tourism destination, and the resultant traffic congestion and impact on local serving businesses. However, it is also the result of the design and planning of new development, that is more suburban in nature than the historic pattern in town.
Put plainly: the City looked at the then-recent development on the East side, said ‘we don’t like it’, and directed a return to the classic design of the West side of town.
Again, the General Plan consistency analysis wholly fails to comport the project to the applicable Community Design General Plan policies. It ignores numerous applicable policies, while addressing only a handful of the Community Design elements. Even then, the policies it does address show the project is directly at odds with the General Plan. For example, the consistency analysis states the following:
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
4.3.5 Require future residential development
to conform to the pattern and density of
older, neighboring areas of town in order to
complement existing town character and
ensure that densities are high enough to
protect against unnecessary incursion into
vineyard agricultural areas.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with
the density requirements of the site’s General
Plan land use designation.
Obviously, the explanation does not match the element. Instead of comporting the design to the older areas of town to avoid incursion into vineyard agriculture, the project merely purportedly meets the bare minimum density by squeezing in one dense parcel. The consistency analysis ignores the remainder of the element, which is unmet.
The next element similarly fails the straight-faced test:
4.4.1 Use the grid pattern of street layout as
the template for future developing areas.
Streets should be straight, should meet at
right angles, and cul-de-sacs and a suburban
pattern should be avoided.
The proposed street layout follows a grid
pattern as much as possible, given the site’s
shape and the location of adjacent connecting
streets. One cul-de-sac is included in the
proposed subdivision where no other street
pattern is feasible.
To be clear, this is what the General Plan depicts as desired vs. not:
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
(General Plan 4.4 at 4-16.)
In short, the City considered whether it wanted a project in the future exactly like that proposed, and rejected it. The excuse that the project meets the grid pattern as much as possible is incredible. Offsetting ‘Street A’ into an awkward intersection into a prototypical subdivision is directly contrary to the element. The design is also inconsistent with Element 4.6.2, which prohibits cul-de-sacs to block views of vineyards.
The next General Plan element analyzed, 4.4.2, the ability to continue Adams Street to Silverado Trail, also fails. The consistency analysis wrongly states that the project “will complete the planned roadway system.” But the planned roadway system extends Adams Street to Silverado Trail. The project, on the other hand, obstructs a clear path to the east, and there is no evidence that construction of a public street on the existing levee is technically feasible nor safe. The levee was not designed to carry traffic, and there is no evidence that Adams Street can feasibly be extended if the project is constructed as proposed. Although the General Plan consistency analysis later acknowledges Transportation Element 5.3.2, which calls for extension of Adams to Silverado Trail, it does not consider how the project is consistent or inconsistent with the plan.13 There is no evidence that the project is anything other than a complete obstacle to completion of the road network’s second access to Silverado Trail. 13 The analysis also ignores related Public Health and Safety element 8.2.11: “Encourage and support regional efforts to displace motor vehicles off State Route 29 and onto alternative modes of transit.” Failure to address access to Silverado Trail ignores this policy.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
Returning to the offered 1993 Consistency Analysis, the next element analyzed again belies the consistency:
4.5.1 The sense of a strong connection to the
surrounding agricultural open space and
hillsides must be preserved in the future.
Views of vineyard, hillsides, creeks and major
landscape features should be maintained.
Views of the vineyards to the north of the
proposed subdivision are currently available
from the levee road, which will not be
affected by the proposed project.
The “sense of a strong connection” is plainly destroyed by the Project. The attempt at consistency is quite literally to tell residents they should walk around the Project and look the other direction.
And similarly, the next element analyzed again shows the project wholly at odds with the General Plan:
4.7.3 The new eastern entry via the Adams
extension should be planned to maximize
open space and vineyard views. Where
possible, vineyards should be maintained up
to the road edge. Residential development
should front on the road with sufficient lot
depth to allow a generous setback for sound
and privacy. Large specimen street trees
should be planted in residential areas to
mitigate the scale of the street and encourage
pedestrian and bicycle movement.
The proposed project extends Adams Street
to connect with the northward extension of
Starr Avenue, but does not otherwise affect
the layout or design of the future extension of
Adams Street.
The General Plan thus dictates residential development should front on Adams Street, not an oddly-adjacent ‘Street A’. The future extension of Adams Street would plainly not front on residential developments, but instead would be adjacent to a feeder road. Instead of large yards facing Adams Street and preserving vineyards, the project results in the exact opposite – multiple roads created by removing vineyards.
This is also, for example, directly contrary to General Plan policy CD 4.3.26:
Encourage residential building siting and design that is similar to that found in the older neighborhoods in town. In these areas consistent setbacks, porches and generously landscaped front yards add to community enjoyment by all. Restrict location of driveways and garages to minimize their visual impact on the street.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
In short, this Project by no means meets the applicable General Plan’s Land Use and Community Design elements.
It also fails to grapple with the most basic General Plan issue that stalled the project previously:
traffic. Nearly a decade ago, it was identified that improvements were needed to the Silverado Trail/Pope Street intersection. The most recent traffic study still states that improvements to the intersection are necessary, and that the project will add traffic to that intersection to such an extent that in a short time, traffic will be backed up past the new City Hall. Yet, no mitigation whatsoever has been provided to account for these significant impacts on quality of life.
This violates the General Plan Traffic elements, including 5.4.1 and 5.4.2, which direct the City to attempt to maintain tolerable levels of service (at least LOS C) at the City’s intersections.
More critically, the Project is inconsistent with the most important elements of the General Plan – those related to Public Health and Safety. Countless commenters have already opined that the Project is unsafe both to the current residents and the future residents. Those issues include that the project is flood prone, behind an uncertified levee with evidence of deficient maintenance. It is also a necessary firebreak that actually functioned as such in the 2020 fire. The proposed emergency access via the levee maintenance road is not what the levee was designed for and there is no evidence that using the levee for evacuation will be consistent with the long-term structural stability of the levee. Adding substantial population without addressing other transportation issues is a clear and imminent risk to the health and safety of the City’s existing residents.
Meanwhile, the consistency analysis analyzed only two of the extensive list of Public Health & Safety elements of the General Plan. Of the two chosen, one is misleading:
8.5.7 Ensure that all streets and roads are
adequate in terms of width, turning radius,
and grade to facilitate access by City
firefighting apparatus, and to provide
alternative emergency ingress and egress.
The proposed subdivision has been reviewed
by the Public Works and Fire departments for
consistency with City roadway standards
The staff report reveals that there actually was no standard for intersection design in the City’s standards. Thus, despite the intersection of Adams Street/Starr/Street A being clearly awkward and dangerous (and contrary to design standards that could have been referenced such as those by Napa County or CalTrans), the consistency analysis simply states that the subdivision ‘has been reviewed.’ It has not been found safe or adequate. And again, access depends on the levee access road that is not designed for that use.
But most significantly, the consistency analysis ignores numerous other elements that are highly relevant to the Project, and with which it is in conflict. Among the 1993 General Plan Public Health & Safety elements that are unaddressed and unmet are numerous elements discouraging Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
construction within Flood Hazard Areas. Those Guiding Policies in Section 8.6 clearly discourage development subject to flood risk:
8.6.1 Prohibit the introduction of intensive urban development into designated Flood Hazard Areas.
8.6.2 Uses vulnerable to floods, including public facilities and infrastructure, shall be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction.
8.6.3 Prohibit the construction of structures or flood barriers which would unnaturally divert flood waters or would increase flood hazards in other areas.
8.6.4 Require a grading permit for any filling, grading, or dredging that may increase potential for flood damage.
8.6.5 Restrict the alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers which help accommodate or channel flood waters.
8.6.6 Prohibit the siting of uses within Flood Hazard Areas that could result in health and safety hazards due to the release of chemicals or other substances as a result of inundation or erosion.
8.6.7 Encourage the use of Flood Hazard Areas within new development areas for open space and recreation uses, including parks and greenbelts.
8.6.8 Ensure that any new development that is allowed within the floodplain is constructed so that the lowest floor elevation is at least one foot above the 100- year flood level.
Development exposed to flood risk is plainly discouraged. Moreover, implementing policy 8.6.11 “Require[s] developers with land adjacent to the Napa River to construct or contribute a fair share toward the construction of necessary flood control improvements.” As has been widely discussed by earlier commenters, the project places the entire development at risk of flooding. The staff report acknowledges the flood risk, but asserts it to be of a 200-year flood, and thus not a “Flood Hazard Area.” Even assuming that to be true,14 though less likely than a 100-year flood (but only by half), the risk to life and property remains and the potential ruinous financial liability to the City remains unaddressed. Indeed, the City’s counsel has provided a legal analysis stating that the City could be held liable for flood damage, particularly if the levee is not adequately maintained. As such, compliance with General Plan policy 8.6.11 would suggest that at a minimum the Project be conditioned to indemnify the City from that potential liability via a bond for the replacement costs of the Project, and to be responsible for the costs of maintaining the necessary flood control improvements.
14 There is considerable inconsistency in the record about the protection level afforded by the levee. We do note the FAQ provided as attachment 23 to the agenda misstates the 500 year flood risk as 0.02% annually. It should read
0.2%.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
Finally, the Project conflicts with numerous Public Facilities and Services and Parks and Recreation policies. Among those is PF 9.4.6 which requires “All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.” However, the Project proposes to develop portions of the site subject to flood risk, and potentially places the City at ruinous financial risk as a result.
Thus, for all of the above reasons, and those stated by the numerous other commenters, the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan and the Council cannot make the required finding of consistency.
Findings For Denial
Pursuant to SHMC § 16.16.080(D), the City Council:
may deny approval of the tentative map on any grounds provided by the law including, without limitation, a finding that the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in, or add to, violation of existing requirements prescribed by a state regional water quality control board. A tentative map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plans, or other applicable provisions of this code;
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan, applicable specific plans, or other applicable provisions of this code;
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development;
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the planning commission may approve such a tentative map if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of CEQA that specific economic, social or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems;
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the city council may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that those will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is granted to the planning commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision;
8. That all requirements of the California Environment Quality Act and the rules and procedures adopted by the city council pursuant thereto have not been met;
9. That the applicant has failed to submit complete or adequate information;
10. Subject to Section 66474.4 of the state Subdivision Map Act, that the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (commencing with Section 51200 of the Government Code) and that the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would be too small to sustain their agricultural use.
(Emphasis added.) As described above, and by countless other commenters, numerous of these findings can be made here. They include that:
The proposed map is not consistent with the General Plan as discussed above. The design or improvement is not consistent with the General Plan as discussed above. The site is not physically suited for the proposed development as discussed above, particularly in regards to its location adjacent to the levee and removal of vineyard firebreaks.
The site is not suited for the proposed density due to its location adjacent to the levee and lack of development of the road network, existing parking shortcomings, and removal of vineyard firebreaks.
Substantial unmitigated environmental impacts persist and no overriding considerations justify those impacts, including impacts on groundwater, GHGs, aesthetics, and others as further discussed in our accompanying letter.
The EIR does not comply with CEQA as discussed in our accompanying letter. The Applicant has failed to provide necessary information as discussed above.
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 30, 2023
Conclusion
The City Council members have a duty to the citizens that elected them to protect the City from adverse interests. It must manage the City consistent with the General Plan and the Municipal Code. This project violates both, and the Council should do its duty and protect the voters from this proposed violation of their collective will.
Sincerely,
DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY PC
Joshua S. Devore
cc: City Attorney Ethan Walsh: [email protected]
City Clerk Cindy Tzafopoulos: [email protected] Agenda Item #5.1.
From: Angela Zivkovic
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Public Comment re Hunter FEIR
Date: Saturday, April 29, 2023 6:54:29 PM
Attachments: Comment re Hunter FEIR 4-29-23 7PM.pdf
Dear city council members,
Please find enclosed my public comment regarding the Hunter development FEIR, to be discussed at the upcoming city council meeting on May 1, 2023. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as I will be out of town on business.
However, I want to make sure that you receive my comment, and that you are also aware that I started a petition, which to date has been signed by 449 people.
Please reply and acknowledge timely receipt of this public comment.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Angela M. Zivkovic
Agenda Item #5.1.
Angela M. Zivkovic, PhD
1180 Starr Avenue
St. Helena, CA. 94574
City of St. Helena City Council
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
(707) 967-2783
[email protected]
Dear Members of the City Council of St. Helena,
I am writing regarding the Hunter Project Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). I am writing to ask you to VOTE NO on approval of the FEIR. This FEIR does NOT adequately address the safety of CURRENT St. Helena residents in the event of emergency evacuation due to natural disasters (i.e. flood, wildfire). This FEIR does NOT provide evidence that the negative impact of the proposed development on public health and safety has been mitigated.
I am also notifying you that I started a petition on Change.org which has already received 449 signatures to date (as of 7PM April 29, 2023), highlighting that a significant proportion of other St. Helena residents agree that this FEIR should not be approved, and that the safety of St. Helena residents is at stake.
I expressed my concerns in writing about this and other issues concerning the EIR for the Hunter development multiple times when the draft EIR was being reviewed.
I reiterate my concerns here and request that the city council address these issues forthwith as it appears to me that failure to address these concerns constitutes grounds for legal action. I would like to bring to the city’s attention recent advancements with regard to the legal liability of ignoring climate change in development projects and point the city council and planning commission members to a report prepared by the Conservation Law Foundation entitled “Climate Adaptation and Liability” https://www.clf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/GRC_CLF_Report_R8.pdf. I urge the city council to carefully consider the consequences of ignoring and dismissing the issues that have been raised here with regard to the failure of the Hunter Project FEIR to take into account changing climate-related impacts on the city’s ability to ensure safe evacuation during flood, mudslide, wildfire and other potential natural disaster events, for all but especially the East side residents of St. Helena.
I am aware that the city is obligated to comply with the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5), which states that a housing development project that complies with the objective standards of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance must be approved by the City, unless the City is able to make written findings based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record that either: (1) the City has already met its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirement; (2) there is an impact to the public health and safety and this impact cannot be mitigated; (3) the property is agricultural land; (4) approval of the project would violate State or Federal law and this violation cannot be mitigated; or (5) the project is inconsistent with the zoning and land use designation and not identified in the General Plan Housing Element RHNA inventory. It is clear given the concerns raised below that there is an impact to the public health and safety of the proposed development project that cannot be mitigated given the current city infrastructure limitations, and the increased and unaccounted for impacts of climate change.
Agenda Item #5.1.
Here I address several specific comments in response to the Planning Commission Report (file number PL10- 040 and TM 2022-001) Section 1 “Findings regarding less than significant impacts not requiring mitigation.” The following comments pertain to the following sections of the FEIR:
• Section H5: Emergency access
• Section H6: Wildland fires
• Section P2: Transportation hazards
• Section P3: Emergency access
• Section R1: Impairment of adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan • Section R3: Infrastructure-related wildfire risks
• Section Q2: Sufficient water supplies
Comments:
1) The FEIR does not address the actual concerns for CURRENT St. Helena residents regarding safe emergency evacuations during emergency situations such as wildland fires. The FEIR states that the city fire department will evaluate the width of the roads to be constructed inside the development. This only addresses the ability of the future hypothetical residents of the Hunter development to exit the development itself. The width of the streets within the development and the extension of Starr Avenue past Hunt Street toward the development HAS NO BEARING ON the additional traffic on the existing portion of Starr Avenue, Pope Street, Hunt Street, Highway 29, and Silverado Trail, which is where the real concern lies. a. The question is not whether the development would adequately provide access for the development residents out of the development area, but how the project will impact those residents once they leave the development, and the rest of the citizens of St. Helena who all need to evacuate via the same limited routes out of the city and out of the valley. Once the hundreds of additional residents occupying hundreds of additional cars actually drive out of the development, they are going to have to funnel into the existing roadways, which are already impacted and cannot adequately handle evacuation in an emergency situation such as a quickly occurring wildland fires or catastrophic floods. Once these residents exit the development out Starr Avenue, they immediately impact everyone trying to drive out via Hunt or Pope Street. b. Evacuation across the Pope Street Bridge is the only way out of town via Silverado Trail for this part of town. As we all know, Pope Street Bridge is a historic bridge which is not capable of handling even the current number of cars that need to be able to evacuate out of the area. The bridge is extremely narrow with no shoulder. This is an unsafe, inadequate exit route on the best of days, much less during an emergency situation when people are panicked, driving less carefully, and there may be no power, thus no street lights. i. The FEIR does NOT address replacement of the Pope Street Bridge in order to make evacuations for East Side residents adequately safe with the addition of hundreds of additional vehicles that would result from the development. c. The estimates of only about 200 more residents in an 87+ unit development is ridiculous and inaccurate. There is no indication that the proposed development will limit the number of residents allowed per household, nor that it would limit or prohibit multi-family, or mixed adult households. Households could have as many as 5 residents, with as many as 3 vehicles, which could result in double or even triple the number of additional vehicles potentially resulting from the development than has been estimated, posing a significantly higher impact on transportation hazards during emergency situations than is accounted for in the FEIR.
Agenda Item #5.1.
i. The FEIR assumes a laughably low number of additional residents and cars from this development. All one has to do is look at how many additional cars beyond what was planned for the Hunt’s Grove apartment complex are currently being parked on Starr Ave. A similarly much higher density of vehicles needing to overflow onto street parking would also potentially occur with the Hunter development, increasing the risks and hazards of collision, and increasing impacts on current street and traffic flows. Of course, the biggest concern is what happens under the increasing threat of catastrophic natural disasters and the ability of all St. Helena residents, current and future, to safely evacuate in an emergency.
d. Just as the recent “atmospheric river” weather event increased our awareness of the high risk of flooding on the Hunter parcel, perhaps even more convincingly it reminded us of the extreme vulnerability of recent burn areas to heavy rainfall, the resulting mud slides, and the further impacts on our roads. A case in point is the nightmare traffic that we experienced for nearly 3 weeks following the October 22, 2021 weather event that caused a mud slide that resulted in the closing of Silverado Trail (https://patch.com/california/napavalley/storm-takesout-part-silverado-trail). Traffic on Highway 29, from vehicles being redirected from Silverado Trail north and south of town, was atrocious. Many residents who either needed to drive north or south out of town were dealing with traffic delays of up to 2 hours. On a normal day this is very frustrating and disruptive to work and school schedules. In an emergency situation where fast-moving wildfires necessitate immediate evacuations, a situation such as this is a devastating problem for a town that has only two roads out of town. e. There are emergency scenarios, such as what occurred during the Glass fire, when evacuation out of the East side of town via Silverado Trail is not an option, as Silverado Trail may be exactly where the fire is and that route may be closed off. In this scenario, EVERYONE from the East Side of town will need to urgently and quickly evacuate up Pope Street and make a LEFT turn onto Highway 29. Again, this poses many additional problems that WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE FEIR.
i. First, all of West side residents, as well as potentially all of Calistoga may all be trying to evacuate south via Highway 29 at the same time. This is not a hypothetical scenario, this occurred in 2017 during the multiple simultaneous fires that burned north of Calistoga, and both East and West of St. Helena. In this kind of scenario, there would be A LOT of traffic all trying to move south, with vehicles already on Highway 29 needing to stop and allow vehicles from Pope Street to make a LEFT turn onto Highway 29. In an emergency situation where there is power loss, that turn signal would not be working. There would be extremely slow movement out onto Highway 29 from Pope Street under such circumstances. Very few drivers choose to stop to allow another vehicle to turn in front of them on a good day, much less in an emergency situation where lives are at stake. ii. The FEIR DOES NOT in any way address this major problem of how residents will safely and quickly turn onto Highway 29 to evacuate south out of town when there is extreme traffic in an emergency evacuation situation.
iii. The FEIR does NOT provide for widening of Highway 29, nor does it address the danger of needing to make this left turn.
2) The FEIR does not in any way address the increased urgency and frequency at which these types of catastrophic events are occurring and are going to be occurring with the increasing effects of climate change.
Agenda Item #5.1.
a. Climate change is happening. We all know it and have lived it and seen it over the last several years. Each fire season is worse than the last, each winter is warmer than the last, each year the weather patterns become more unpredictable. The recent conclusion from the United Nations Glasgow Climate Change Conference (COP26) meeting is that even if all countries that pledged to fully implement changes needed to meet agreed upon greenhouse gas reduction goals are actually able to meet those goals, we are still on a trajectory to see increases in the earth’s temperature of at least 1.8 degrees Celsius (https://www.washingtonpost.com/climateenvironment/2021/11/09/cop26-un-emissions-gap/). This means that the recently experienced natural disasters in our area including wildfires, flooding, mud slides, and droughts, are only going to be more frequent, more extreme, and more unpredictable over the next 10-20 years and beyond.
b. According to the National Interagency Fire Center the state of California faced over 8,000 fires that burned over 500,000 acres of land in 2002
(https://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2002_statssumm/fires_acres.pdf). In 2020 those numbers jumped to nearly 10,000 fires that burned over 4 million acres of land (https://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2020_statssumm/fires_acres20.pdf)! The state of California is facing unprecedented increases in wildfire incidences just in the last 20 years, at a time when the earth’s temperature has increased by less than 1 degree Celsius (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-globaltemperature), while the best-case scenario projections for temperature change are on the order of 1.8 degrees Celsius over the next 20 years, strongly suggesting that the incidence and severity of wildfires is only going to increase.
c. The current FEIR does not account for the increase in risk of wildfire due to climate change. More fires means more evacuations and more people that need to be able to leave in a short amount of time in a limited geographic area with limited evacuation routes.
d. The recent wildfires in Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley are a sobering reminder of what happens when wild, unpredictable winds coincide with extreme dry conditions and ignition sources. Sometimes those ignition sources are dry lightning, other times sparking generators, other times, devastatingly, even arson. Regardless of the ignition source, which in and of itself is growing in incidence (dry lightning storms in the Napa Valley in August?), the cold, hard truth is that due to climate change the “wildfire season” in California is increasing. More and more days out of more and more months of the year, from as early as April to as late as December, there are days when the combined conditions of extremely low humidity and high winds make this area ripe for fires to start (https://www.latimes.com/projects/wine-country-firescalifornia-sonoma-napa/). The fact is that there are only two ways out of town. Highway 29 and Silverado Trail. These are both narrow, 2-lane highways that can only move so many cars out per minute, and that is if all goes well and there are no accidents from people panicking and driving recklessly.
3) The FEIR does NOT address the fact that the East side of town already houses the most vulnerable citizens in our city, encompassing multiple low-income housing units and homes for the elderly who have a variety of disabilities making it more difficult for them to safely evacuate in an emergency situation. These are individuals who are not only at higher risk from injury but who are also less likely to be able to “evacuate early” as opposed to at the last minute once emergency shelters have been established, making the impact of urgent, last-minute Agenda Item #5.1.
evacuations even more important. They may also be hard of hearing, or have a multitude of disabilities that may make leaving quickly, or even hearing sirens and being aware of an emergency a problem. a. As examples of recent wildland fires both here in St. Helena, and in Napa as well as Santa Rosa have clearly shown over the last 6 years, wildland fires are increasingly wind-driven, fastmoving, unpredictable, and can occur in the middle of the night. The current roadways and infrastructure (i.e. bridges) are inadequate to ensure the ability of residents to safely evacuate in an emergency situation. This is especially true for the most vulnerable residents of St.
Helena, all of whom live DOWNSTREAM from the proposed development and would have to compete with hundreds of additional vehicles trying to exit out of town. These residents include low-income residents from Hunt’s Grove apartments, elderly individuals who live in assisted living facilities (e.g. Silverado Orchards), and a large number of elderly individuals in the Vineyard View 55+ community.
b. The proposed development is not in the part of town where half of the homes are second homes that sit unoccupied most of the year. The East side of St. Helena where the Hunter parcel is located is the part of town where there are more people per square mile that need to be able to evacuate in an emergency.
c. The FEIR already concedes that the one environmental impact that cannot simply “be mitigated” is the unavoidable impact on traffic. Phrasing it as a simple “traffic problem” makes it seem like just a minor nuisance. This is not about having to wait a few extra minutes to make a left turn onto Pope Street to get to work on a Monday morning. This could mean the difference between a family being able to evacuate to safety in time, or not being able to do so because they are stuck in traffic with hundreds more vehicles all competing for egress via the same limited roadways at the same time.
d. This is also an equity issue: the very people who are the most likely to have to wait until the last minute to evacuate and thus be in danger when traffic is backed up and they cannot evacuate from fire, are those who do not have the funds or ability to evacuate earlier than “necessary” because they cannot afford to simply pay for a hotel for days on end. 4) The FEIR is based on outdated projections about the flooding risk in the proposed development area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is no longer using the outdated maps and terminology regarding flood areas that are used in the FEIR because climate change has rendered calculations based on historical data meaningless. The new Risk Rating 2.0 system has been in effect since October 2021. This FEIR does NOT use the new FEMA Risk Rating 2.0 system and instead relies on the outdated concepts such as “100-year flood” and 200-year flood” zones. Moreover, recent flooding events around the country have raised awareness about the growing, unprecedented impacts of climate change. For example, in this article published in Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/studies-sound-alarm-on-badly-out-of-date-fema-floodmaps/ attention has been focused on the fact that FEMA maps are out of date and do not fully account for the dangers of flooding in the new era of climate change. Movements are under way around the country to curtail development in flood zones. It is irresponsible to use assessments based on historical data and rating systems which are no longer valid. a. The entire idea of “100-year flood” or “200-year flood” zones is now outdated and no longer being used because it uses outdated projections about yearly percentage risk of flooding based on irrelevant, old information about weather patterns over the last 100 years or 200 years. The new Risk Rating 2.0 is instead tailored to each individual property, and is designed to "adapt and re-adjust rates based on a changing, unpredictable climate,” clearly highlighting the fact that the risk of catastrophic floods and failing levies in certain high-risk areas is so volatile as Agenda Item #5.1.
to be unpredictable (https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/energyenvironment/2021/06/24/401402/femas-changing-its-flood-insurance-program-heres-how-itwill-impact-texans/). b. The new approach also takes into account more causes and types of flooding, including storm surge, river overflow and heavy rainfall, because climate change is increasingly and unpredictably leading to flooding due to heavier rain falls, sea-level rise, and stronger wind and storm weather patterns. The new risk rating policy was in effect starting October 1, 2021 for any new projects (https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance/risk-rating). c. According to the official FEMA map of the city of St. Helena, the Hunter Subdivision project is clearly within a flood zone (https://map1.msc.fema.gov/firm?id=06055C0264E). Although the city paid for consultants to try to mitigate this risk by providing independent evaluations that take into account the mitigation of the flood risk due to the existence of the levee, this all goes out the window with the current increased and unpredictable risks we are facing due to climate change.
d. Furthermore, Measure A, which was passed to approve and finance the construction of the levee, has a specific provision that “none of these projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth,” meaning that the levies constructed throughout Napa Valley, including the levee in the city of St. Helena, were NOT intended to promote development behind those levies.
e. The city of St. Helena already nearly went bankrupt once before after being sued by the residents of Vineyard Valley after the 1995 flood. The future residents of the Hunter development could sue the city again when there is a future flood event. The levee was designated as being built to guard against a “200-year flood” risk, but as specified above, FEMA no longer uses these designations and instead uses the Risk Rating 2.0 system, therefore there is currently no clear estimate of the % risk of a flood on any given year, nor of the ability of the levee to withstand a future potential catastrophic flood event. It is not even clear whether the future residents of the Hunter development would be able to secure flood insurance under the new system, opening up even higher possible liability for the city. f. Professor Nicholas Pinter, Professor in the UC Davis Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Associate Director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, wrote a very insightful and informative blog post on the topic of the St. Helena levee. In his blog he explains that even with a levee constructed to withstand a “200-year flood” there is residual risk. In other words, there is at least a 0.05% chance that a catastrophic flood even will occur, but this could be higher given the unpredictability of climate change. Who bears the cost of this (unknown amount of) residual risk every year? The residents of St. Helena. As explained by Dr.
Pinter:
i. “Residual risk also can be borne by the governmental agencies that facilitate “field of dreams” levees. Legal liability came to roost in California in 2003, when the Court of Appeals found the state liable for $500 million in damages resulting from a levee break on the Yuba River in February of 1986, the same storms that flooded St. Helena. The case was Paterno v. State of California, and although the state neither built nor maintained the levee that gave way, the court found that it was responsible for inadequate maintenance and management of the system. And liability extends to counties and towns as well; for example, California Assembly Bill 80 made local jurisdictions liable for “property damage caused by a flood [if they] … unreasonably approv[e] new development in a previously undeveloped area (a)” In the Paterno case, the financial hit of that $500 million decision shook the financial structure of the Agenda Item #5.1.
entire state, such that California was forced to borrow funds from Merrill Lynch in order to pay the claims against it (b).”
5) The FEIR does not adequately address the health and safety of current residents with regard to access to sufficient drinking water.
a. All of the estimates put forth in the document simply state that there will be sufficient water supplies in the future to accommodate the new development, citing data from 2013 and 2016, which are now completely meaningless and outdated. The city is currently cycling between states of emergency water shortage due to failing infrastructure. b. Climate change is permanently and irreversibly changing the groundwater and reservoir supplies that we rely on. The calculations of water needs and Safe Yield are all based on outdated, historical information which does not account for actual decreases in water yields and replenishment of both reservoirs and groundwater due to climate change. c. It is likely that instead of about 200 more residents there will in fact be more like 400 new residents, thereby increasing the water demand to double what was projected, since water demand is, rightly so, based on number of people per household rather than number of households.
d. Unfortunately, our water shortage problems here in St. Helena are happening all over the state.
Wells are running dry (https://calmatters.org/environment/2021/08/california-groundwaterdry/). Despite changes to California ground water laws in 2014 to enact sustainable practices that protect ground water, nine years later wells around the state continue to run dry. Current climate change projections, as outlined already above, are dire, and suggest that drought severity, intensity, and duration will only worsen over the coming decades. We simply cannot rely on old projections about water availability because we are in uncharted territory. Our ground water sources are not being normally replenished. The normal water cycles are not operating the way they used to. And it is not just wells that are running dry. e. Snowpack in the Sierras normally “supplies about 30% of water statewide when the spring melt comes and water runs off to be captured in the state's system of reservoirs” (https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Sierra-snowpack-satellite-image-atmospheric-river16568005.php). But the snowpack in 2020 was only 59% of average, and even more disturbing and unexpected was the fact that 80% of the already lower than normal, predicted water runoff was simply soaked up or evaporated because the soils were so hot and dry, severely impacting water levels in reservoirs across the state. Yes, we had an unusually heavy rainfall and snowfall year this year, however, there is no way of predicting what the next several years hold and it is extremely likely that we will have more severe droughts. So it is not just our ground water and wells that are drying up, our Sierra snowpack, and thus reservoirs and rivers are also drying up. As mentioned earlier, climate change means that we are experiencing more and more warmer and warmer days, and this means that even if we do get big storms the snowpack does not stick around, and even when we do get runoff from the snowpack, the earth is so parched that the water simply disappears on its way to our reservoirs. f. We were lucky this year, with a very wet winter and very high snowpack, but there is no predicting whether we will get another wet winter again and how much rainfall and snowfall there might be over the coming years, again, due to the extreme unpredictability of climate change. The FEIR does not account for new, unexpected, unpredicted risks of severe and sustained drought conditions due to climate change, and the impacts of these on the availability of safe drinking water for St. Helena residents. Laughably simplistic solutions like the use of “low flow toilets” as a mitigation solution for our real water shortage issues that are Agenda Item #5.1.
only going to worsen over time are inadequate. We cannot rely on water supplies staying what they were even in the recent past, or being predictable based on what we used to know about how much water we might expect any given year based on old weather patterns. In fact, it is quite clear that severe drought and water shortages are likely to occur with much greater frequency in the coming years and decades, as our ground water supplies, snowpack, river flows, and reservoir levels continue to be severely impacted by climate change.
The current FEIR falls far short of addressing the concerns cited above. The negative impacts of the proposed Hunter development on the health and safety of current St. Helena residents have NOT been mitigated. The Hunter development would have significant impacts on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. Without FIRST significantly investing in improving city infrastructure, including widening Highway 29, replacing Pope Street Bridge, and improving city water infrastructure, the Hunter development would add hundreds of residents to a city with high wildland fire risk, high flood risk, crumbling infrastructure, and inadequate roadways, putting residents, including highly vulnerable low-income and elderly, at risk of not being able to safely evacuate in an emergency situation, and not having adequate access to safe drinking water. It is the city council’s responsibility to vote NOT to approve the Hunter development FEIR and to protect the citizens of St. Helena.
Sincerely,
Angela M. Zivkovic
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: C. Echols
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External]
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:28:56 AM
Hunter project
Please vote NO on this insanity. Cramming many, many homes in a flood zone behind Vineyard Valley is unsafe, will cause traffic problems, water issues, not to mention extreme noise pollution.
Chris Echols
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: Elisabeth Alderman
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Hunter Project
Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 10:36:46 AM
Ms. Tzafopoulos and the members of city council,
As neighbors of the proposed development, my family has significant concerns about the impact of increased traffic in our neighborhood. Clearly, the open space for safe recreation is a treasured asset to our community, and we enjoy it every single day. But putting that to one side, I have not seen a satisfactory response from the city as to how the increased traffic from this proposed development will NOT be putting us and our neighbors at risk in an evacuation.
Where and how will additional roads be constructed? How will they be paid for? When will they be constructed? These are critical questions and the citizens deserve answers.
In addition to the evacuation impact, I'd also point that my children's bus stop is located at the intersection of Hunt and Starr and serves several families in the Hunts Grove apartment complex. I have to physically stand in the intersection when the bus is stopped to keep cars from blowing past it and endangering our children. Every day I see countless vehicles completely fail to stop at the intersection. This is a dangerous intersection for pedestrians already. What will happen when a hundred+ additional vehicles are introduced? We are newer members to this community and we chose St. Helena because of the quality of life and the wonderful environment in which we hope our children will thrive. We deserve transparency and thoughtful planning from our city, especially when this quality of life hangs in the balance. I hope the council takes this into consideration and comes to a decision that will ensure the continued safety and well-being of the community.
Elisabeth Alderman
702 Hunt Avenue
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: Ester Akersloot
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Hunter Project
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 9:42:11 PM
Comment for City Council,
Due to the facts of construction in a FLOOD PLAIN and the unpredictable weather forecasts regarding Climate Change, the very real threat of fires and floods, exposing residents in The Hunter Project and surrounding areas to disastrous circumstances in evacuation efforts, and the possibility of great loss, it is very poor judgement to consider building homes in this Hunter Project area. It is unfair to the area's current and future residents who would live with an extreme lack of comfort and security. Levies have failed elsewhere in the past, and there is no guarantee that the levy to protect this housing project could not fail. This is not the risky venture that the people of St. Helena wish to present to our future neighbors.
Please vote NO to theHunter Project.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ester Akersloot
Agenda Item #5.1.
April 24,2023
Paul Dohring, Alcalde
Eric Hall, Vice Alcalde
Lester Hardy, Concejal
Anna Chouteau, Concejal
Billy Summers, Concejal
Maya DeRosa, Directora de Constructón y Planificación
Anil Camelo, Administrador de la Ciudad
Estimados Miembros del Consejo Municipal,
Estamos escribiendo para solicitar información sobre el Proyecto Hunter.
Hemos escuchado que se va a construir algo en St. Helena, pero no sabemos los detalles.
Le pedimos que nos dé tiempo para traducir todo la información de documentos que explican cómo nos afectará, ya que vivimos en Hunts Grove Apartamentos.
Hay rumores de que hay más tráfico que pondría nuestro nińos en riesgo. Actualmente, la gene no siempre se detainee en la seńal de stop en la esquina de Hunt y Starr. Han habido muchas veces algunos de nuestros hijos casi han sido atropellados por un automóvil. Más trafico haria este problema peor.
Si es cierto, habrå mås tráfico en nuestra área, necesitamos saber exactamente lo que se propone.
Le pedimos que nos dé más tiempo para traducir documentos antes de la reunión del 1 de mayo de 2023 para el ayuntantamiento.
Estamos preguntando para una extensión.
Respectuosamente,
Residentes preocupados de Santa Helena
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024)
To: Paul Dohring; Eric Hall; Anna Chouteau; Lester Hardy; Billy Summers; Maya DeRosa; Ethan Walsh; Sarah Owsowitz; Public Comment
Cc: Golub, Daniel R (SFO - X56976); Sterling, William E (SFO - X72024) Subject: [External] Hunter Subdivision Project Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 3:32:31 PM
Attachments: 2023-05-01 Correspondence to St. Helena re SHCSF Letters.pdf Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, Councilmembers, Director DeRosa, Mr. Walsh, and Ms.
Owsowitz,
Please see the attached correspondence regarding the Hunter Subdivision Project, responding to the letters submitted yesterday by St. Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future.
Best,
-Will
William Sterling | Holland & Knight
Associate
Holland & Knight LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, California 94105 Phone 617.305.2024 | Fax 415.743.6910
[email protected] | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP ("H&K"), and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
Agenda Item #5.1.
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Daniel R. Golub
415-743-6900
[email protected]
May 1, 2023
Via Email
Paul Dohring, Mayor
Eric Hall, Vice Mayor
Anna Chouteau, Council Member
Lester Hardy, Council Member
Billy Summers, Council Member
CITY OF ST. HELENA CITY COUNCIL
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, CA 94574
Re: Hunter Subdivision Project
Dear Mayor Dohring, Vice Mayor Hall, and Councilmembers:
Holland & Knight LLP represents Dennis Hunter, Kelly and Ben Vanzutphen, and White Fang Properties, LLC (collectively, the “Applicant Team”) with respect to land use and housing law issues related to the Hunter Subdivision project located north of Hunt Avenue (APN 009-030- 057) (the “Project”) in St. Helena (the “City”). Our West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law practice group focuses specifically on enforcing recently reformed provisions of state housing law, in particular Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act. We appreciate your careful review and attention to this Project, and through you wish to express our appreciation for the hard work of the City’s staff and its appointed Planning Commissioners that led to the unanimous recommendation of staff and all Planning Commissioners in support of issuing the necessary approvals for the Project.
We support of the recommendation of the City’s staff and Planning Commission for reasons that are set forth in the staff report and in our prior correspondence. Approval of the Project is both good public policy in light of the state’s severe housing crisis, and required by applicable state housing law. We further write in response to two letters submitted to the City on Sunday, April 30, 2023 (yesterday) by a lawyer representing housing opponents Saint Helena Citizens for a Sustainable Future (“CSF”). These letters raise numerous novel issues regarding the Project, long after the comment period on the second Draft EIR has closed, on the literal eve of the Project’s twelve-year journey to a planned City Council vote. As such, a full response to every point is impossible. Presumably, that was the intended result of such a late submission – a tactic Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
that the California Supreme Court has condemned. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568 (“We cannot, of course, overemphasize our disapproval of the tactic of withholding objections, which could have been raised earlier in the environmental review process, solely for the purpose of obstruction and delay.”). CSF’s tactics of withholding these comments until the eve of the vote strongly supports the inference that these multiple objections were lodged not out of a good-faith effort to ensure a thorough public review but rather with the aim of delaying the approval of the Project or its ability to be constructed.
Nevertheless, this letter responds to certain points raised by CSF.
1. The City’s approval of the Project, under terms that will allow it feasibly to be developed, is crucial to the City’s Compliance with Housing Element Law.
As an initial matter, we note that the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) recently rejected the City’s draft housing element for the second time. As you know, the City’s failure to provide meaningful assurances with respect to the Project was central to this rejection:
The element is crediting 87 units from the Hunter Subdivision Project towards the RHNA. HCD’s prior review found that the City must analyze the likelihood that this project will be built and units will be available during the planning period.
Additionally, the prior review found that HCD has received public comments regarding the City’s ability to process and approve this project in a timely manner.
Further, this analysis is particularly important given that the project has been pending since the 4th cycle planning period and the project will help the City provide housing and build a portion of their RHNA. The element was revised to state that the project will receive “planning approvals in the near future” and the next planning commission hearing is in February. This does not address HCD’s prior review. The element should clearly indicate timelines and remaining steps to fully entitle this project and demonstrate the likelihood these units will become available during the planning period. Lastly, the revised element is now crediting these units towards the City’s above moderate-income RHNA.
However, HCD received public comments from the applicant indicating that 20 percent of the project will be affordable via deed restrictions in line with the City’s inclusionary requirements. The element could be revised to credit a portion of these units towards the City’s lower-income RHNA. Based on the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element should include a program to monitor the progress of the project and take alternative action if the project is not entitled and permit are not issued in a timely manner.1
1 HCD, “City of St. Helena’s 6th Cycle Revised Draft Housing Element” (April 7, 2023), Appendix at 2 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/napStHelenaDraftOut040723.pdf).
Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
The Applicant Team is eager to do its part to bring much-needed (and state-mandated) housing to the City. Indeed, the Project’s 87 units represent roughly one-third of the City’s 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of 256 units.2 Given the City’s past track record of development (i.e., only 110 units were permitted during the entire 5th Cycle),3it is no exaggeration to say that the City cannot comply with Housing Element Law without approving the Project.
Strikingly, CSF’s letters wholly disregard the City’s obligations under Housing Element Law and make no mention of the critical need to provide housing opportunities for the City’s residents and the broader needs of the region - other than to dismiss those concerns out of hand.
CSF also disregards the exhaustive, decade-plus review to which the City has subjected the Project. And, as explained herein, those letters disregard the City’s broader obligations under state housing law, which has been significantly strengthened in recent years, and which controls over the City’s municipal code. Put simply, CSF ask this Council to violate state housing law.
2. The City’s Procedures Are Proper.
CSF alleges that today’s City Council hearing is unlawful based on a hyper-technical reading of Section 16.16.070 of the Municipal Code, which CSF reads to require the preparation of a Planning Commission report separate from the Planning Commission resolution that was filed with the Council through the Staff Report. Certainly, the notion that the City’s process – more than a decade of environmental review – has “deprived the public of the opportunity to review and comment on” the Project is unserious. In any event, the City is well within its rights to determine that the materials adopted by the Planning Commission at its February 7, 2023 hearing, and sent to the Council as demonstrated in the staff report, meet the requirements of Section 16.16.070. See Berman v. Regents of Univ. of California (2014) 229 Cal. App. 4th 1265, 1272 (agency interpretation of its own policies and procedures is entitled to great deference). We also note that the City is precluded by state housing law from subjecting the Project to more than five hearings once the application is deemed complete, and that this prohibition explicitly extends to continued hearings. Gov. Code § 65905.5(a).
Next, CSF seizes on Section 16.04.120 of the Municipal Code, which concerns the timing of applications for tentative maps. In Attachment 29 to the May 1 Agenda, City Staff states as follows:
As staff has noted, the application for this map was accepted as complete on March 25, 2011.
To the extent that City were to require compliance with this section, it should have done so at the time the tentative map was deemed complete rather than using it as ground for denial after fully processing the application. This is especially true given the restrictions that the 2 City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Updated (February Draft), at 2-194 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_HE_RevHCDDraft_2023_01_31_TRACKED.pdf). 3 City of St. Helena 2023-2031 Housing Element Updated (February Draft), at 2-35 (https://sthelenahousing.com/images/docs/SHHEU_HE_RevHCDDraft_2023_01_31_TRACKED.pdf).
Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
State Legislature has placed on local agencies’ discretion to deny housing development projects. Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2) provides a limited time for determin[ing] whether a housing development project is compliant with existing objective land use requirements. Specifically, Section 65589.5(j)(2) reads as follows:
(2) (A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
(i) Within 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains 150 or fewer housing units.
…
(B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
There is no record that staff notified the applicant that other discretionary applications must be submitted concurrently prior to or immediately after deeming the tentative map application complete. Based on the restrictions imposed by Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(2), staff does not believe that the City can deny the application based on a failure to comply with Section 16.04.120.
Staff’s analysis is correct. Government Code 65589.5 (the “HAA”), subdivision (j)(2) precludes the City from denying the tentative map application on the basis of an inconsistency with the requirements of Section 16.04.120, because the Applicant was not notified of such inconsistency within the required timeframe.
CSF argues that HAA subdivision (j)(2) is inapplicable because the project’s application was submitted prior to (j)(2)’s enactment, and, according to CSF, cannot be imposed retroactively.
This argument ignores the Legislature’s directive that the HAA “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” HAA subd. (a)(2)(L). Nor does Ruegg & Ellsworth v. City of Berkeley (2021) 63 Cal. App. 5th 277 support CSF’s position on retroactivity. Ruegg stood for the unremarkable proposition that a law that was not in effect when the city denied an application could not be used to retroactively invalidate the applicant’s right to be processed under the law then in effect, Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
especially when doing so would deprive a property owner of vested rights. Ruegg, 63 Cal. App. 5th at 307.
In any event, CSF’s focus on retroactivity is academic. Subdivision (j)(2) was added to the HAA pursuant to 2017’s SB 167, which went into effect on January 1, 2018. Regardless of whether those provisions have retroactive effect, there is no dispute that they apply prospectively. Nor is there any dispute that the City failed to notify the Applicant of any inconsistency following that enactment. The earliest notice that CSF references occurred in September 27, 2018 – far beyond the January 31, 2018 timeframe contemplated by subdivision (j)(2).
CSF also ignores that laws other than the HAA prohibit the City from now demanding the application start all over. The Permit Streamlining Act, Gov. Code subd. 65920 et seq., which is not recently enacted, prohibits this as well. In the Permit Streamlining Act, the Legislature has, since 1977, recognized the “statewide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects, Stats.1977, c. 1200, p. 3993, § 1, p.3993 (enacting Gov. Code § 65921), and has since that time required cities to identify any deficiencies in the completeness of application within 30 days of submittal, and to refrain from later contesting the application’s completeness after it has accepted it as complete. Stats.1977, c. 1200, p. 3995, (enacting Gov. Code §§ 65943-44). CSF does not argue that these provisions were not in effect at the time the application was submitted. Nor is there any evidence that the Section 16.04.120 issue was raised at that time, as it was required to be under the Permit Streamlining Act.
CSF’s arguments also ignore the practical realities confronting a project that has been under review for more than a decade. Since the tentative map application was deemed complete in 2011, key City personnel has turned over numerous times, leading to inconsistent guidance and advice. During the same period, the Municipal Code has also been amended numerous times.
Against this backdrop, City staff are certainly correct to determine that the HAA’s provisions, which are to be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing,” HAA subd. (a)(2)(L), preclude it from denying the Project.
3. CSF’s Allegations Regarding General Plan Consistency Are Contrary to Law.
CSF includes a laundry list of alleged inconsistencies with the City’s General Plan and demands the Council agree with its interpretation of these provisions and deny the Project on that basis.
This argument invites the City to violate the HAA.
Even for projects not protected under the HAA, a project does not need to conform to the letter of every single General Plan policy. See San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656, 678 (“state law does not require precise conformity of a proposed project with the land use designation for a site, or an exact match between the project and the applicable general plan. … The courts have interpreted this provision as requiring that a project be in agreement or harmony with the terms of the applicable plan, not Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
in rigid conformity with every detail thereof.”) (internal citations omitted). As such, even were it not for the HAA, the City would have discretion to approve the project even if had some arguable tension with one or several planning policies. But for a Project that is protected by the HAA, the question is not a close one.
“[T]he HAA has changed the legal landscape for considering . . . challenges to [a city’s land use consistency] findings.” Save Livermore Downtown v. City of Livermore (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1130. “The HAA deems a housing project consistent with a plan's policy, standard, or requirement ‘if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude’ it is consistent. Id., quoting Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(4).) “Objective,” in turn, is defined as “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code. 65589.5, subd. (h)(8). Finally, subdivision (f)(4) of the HAA specifies that “a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.”
CSF’s General Plan discussion fails on two fronts. First, virtually all of these provisions are facially subjective, in that they involves “personal or subjective judgment.” See Policy 2.6.5 (to “encourage” agricultural uses), Policy 2.6.14 (to “encourage” a “mix of housing types and price ranges”), Policy 2.6.17 (to “minimize” situations where new development blocks views of vineyards), Policy 2.6.20 (to “encourage” “a more comprehensive and creative approach” to development), Policy 4.3.5 (to “protect against unnecessary incursion into vineyard agricultural areas”), Policy 4.4.1 (to avoid a “suburban pattern”), Policy 4.5.1 (to preserve “the sense of a strong connection to the surrounding … hillsides”), Policy 4.7.3 (to “maximize” vineyard views).
Remarkably, CSF does not disclose that one of the primary bases on which it urges the Council to disapprove the Project – that the site is “not physically suitable” for the project site – was found to be an unlawful reason to disapprove a housing development more than a decade ago.
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1079.
These General Plan policies are not “objective,” to put it mildly. And as such, they cannot serve as the basis for a Project disapproval under the HAA. The City would be subject to the many negative consequences provided under the HAA if it were to disapprove the Project as CSF demands.
Second, CSF wholly fails to consider the proper evidentiary framework – whether “there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project … is consistent, compliant, or in conformity” with the policies it references.
Gov. Code 65589.5, subd. (f)(4). At most, CSF simply asserts that it does not believe the Project satisfies these policies. That is irrelevant. What matters – and what CSF fails to address – is Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
whether substantial evidence exists that would allow a reasonable person to reach a contrary conclusion. These provisions simply provide no lawful basis for the Council to disapprove this Project, as the City Attorney has advised the Council.
4. The CEQA Letter Disregards the City’s Obligations under State Housing Law, and Housing Element Law Specifically.
CSF proceeds as though the City’s conduct with respect to CEQA (which has entered its thirteenth year) was not constrained by the HAA or by the City’s obligations to build 256 new units in the 6th RHNA Cycle. In fact, CSF goes so far as to state that the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval, allegedly made “on the notion [that] the state is forcing it to approval housing, … violates CEQA.” To the contrary, as the Court of Appeal for the First District recently observed:
“CEQA recognizes that an agency’s discretion is limited by its own legal obligations.
Accordingly, where a legal obligation limits an agency’s discretion, the scope of environmental review likewise is limited. (See, e.g., Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 714–716, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182.) This is also consistent with CEQA’s requirement that an agency exercise its discretionary powers in a manner ‘consistent with express or implied limitations provided by other laws.’ (Guidelines, § 15040, subd. (e) ....) Where a lead agency’s discretion already is limited by legal obligations, therefore, the scope of environmental review adjusts in relation to the amount of discretion....”
Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 732. See also id. at 782-83 (“It must be tough enough when the opposition is purely private. However, when private opposition is joined with official hostility, CEQA becomes an even more fearsome weapon. … Something is very wrong with this picture.”). While CSF makes no mention of these obligations, we remind the City that its discretion with respect to CEQA “is limited by its own legal obligations.” Id.
5. CSF’s Arguments Are Premised on a Local Standard that is Inconsistent with State Housing Law.
CSF references Municipal Code Section 16.16.080(B), alleging that the City is required to make the following findings and thereby disapprove the Project:
B. In recommending disapproval or in disapproving, or in recommending approval or in approving at a lower density a housing development which is in compliance with the applicable plans, zoning and development policies in effect at the time the project’s application was determined to be complete, the planning commission and city council shall make written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that both of the following conditions exist:
Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density.
2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified other than disapproval of the housing development project or approval upon condition that the project be developed at a lower density.
Specifically, CSF alleges that “there is substantial evidence in the record that the Project presents adverse impacts to public health and safety which have not or cannot be mitigated.” This standard is inconsistent with state housing law. First, the HAA (which of course governs and controls local governments’ approval of housing projects) provides that “it is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (j), arise infrequently.” Gov. Code 65589.5, subd. (a)(3). The impact must be a “quantifiable” impact on “based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A). Neither the garden variety traffic concerns nor the other concerns alleged by CSF come close to this standard. Second, both the Municipal Code and CSF apply the “substantial evidence” standard for a finding of a “specific, adverse impact” on public health or safety. The HAA, by contrast, applies the higher “preponderance of the evidence” standard.
Gov. Code 65589.5, subd. (j)(1). CSF does not argue that such findings can be made under this high threshold, and they cannot be.
6. CSF’s Criticisms of the EIR and the Statement of Overriding Considerations Are Erroneous.
The EIR concluded that the Project would have significant and unavoidable environmental impacts with respect to Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”). As we have explained repeatedly, the Applicant Team disputes these findings4 and the Council could and should find the impact actually less than significant. But assuming arguendo that the EIR’s conclusions are correct, the Staff Report’s recommendation to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations is also correct. We note that CEQA provides for public agencies to adopt such a statement of overriding considerations where “specific overriding . . . legal . . . benefits” of approving a project outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental effects. Here, in addition to the considerations listed in staff’s recommendations, the City’s need to comply with the HAA and with Housing Element Law should also be considered an additional and independent legal 4 See Comment Letter 93 (Leslie R. Perry, “Comments to Draft EIR – Hunter Subdivision Project” (Nov. 1, 2021) (enclosing W-Trans, “Comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Hunter Subdivision Project” (Nov. 1, 2021); DKS, “Review of City of St. Helena’s Application of SB 743 Requirements Project #21082-000 of the Planned Residential Development” (Oct. 20, 2021)) (Planning Commission Report, pages 3006-3017); Pub. Res.
Code §21082.2(a).
Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
benefit of approving the Project. See Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 733 (“A statement of overriding considerations—which is the finding described in subdivision (b) of section 21081—is to be used in situations where the public agency deems a project sufficiently important or desirable for reasons that override the normal obligation to mitigate significant environmental effects. One of those statutory reasons allows for considerations, conditions, or factors that are ‘legal.’”) (citing Pub. Res. Code §§ 21081, subds. (a)(3), (b), 21002.1, subd. (b); CEQA Guidelines § 15364).
CSF takes issue with the Statement of Overriding Considerations, primarily emphasizing the Statement’s reference to the provision of affordable housing, because “there is no affordable housing agreement to consider[,]” and that “any purported benefit would be purely speculative and lack substantial evidence.” CEQA Letter at 15. But there is no dispute that the City’s inclusionary zoning ordinance applies to the Project, and neither is there any dispute that the Project will comply with this ordinance.
CSF criticizes this position as “akin to concluding that every project complies with the law because the law requires it to.” CEQA Letter at 16. But that is not an improper conclusion. To the contrary, agencies may and often do assume compliance with regulatory requirements when making CEQA determinations. See, e.g., Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906 (“a condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.”).
In any event, “an agency’s decision that the specific benefits a project offers outweigh any environmental effects that cannot feasibly be mitigated … lies at the core of the lead agency’s discretionary responsibility under CEQA and is, for that reason, not lightly to be overturned.” City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, 368.
That CSF may have different policy priorities is hardly sufficient to invalidate the Statement of Overriding Considerations. That is particularly true here, where the City’s obligations under state housing law and Housing Element Law in particular strongly compel a course of conduct that brings this twelve-plus-year saga to a close. See Tiburon, 78 Cal.App.5th at 732 (“Where a lead agency’s discretion already is limited by legal obligations, therefore, the scope of environmental review adjusts in relation to the amount of discretion....”).
CSF’s other last minute objections to the EIR’s analysis, when examined closely, do not stand up to scrutiny. For example, CSF hinges much on a discussion in the Draft EIR – corrected in the Final EIR – stating that a well on the site was “inoperable.” As shown in the evidence before the City, and disclosed in the EIR, the well is fully capable of being rendered operable and was demonstrated through tests to be capable of producing significant water. The Draft EIR’s reference to the well being “inoperable” presumably only referred to the fact that it was not currently set up for operation, not that it would never be able to do so. To the extent the Draft EIR was unclear about this, this was corrected in the Final EIR– yet CSF persists in manufacturing a water supply crisis from this rather than reading the words and the facts in Agenda Item #5.1.
St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023
contest. On these and other factual questions, CEQA is clear that an agency’s findings are entitled to deference even if project opponents see the facts differently.
Conclusion
We do not share CSF’s dim view of the integrity of the City staff and Planning Commissioners who have recommended approval of the Hunter Project. These public officials have recommended approval of the Project because it is good public policy; it is also necessary to effectuate the City’s full compliance with state housing law. By contrast, CSF invites this Council to violate the law. We hope and expect the Council will not do so.
Once again, we appreciate your careful review of the Project.
Very truly yours,
Daniel R. Golub
William Sterling
West Coast Land Use & Environmental Law Practice Group
Holland & Knight LLP
cc: Maya DeRosa, AICP, Community Development Director
Ethan Walsh, City Attorney
Sarah Owsowitz, City Attorney
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: Laurel Krsek
To: cityclerk
Subject: [External] To St. Helena City Council regarding the Hunter Project Date: Monday, May 1, 2023 1:53:50 PM
Dear City Council Members,
This note is to submit my opinion on the proposed Hunter Project development.
I support and encourage the development of affordable and market-rate housing in St. Helena, but I strongly object to building homes in the proposed Hunter Project location before the traffic and circulation problems are addressed.
Although the Project will “implement the General Plan Circulation Element by completing the planned extension of Starr Avenue and the partial planned extension of Adams Street…", it does not address the real negative impact of the additional traffic on surrounding streets, nor does it address the high safety risk and problems that would occur in the event of a real emergency.
In the current plan, all local residents would have to be funneled through Pope or Adams streets to reach Highway 29 or the Silverado Trail. The Pope Street bridge is already a frequent bottleneck for access to the Silverado Trail. The evacuation drills that were tested with Vineyard Valley residents for this EIR do not take into account the magnitude of the problems that would occur with all neighborhoods attempting to evacuate during a significant local emergency.
While the proximity to Main Street for local workers may reduce some traffic, the public schools are located on the east side of Main Street and most families will be driving their children to those schools.
Please consider taking action to upgrade our ability to accommodate more traffic before the Hunter Project plan is implemented.
In regard to the current site map, I also feel it will be critical to add green space and playground for the residents. I trust that these issues would be addressed during future site planning approvals.
Thank you,
Laurel Krsek
Agenda Item #5.1.
From: Maria Villegas
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External] Letter to City Council
Date: Friday, April 28, 2023 5:51:49 PM
Attachments: Petition for extension.pdf
Attached is a letter to City Council.
Thank you,
Maria Villegas
Agenda Item #5.1.
HUNTER SUBDIVISION
Request by Ben and Kelly Vanzutphen to
subdivide a 16.9-acre parcel to establish
51 single-family residential lots and one
parcel for future multi-family development
(Tentative Map #2022-001)
Community Development Department May 1, 2023 Page 675 of 4422 Agenda Item #5.2.
Presentation Summary
• Project Description
• Location and Setting
• Analysis of Map Approval Findings, Including General Plan and Zoning
• Environmental Impact Report
• Issues of Concern to the Community
• Updates since February Planning Commission
• Planning Commission Recommendation
• Next Steps
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Description
The proposed project being considered by the City
Council is a Tentative Subdivision Map to
subdivide a 16.9-acre parcel of land in the eastern
area of the city, east of the existing terminus of
Adams Street.
The proposed subdivision would create 51 lots for
single family homes, and a separate parcel (lot 52)
on which multi-family attached housing units would
be built.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Description
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Description
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Description
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Description
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Description
The Applicant proposes to construct a total of 87 singleand multi-family homes and accessory dwelling units:
• Single Family Homes: 51 units
• Attached Multi-Family: 25 units
• Accessory Dwelling Units: 11 units
• TOTAL: 87 units
The overall residential density of the project, including all residential types, is 5.15 units per acre (87/16.9 = 5.15).
Agenda Item #5.2.
Future Required Approvals
Several future applications would be needed to be approved in a public hearing process before the project can be developed (in addition to complying with conditions of approval):
• Affordable Housing Agreement (City Council)
• Approval of Final Map/Subdivision Improvement Agreement (City Council) • Design Review (Planning Commission)
• Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family Housing (Planning Commission) The public will be notified of the above items and invited to the hearings.
The only application before the Commission at this time is the Tentative Subdivision Map and the Final EIR.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Location & Land Use
0.3 Miles
Agenda Item #5.2.
Project Location & Land Use
Agenda Item #5.2.
Site Photos
View to Northeast
Agenda Item #5.2.
Site Photos
View to East
Agenda Item #5.2.
Site Photos
View to West
Agenda Item #5.2.
Site Photos
View to West
Agenda Item #5.2.
Site Photos
View to NorthWest
Agenda Item #5.2.
Site Photos
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: Tentative Subdivision Map
Findings
Section 16.16.080(A) of the SHMC defines the findings which must be made to recommend approval of a tentative map. A map can be denied only if facts in the record support a conclusion that these findings cannot be made.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: Tentative Subdivision Map
Findings
A. In recommending approval or conditional approval or in approving or conditionally approving a tentative map, the planning commission and city council shall find:
1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of this code; and
2. Except for condominium conversion projects where no new structures are added, that the design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the state Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the city council.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: Govt Code Limits on Denials
Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1): If a housing development project complies with applicable objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application was deemed complete, the City may only deny the project if it finds, based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record that both of the following conditions exist:
“(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.”
Agenda Item #5.2.
CEQA and Map Approval
Before the proposed Tentative Map can be approved, CEQA must be applied. The City Council will first need to:
• Certify Final EIR, finding that it is complete and adequate • Because the project has one significant and unavoidable impact (Vehicle Miles Traveled or VMT), adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations which states that benefits of the project override the unavoidable impact on VMT.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: General Plan
1993 vs 2019 General Plan
Because the project application was deemed complete in
2011, the General Plan and Zoning Code at the time
(including the 1993 General Plan) are used for purposes of determining General Plan consistency.
Policies in the 2019 General Plan do not apply for the
purpose of determining General Plan consistency.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: General Plan
General Plan and Zoning have designated this site for
residential development of the type now proposed since
1993.
When the General Plan was updated in 2019, the land use designation remained the same, although the density range increased from 5.1 - 12 units/acre to 5.1 - 16 units per acre.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: General Plan
1993 General Plan
The 1993 General
Plan designates the
site for Medium
Density Residential
(5.1 – 12 units per
acre). Project is
Consistent with the
Land Use Map.
Separate review of
objective policies
concluded that the
project is also
consistent with the
2019 General Plan.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: General Plan
Figure 5. 3 of 2019
General Plan Potential
Future Roadway
Extensions
Figure 5.3 shows
future extensions of
Adams St (#3) and
Starr Ave (#1).
Project provides these
connections within the
project limits and is
consistent.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: General Plan
2019 General
Plan Potential
Future Roadway
Extensions
Extensions of Adams
St and Starr Ave as
shown on the
proposed tentative
map.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: General Plan
2019 General
Plan Bicycle
Network
Tentative map
provides for future
on-street bicycle
facilities in Adams
St and Starr Ave
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis
Zoning Map
The project site was
zoned “MR”
(Medium Density
Residential) on the
2010 Zoning Map.
Project is Consistent
with the Zoning Map.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: Zoning
Zoning Code
Development standards for lots in the MR zoning district:
• Minimum lot area: 7,000 square feet
• Minimum lot width and frontage: 70 feet
• Minimum density: 5.1 units per acre
Based on these standards:
• All proposed residential lots1 are at least 7,000 square feet in size • All proposed residential lots are at least 70 feet in width • The overall density of the project, including the proposed 25 multi-family homes on Parcel 52 and the proposed 11 accessory dwelling units, is 5.15 units per acre, which meets the minimum required density.
Project is Consistent
Agenda Item #5.2.
Analysis: Heating and Cooling
Passive Heating and Cooling
• Approximately 40 of the proposed lots would allow a house oriented in an eastwest configuration, allowing these homes, if properly designed, to take advantage of solar exposure.
• Approximately 40 of the proposed lots would allow for homes oriented so that, if front and rear doors and windows were opened, the prevailing upvalley breeze would provide for natural cooling.
• There is no existing shade on the property, but future homes would be required to install landscaping, including trees that would provide shade.
Project is Consistent.
Agenda Item #5.2.
2019 General Plan
2019 General Plan
The 2019 General
Plan designates the
site for Medium
Density Residential
(5.1 – 16 units per
acre). Project is
Consistent with the
Land Use Map.
Separate review of
2019 General Plan
policies concluded
the project is also
consistent.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Trails
Agenda Item #5.2.
Trails
Agenda Item #5.2.
Environmental Impact Report
A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review with a 45-day review period beginning on September 23,
2021 and ending on November 8, 2021.
Due to the volume of comments, the public review period was extended to November 30, 2021 for a total of 67 days.
All materials cited in the EIR are in the Draft or Final EIR or are available upon request at city hall.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Environmental Impact Report
• Aesthetics (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Agriculture and Forest Resources (Less than Significant) • Air Quality (Less than Significant)
• Biological Resources (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Cultural and Tribal Resources (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Energy (Less than Significant)
• Geology and Soils (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Less than Significant)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (Less than Significant)
Key:
Potentially
Significant Impact,
Mitigation
Available
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Agenda Item #5.2.
Environmental Impact Report
• Land Use and Planning (Less than Significant)
• Mineral Resources (Less than Significant)
• Noise and Vibration (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Population and Housing (Less than Significant)
• Public Services (Less than Significant)
• Recreation (Less than Significant)
• Traffic and Transportation (VMT) (Significant and Unavoidable) • Tribal Cultural Resources (Less than Significant)
• Utilities and Service Systems (Less than Significant) • Wildfire (Less than Significant)
Key:
Potentially
Significant Impact,
Mitigation
Available
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact
Agenda Item #5.2.
Environmental Impact Report
Four Project Alternatives are examined in the EIR:
• Alternative 1) No Project/No Development Alternative, • Alternative 2) No Project/General Plan
• Alternative 3) Park/Open Space Preserve Alternative
• Alternative 4) Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative Agenda Item #5.2.
Environmental Impact Report
Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, would result in the fewest environmental impacts, and is the “environmentally superior alternative.” Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
Of the other alternatives evaluated, Alternative 3, the Park/Open Space Preserve alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, according to the Draft EIR, “... this alternative would not avoid all of the significant impacts associated with the Project and all of the identified mitigation would still be required.”
Agenda Item #5.2.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Because the project has at least one significant, unavoidable impact (Vehicle Miles Traveled), state law requires that the City state why it is accepting the adverse impact.
This is called a “Statement of Overriding Considerations”
Agenda Item #5.2.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA Guidelines Section 15043
“A public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that:
(a) There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (see Section 15091); and
(b) Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of
reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project.” Agenda Item #5.2.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared which proposes the following reasons why approving the project is appropriate:
1. The Project provides needed housing to the City, particularly affordable housing.
2. The City, per the adopted 2015 Housing Element, has a jobs to housing ratio above the County average, indicating a need for additional housing. As of the most recent Housing Element Progress Report (April 2022), the City had not met its regional housing needs allocation for very-low or moderate income housing.
3. The Project would implement the City’s General Plan. The Project site is identified as a housing site in the City’s current General Plan, the current Housing Element, and the previous two iterations of the City’s General Plan.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
4. The significant and unavoidable impact is related to VMT. Ultimately VMT per capita will be reduced by providing necessary housing in jurisdictions with a high number of jobs. As stated previously, the City of St. Helena currently has a jobs housing imbalance which the Project will help address.
5. The Project will pay development fees which will assist in needed infrastructure improvements in the City, including wastewater treatment and collection systems.
6. The Project would construct the extension of Starr Avenue and the partial extension of Adams Street consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Final Environmental Impact Report
A total of 121 Draft EIR comment letters were received. Responses to Comments were prepared and included in the Final EIR. Topics included:
• Concern about the capacity of downstream sewer lines to accommodate additional flows generated by the project.
• Concern about the “high density” of the proposed project. • Concern about the loss of open space and the ability to walk on informal trails located on the project site.
• Concern about projected water use and the ability of the project to feasibly comply with the City’s water neutrality requirement.
• Concern about future traffic congestion and traffic safety impacts (including for children walking to school).
Agenda Item #5.2.
Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR Comments Continued)
• Concern about the project’s impact on the ability of residents in the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community to evacuate in the event of an emergency. • Concern about the ability of the City-constructed levee on the Napa River (built to protect the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community from flooding) to protect new homes in the proposed project.
• Concerns about changes to the appearance of the project site when existing open space and vines are replaced with a suburban neighborhood. • Concerns about the project’s effect on the City’s plans to construct a new roadway connection to the Silverado Trail.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Final Environmental Impact Report
All comments are responded to in the Final EIR. “Master responses” were written to address these frequently expressed comments:
• Emergency evacuation
• Water Neutrality
• Flood protection and Napa River levee
• Wastewater conveyance
Individual responses are provided for all other comments.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Issues of Concern
Based on public input and prior review of the project, the following are issues of concern to the public. These are not necessarily related to the findings of approval for the tentative map.
▪ Water Neutrality
▪ Trail/Open Space
▪ Levee/Flooding
▪ Parking
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Sewer Capacity
▪ “High Density” Nature of the
Project
▪ Traffic/Congestion
▪ Intersection Design Adams
Street/Starr Avenue and
Starr Avenue/Street A
▪ Vacation of City Property
Agenda Item #5.2.
Water Neutrality
The project is required to comply with the City’s water neutrality ordinance, which requires that new development offsets its use of City water. The project will offset its use by:
• Using an existing on-site water well for outdoor irrigation and other uses (approx. 17 acre-feet/year savings)
• Constructing other improvements as specified in the proposed conditions of approval.
• All improvements must be in place before final map can be recorded, or as specified in the Conditions of Approval.
• Retrofitting of toilets or other fixtures in existing homes is not proposed.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Onsite Well
Does the Onsite Well Require a New County Permit?
Because the well has an existing 1973 permit and to the City’s current knowledge does not require modification, and because no increase in well use over estimated historic levels is proposed, the evidence before the City does not suggest that a new well permit is required by Napa County.
Given this information, Staff’s conclusion is that a new County well permit is not required which might trigger new limitations on well production.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Napa River Levee
Agenda Item #5.2.
Napa River Levee
• Completed in 2011
• Reviewed and inspected by the City, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, several engineering consultants, County, and FEMA
• Designed to provide 200-year flood protection
• FEMA revised its flood mapping to reflect protection
provided by the levee
• Inspected monthly
Agenda Item #5.2.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Updates Since Planning Commission
Tonight’s staff report package includes several minor changes from the package reviewed by the Planning Commission in February:
• Additional comment letters and responses (attachments to staff report)
• Minor changes to the proposed condition of approval (details in staff report)
• Resolutions updated to include today’s date and revised conditions of approval
Agenda Item #5.2.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On February 7, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council:
1.Adopt a Resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR, approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
2.Adopt a Resolution recommending approval of the requested Tentative Map No. 2022-001, File #PL10-040 for the Hunter Subdivision project.
Separate Resolutions have been prepared for these
recommendations.
Agenda Item #5.2.
Levee Legal Issues
• City Attorney briefing on Levee legal issues
Agenda Item #5.2.
Next Steps
If the Hunter Tentative Subdivision Map is approved,
additional approvals are required before homes can be
built:
• Affordable Housing Agreement (CC)
• Final Map/Subdivision Improvement Agreement (CC)
• Conditional Use Permit for Multi-Family (PC)
• Development Review of Homes (PC)
Agenda Item #5.2.
Questions?
Agenda Item #5.2.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST,
HELENA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 2018032014) FOR THE HUNTER
SUBDIVISION PROJECT; ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project, Tentative Map 2022-001 (“Project”) entails the subdivision of a 16.9 acre site (Assessor’s Parcel No. 009-030-057; hereinafter, the “Project site”) in the City of St. Helena (“City”) into 51 lots to accommodate single-family residences, a 3.4-acre parcel that would accommodate 25 attached residential units (which would be income restricted, with 5 units affordable to very low-income families, and 20 to moderate income families), a 0.06-acre parcel that would not be developed, and a 0.04-acre parcel for an existing agricultural well, which sill supply water for all onsite landscaping and other outdoor uses; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project would result in the development of 87 residential units—51 single-family residences, accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) on 11 of the single family lots, and 25 attached residential units—resulting in an average density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project further includes grading of the Project site, construction of the extensions of Starr Avenue and Adams Street, construction of local residential streets, and installation of utility lines; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project requires discretionary approvals from the City, including a Tentative Subdivision Map Approval (insert TSM No. 2022-001) and future discretionary approvals including an Affordable Housing Agreement, design review, and a conditional use permit, all of which must be obtained before development of the proposed Project may proceed;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”) and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000, et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Draft EIR that provided for a comment period of over 30 days, from March 6, 2018 to April 9, 2018, and the NOP Agenda Item #5.3.
was sent to each responsible agency, trustee agency, the Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”), and interested parties, including members of the public who had requested such notice; and WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on March 12, 2018 to further solicit comments on the scope of the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City initiated a 45-day public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, issuing a Notice of Availability and releasing the Draft EIR for public review and comment from September 23, 2021 through November 8, 2021; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others during the 45-day public review and comment period; and WHEREAS, the City received a total of 122 letters during the 45-day public review and comment period, including 2 letters from interest group organizations, and 120 letters from individual members of the public; and
WHEREAS, the City held two public meetings, on November 2, 2021, and November 30, 2021, to further solicit public comments on the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project identified, discussed and sufficiently analyzed significant effects which may occur as a result of the Project, feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project’s potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing any of these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on February 7, 2023, held a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC2023-001, recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Draft EIR, the Final EIR; and
Agenda Item #5.3.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered as well as the City Council’s draft CEQA findings, draft Statement of Overriding Consideration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY ST. HELENA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City.
The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
SECTION 5. The documents and materials that constitute the records of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the City of St. Helena City Hall at 1572 Railroad Ave. St. Helena, CA. The custodian for these records is the City of St. Helena City Clerk.
This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
SECTION 6. City staff shall cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.
Agenda Item #5.3.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the City of St. Helena City Council approved the foregoing at a Special Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on May 1, 2023, by the following vote:
Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
ADOPTED AND APPROVED the 1st day of May, 2023.
Agenda Item #5.3.
EXHIBIT A: DRAFT FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
Agenda Item #5.3.
1 SECTION 1. FINDINGS REGARDING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS NOT
REQUIRING MITIGATION
Consistent with Public Resources Code section 21002.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15128, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty that there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact. Nevertheless, the City Council hereby finds that the Project would have either no impact or a less-than-significant impact to the following resource areas:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-24 through 3.1-26.) Explanation: The City’s 1993 General Plan and the City’s recently adopted 2019 General Plan do not designate any specific scenic resources or vistas within the City for protection, and so the Project will not have a substantially adverse effect on any designated scenic vista. Moreover, the Project has been designed to protect views of the surrounding hillsides and open space areas through the orientation of Starr Avenue and Adams Street, and the Project site itself does not include highly valued landscape and is not considered a scenic vista. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-24 through 3.1-26.)
2. Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-24.)
Explanation: The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway because there is no state highway that would be impacted by the Project. The Project site is located approximately 0.2 miles from SR 29, an eligible state scenic highway, but the Project site is not visible from the highway due to intervening trees, buildings, and structures.
The Project site does not contain any scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, does not contain any other significant natural or historical features that are visible from a state scenic highway, and, accordingly, would not limit view of such features from SR 29 or any other state scenic highway.
For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-24.) Agenda Item #5.3.
2 3. Existing Visual Character of the Site and Surrounding Area Threshold: Would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-26 through 3.1-34.) Explanation: The Project will comply with the City’s Design Review Ordinance and undergo design review to ensure that the Project is visually consistent and compatible with the applicable General Plan, with adjacent buildings, and with the existing environment. Additionally, the Project will comply with the site’s zoning requirements, including requirements relating to building height and mass. For these reasons and the reason set forth in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-26 through 3.1-27.)
Additionally, the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Views of the site are limited and primarily available from private property (i.e., backyards), at the terminus of Starr Avenue and Adams Street, along Del Rio Court (a private street) within the immediate vicinity of the site, and from a gravel maintenance road bordering the north/northwest boundary of the site used by the public as a walking trial. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-27.) Visual simulations in the Draft EIR illustrate the fact that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-29, 3.1-21.) For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project will have a less-than-significant effect relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-26 through 3.1-34.) B. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Finding: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-12.) Explanation: While the Project site does include 5.8 acres of Prime Farmland and 0.6 acres of Farmland of Statewide importance that would be converted to urban uses as a result of the Project, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (“LESA”) model—a model designed to ensure a quantitative and consistent approach to determining potentially significant impacts to agricultural resources— was used to assess the Project’s impact on agricultural lands. Based on the LESA assessment which evaluated the soil resource quality, project size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands the quality of agricultural lands on the Agenda Item #5.3.
3 Project site were found to be low quality and did not meet the standard to be considered significant agricultural resources. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-9-3.2-10.)As set forth in the EIR, the Project’s impacts associated with the removal of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-12.)
2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or with a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-11.) Explanation: The Project site is not under a Williamson Act contract and does not include any land zoned for agricultural use. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.) There are agriculturally zoned lands to the north and northwest of the Project site. The Project would not directly or indirectly affect lands to the north and northwest such that continued agricultural use would be impaired. .
Notably, the development of residences on the Project site would not directly or indirectly result in conversion of the agricultural land to the north and northwest of the Project site to nonagricultural uses. The City’s Municipal Code (Chapters 17.32 through 17.60 and 17.68) includes provisions that require property owners adjacent to agricultural operations to recognize that adjacent properties have the right to farm and that there is a good faith expectation that the adjacent neighbors will not complain to the City regarding legal normal agricultural activities, including day or night disbursement of chemicals, and creation of dust, noise, or fumes. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-11 through 3.2-13.)
3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined by 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))?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)
Explanation: The Project site does not contain any forest or timberland and is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)
4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
4 Explanation: The Project site does not contain forest land and is not designated as forest land. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-6, 3.2-11.)
5. Indirect Conversion
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-12 through 3.2-13.) Explanation: While there is agricultural land to the north and northwest of the Project site that is currently in active agricultural production, the Project would result in physical changes to the environment that would . directly or indirectly result in a conversion of this farmland to nonagricultural use. In addition, the City’s Municipal Code includes provisions that require property owners adjacent to agricultural operations to recognize that adjacent properties have the right to form and that there is a good faith expectation that the adjacent neighbors will not complain to the City regarding legal normal agricultural activities, including day or night disbursement of chemicals, and creation of dust, noise, or fumes. As noted above, the Project would not convert forest land to non-forest use, as there is no forest land on the Project site. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have no impact to farmland or forest land. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-12 through 3.2-13.)
C. AIR QUALITY
1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-28 through 3.3-31.) Explanation: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) has set forth a three-step methodology for determining a project’s consistency with the applicable air quality plan. The EIR engaged in this three-step process and concluded based on substantial evidence that the Project would support the goals of the applicable air quality plan (the 2017 Clean Air Plan), that the Project complies with applicable control measures from the applicable air quality plan, and that the Project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the applicable air quality plan. As part of this analysis, the EIR demonstrated the Project would result in less than significant construction and operational emissions and would not result in long-term adverse air quality impacts. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and would thus have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-28 through 3.3-
31.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
5 2. Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-31 through 3.3-36.) Explanation: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (“SFBAAB”), is in non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards.
BAAQMD has developed thresholds of significance to determine whether a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The EIR estimated the Project’s emissions relating to both construction and operation using the CalEEMod model and concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant (including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5) for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-31 through 3.3-36.)
3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3-36 through 3.3-37.) Explanation: The Project would not generate substantial criteria air pollutant emissions or associated pollutant concentrations, as construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Moreover, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants (“TACs”), as the Project’s TAC emissions during both construction and operation of the Project would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. The Project additionally would not expose sensitive receptors to significant carbon monoxide concentrations, as the Project’s carbon monoxide emissions would be less than significant. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the Project thus have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.3- 31 through 3.3-37.)
4. Objectionable Odors
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3-28.) Agenda Item #5.3.
6 Explanation: The Project does not include a land use associated with the generation of odors that could affect a substantial number of people and would not generate such odor impacts.
For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.3-28.) D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Riparian Habitat and Sensitive Natural Communities
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.) Explanation: There are no riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities within the Project site that were identified in local, regional, or federal plans, policies, or regulations. For this reason and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)
2. Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. For example, the Project would not require removal of any trees, and no permit relating to this issue is therefore required. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, there would be a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)
3. Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan?
Findings: No Impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within the boundary of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-43.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
7 E. ENERGY RESOURCES
1. Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption
Threshold: Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-14 through 3.5-16.) Explanation: The Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operational activities. The EIR analyzed the Project’s potential consumption of various energy resources, including electricity, natural gas, and petroleum during both the Project’s construction and operation phases, and it concluded based on substantial evidence that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-14 through 3.5-16.)
2. Conflict with Energy Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.15-19 through 3.15-20.) Explanation: The Project is required to meet Title 24 and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards to reduce energy demand and increase energy efficiency, and the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.15-19 through 3.15-20.) F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Rupture of an Earthquake Fault
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within a fault rupture hazard zone. Because the Project site is not crossed by any known active or potentially active fault, the Project would Agenda Item #5.3.
8 not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)
2. Landslides
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving landslides? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located in an area subject to landslides. The Project site is located on relatively flat ground and is not adjacent to any areas with steep slopes or hillsides that could result in a landslide. The Project would therefore not cause potential substantial adverse effects relating to landslides, and the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-20.)
3. Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-20 through 3.6-21.) Explanation: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
A potentially significant impact relating to soil erosion or loss of topsoil could occur if the Project would result in soil erosion sufficient to undermine structures or compromise slope stability—e.g., if the Project would result in rills (small narrow channels) and gullies, whereby storm runoff produces deep incisions into the soils and slopes. The Project, however, would not result in such soil erosion because the Project site is on relatively flat land. Moreover, runoff resulting from the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of top soil, as runoff would be managed and discharged into an existing detention basin. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp.
3.6-20 through 3.6-21.)
4. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-21.)
Explanation: The Project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; rather, the Project would connect to the City’s sewer system to convey wastewater to a treatment plant. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p.
3.6-21.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
9 5. Geologic Features
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-21.) Explanation: The Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature. The Project site does not contain any unique geologic features, such as a landform or rock outcrop of scientific, cultural, or aesthetic interest. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue and not mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-21.)
G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions (“GHGs”), either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-30 through 3.7-31.) Explanation: The Project would not generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. The EIR analyzed the amount of GHGs that would be generated by the Project during both its construction and operation phases, and it concluded based on substantial evidence that the amount of GHGs generated by the Project would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of significance. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp.
3.7-30 through 3.7-31.)
2. Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Policies, and Regulations Threshold: Would the Project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-31 through 3.7-38.) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose or reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The City has not adopted an applicable GHG reduction plan. As set forth in the EIR, the Project would be consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Plan Bay Area, the California Air Resources Board’s (“CARB”) Scoping Plan, and other goals and policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-31 through 3.7-38.) For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-31 through 3.7-38.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
10 H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-16.) Explanation: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during its construction or operation.
During construction of the Project, no acutely hazardous materials would be used, and while some hazardous materials (such as fuels, motor oil, and lubricants) would be used in small amounts, the materials would not pose a significant risk to off-site residents or construction workers because they would be used and stored in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
Moreover, development of the Project would be subject to existing regulatory requirements for hazardous materials, including requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit through the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”). The SWPPP would require implementation of control measures for hazardous material storage, soil stockpiles, inspections, maintenance, training of employees, and containment of releases to prevent contaminated runoff into nearby stormwater collection systems or waterways. Included within the SWPPP, best management practices would be required to contain hazardous materials and minimize the contact of hazardous materials with stormwater. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.)
During operation of the Project, residents would be expected to use and store typical household hazards such as house paint, cleaning products, herbicides, and pesticides. The amounts of hazardous materials that residents store or use is negligible and not considered sufficient to create a significant safety hazard to the public, or otherwise pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-16.)
For these reasons and the reasons set forth in EIR, the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, and impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-15 through 3.8-16.)
2. Acutely Hazardous Materials within ¼ Mile of an Existing or Proposed School
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Agenda Item #5.3.
11 Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.) Explanation: 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. The Project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.)
3. Hazardous Materials Sites
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a site that 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? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.) Explanation: The Project would not be located on a site that is included on a list of known hazardous materials sites, as confirmed in the EIR and in a Phase I ESA prepared for the Project.
For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-14.)
4. Public Airports and Private Airstrips
Threshold: For a project 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, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, there would be no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-15.)
5. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-20 through 3.8-21.) Explanation: Neither the construction nor the operation of the Project would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. During construction, the Project will implement the SWPPP, which would include an Integrated Contingency Plan and an evacuation plan for construction workers in the event of an emergency. Compliance with the SWPPP and the Integrated Contingency Plan would ensure impacts are less than significant during construction. The Project would similarly have a less-than-significant impact during its operation phase, as the City’s Fire Department will review Agenda Item #5.3.
12 the site plans to ensure adequacy of emergency access. Streets and roads will be adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and the Project will have alternative emergency ingress and egress. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project will have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-20 through 3.8-21.)
6. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-21 through 3.8-22.) Explanation: Neither construction nor operation of the Project would expose people to adverse impacts involving wildland fire. CalFire does not identify the Project site as being within an area susceptible to wildland fires. During construction of the Project, the Project will comply with best management practices included within the SWPPP to further ensure that the Project would not result in wildfires. Operation of the Project would not have adverse impacts relating to wildland fires, as the Project will be built in compliance with the California Building Code’s requirements for fire protection. Moreover, and as discussed above, the Project is designed with an emergency vehicle access to facilitate the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles, including the City and Napa County Fire Department’s apparatus, and the Project is designed to further provide emergency evacuation access for residents. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not result in a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-21 through 3.8-22.)
I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Compliance with Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-39.) Explanation: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and it would not otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Construction of the Project would not result in any potentially significant impact relating to this issue because the Project would comply with the Construction General Permit, and the City’s Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance would require implementation of a SWPPP to address potential construction-related impacts on water quality. The standard requirements contained in a SWPPP are sufficient to address a project’s potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Operation of the Project would likewise not result in any potentially significant impact relating to this issue as the Project would comply with the standards and performance criteria contained in the Small MS4 Permit, which requires Agenda Item #5.3.
13 development projects to adhere to site design measures, source control measures, treatment control measures, and certain operation and maintenance requirements that ensure a less-than-significant impact. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-34 through 3.9-39.)
2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-40 through 3.9-43.) Explanation: 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 basis. The County works with local jurisdictions, including the City, to sustainably manage the Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”). In its most recent assessment of conditions, the County, through its technical consultant, has determined that the Subbasin is not exhibiting significant impacts with regard to the applicable sustainability indicators defined by SGMA, including lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater in storage, degradation of groundwater quality, and depletion of interconnected surface waters. The EIR additionally includes an analysis of the Project’s demand on groundwater resources, including the Project’s use of the on-site well, and the EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-40 through 3.9-43.)
3. Existing Drainage Patterns and Runoff
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-44 through 3.9-45.) Explanation: The Project would not alter the course of a stream or river and is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (“SFHA”) of the Napa River, and accordingly, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Moreover, the Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site as the off-site City detention basin has been designed with adequate capacity to capture and treat increases in the rate and volume of stormwater runoff associated with development in this area of the City, including development of the Project site with impervious surfaces. Additionally, the Project would be subject to the most recent standards and performance Agenda Item #5.3.
14 criteria contained in the Small MS4 Permit and a Stormwater Control Plan that complies with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Post Construction Manual. The Project’s compliance with existing permitting requirements and standard conditions of approval (i.e., MS4 Permit and the City’s Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance) are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation, including erosion and siltation. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-44 through 3.9-45.)
4. Surface Runoff and Flooding
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-45.) Explanation: The Project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. The City-owned off-site detention basin has been designed to store the increase in storm water runoff generated from the Project site during a 100-year storm event. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-45.)
5. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity and Polluted Runoff Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-45 through 3.9-46.) Explanation: The Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The Project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code, which requires the Project to construct storm drains or improve existing storms drains to ensure adequate capacity is available to carry runoff produced by a 10-year storm event. The Project’s utility plan confirms that on-site storm flows at the Project site would be conveyed to the off-site detention center via storm drain lines. Moreover, the existing off-site detention basin was designed to accommodate runoff from the Project site. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project’s impact relating to this issue would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.9-45 through 3.9-46.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
15 6. Flood Flows
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-44.) Explanation: The Project would not alter the course of a stream or river and is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (“SFHA”) of the Napa River, and accordingly, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-13.) Natural Hazards
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-34.)
Explanation: The Project site is not within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, and the Project and does not contain the preconditions necessary for a project to be at risk of hazards due to a tsunami, or seiche which require a reasonable distance and elevation relative to a coastline (for sea level rise or seiche) or large body of water (for seiche waves). There be no impact (or risk) associated with a tsunami or seiche. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, there would be no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-13.)
7. Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-46.) Explanation: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The County works with local jurisdictions, including the City, to sustainably manage the Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin in compliance with SGMA. In its most recent assessment of conditions, the County, through its technical consultant, determined that the Subbasin is not exhibiting significant impacts with regard to the applicable sustainability indicators defined by SGMA, including lowering of groundwater levels, depletion of groundwater in storage, degradation of groundwater quality, and depletion of interconnected surface waters. Moreover, the Project would comply with applicable regulations and permits designed to comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Agenda Item #5.3.
16 Region. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.9-46.) J. LAND USE AND PLANNING
1. Divide an Established Community
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-14.)
Explanation: Due to the Project’s location, development of the Project would not physically divide an established community because there is no development northwest or northeast of the site. The Project would, instead, provide a continuation of the existing neighborhood with development of a new residential area. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.10-14.)
2. Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.10-14 through 3.10-19.) Explanation: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the applicable General Plan or any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The EIR analyzed the Project’s consistency with the City’s 1993 General Plan, 2019 General Plan, Housing Element Update, and Zoning Ordinance, as well as the Project’s consistency with the Plan Bay Area 2040. The EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any of the foregoing. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.10-14 through 3.10-19.)
K. MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? Findings: No impact.
Explanation: The Project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by regionally important mineral resources. The California Geological Survey identifies the Project site as MRZ-4, indicating that insufficient information exists to assign the site with any other mineral resource zone Agenda Item #5.3.
17 designation. No mineral resources have been identified in or around the Project site, and none of the previous use of the Project site included mining activities or mineral processing. For these reasons, this issue was dismissed from further discussion during the EIR scoping period (see Notice of Preparation issued March 6, 2018). No comments were received by the City regarding mineral resources during scoping or review of the Draft EIR. The Project would no impact relating to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
2. Locally Important Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Findings: No impact.
Explanation: The Project site is not located within an area known to be underlain by locally-important mineral resources. The California Geological Survey identifies the Project site as MRZ-4, indicating that insufficient information exists to assign the site with any other mineral resource zone designation. No mineral resources have been identified in or around the Project site, and none of the previous use of the Project site included mining activities or mineral processing.
The City’s General Plan does not identify the Project site as containing locally important mineral resources. For these reasons, this issue was dismissed from further discussion during the EIR scoping period (see Notice of Preparation issued March 6, 2018). No comments were received by the City regarding mineral resources during scoping or review of the Draft EIR. The Project would have no impact relating to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
L. NOISE
1. Groundborne Vibration
Threshold: Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-17 through 3.11-18.) Explanation: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The EIR analyzed the vibration that would be generated by the use of heavy equipment necessary for the construction of the Project, and it determined, based on substantial evidence, that vibration generated by the Project would be below the relevant threshold of significance set forth by Federal Transit Administration. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-17 through 3.11-18.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
18 2. Private/Public Airports
Threshold: 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?
Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-14.)
Explanation: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, and it is not located within two miles of a public airport. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-14.)
M. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1. Induce Substantial Growth
Threshold: Would the Project 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)?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-3 through 4.6.) Explanation: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area. While the Project does entail residential development and would result in population growth, the population growth is not unplanned. The Project site was designated for future residential development in the City’s 1993 General Plan and 2019 General Plan, and the Project site is located within the City’s Urban Limit Line with access to existing utilities. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-3 through 4.6.)
2. Displacing Housing and People
Threshold: Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Findings: No impact.
Explanation: The Project does not entail the demolition of any housing, and would not otherwise displace any residents. (Draft EIR, p. 2-2.) For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not have no impact relating to this issue.
Agenda Item #5.3.
19 N. PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Fire Protection Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-13 through 3.12-14.) Explanation: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, relating to fire protection services. The Project site would be served by the City’s fire department located at 1480 Main Street, approximately 0.2 miles from the Project site. Moreover, the increase in population generated by the Project is within the projected population growth in the City’s 1993 and 2019 General Plans and would not generate an increase in population that would necessitate the construction of a new facility or expansion of an existing facility. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-13 through 3.12-14.)
2. Police Services
Threshold: Would the proposed Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-14 through 3.12-15.) Explanation: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, relating to police protection services. The Project would be served by the City’s police station, approximately 0.2 miles from the Project site.
While the City would likely hire an additional police officer to serve the approximately 213 residents the Project would add to the City, the addition of one police officer would not require the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, police facilities because adequate space is available at the existing St. Helena Police Department Facility. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-14 through 3.12-15.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
20 3. Education
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-15.) Explanation: No school would need to be constructed or physically altered in order to accommodate the approximately 28 students that would be generated by the Project. As set forth in the EIR, the local primary school, elementary school, middle school, and high school all have sufficient capacity to accommodate the students generated by the Project. In addition, the Project will pay all required school impact fees consistent with Government Code Sections 65995–65998.
For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-15.)
4. Parks
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a 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?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Explanation: Parks within the vicinity of the Project include Lyman Park, Jacob Meily Park, and Lewis Station, all of which are located within approximately 0.3 miles of the Project site. These parks have adequate facilities to accommodate the Project’s estimated 213 residents, with such facilities including picnic and turf areas, children’s playgrounds, and a walking trail.
Moreover, park and recreational impact fees are imposed on all residential development within the City, and the Project applicant must pay all required park fees, which the City will use to ensure that the increased use of existing parks due to the Project’s anticipated residents would not cause result in substantial physical deterioration of the park facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.)
5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant Agenda Item #5.3.
21 environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.12-16.) Explanation: While the 213 residents generated by the Project would increase demand for existing public facilities within the City (including the George and Elsie Wood Public Library and City Hall), Chapter 3.32 of the City’s Municipal Code requires payment of a civic improvement fee that would offset any impacts the Project might have. The civic improvement fee was calculated to ensure new development would pay its proportionate share of the cost of existing and future capital assets required to serve the City. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p.
3.12-16.)
O. RECREATION
1. Existing Facilities
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Explanation: Parks within the vicinity of the Project include Lyman Park, Jacob Meily Park, and Lewis Station, all of which are located within approximately 0.3 miles of the Project site. These parks have adequate facilities to accommodate the Project’s estimated 213 residents, with such facilities including picnic and turf areas, children’s playgrounds, and a walking trail.
Moreover, park and recreational impact fees are imposed on all residential development within the City, and the Project applicant must pay all required park fees, which the City will use to ensure that the increased use of existing parks due to the Project’s anticipated residents would not cause result in substantial physical deterioration of the park facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.)
2. New Recreational Facilities
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Findings: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Explanation: The Project does not propose to construct any new on- or off-site recreation facilities, and the Project would not expand any existing off-site recreational facilities. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have no impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-16 through 3.12-17.) Agenda Item #5.3.
22 P. TRANSPORTATION
1. Consistency with Circulation Performance Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-39 through 3.14-40.) Explanation: The Project would be consistent with applicable plans, city ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Notably, the Project would provide adequate sidewalks and bicycle amenities and would not conflict with any plans or policies supporting either the development of these facilities or the use of these facilities. The Project would not conflict with any plans or policies that address transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-39 through
3.14-40.)
2. Transportation Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-46 through 3.14-51.) Explanation: The Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use that would contribute to an increase in collisions or create visual obstructions that would impede vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians from having safe access to and from the Project site.
The Project would result in the extension and construction of roads, but these roads would be designed to accommodate emergency service vehicles and maintain accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists according to City street design standards. For example, the Project would extend Starr Avenue northward into the Project site, and intersect with Adams Street, which the Project would also extend eastward from its current terminus. As Starr Avenue is extended northward, it would narrow from an approximately 75-foot right-of-way (ROW) to a 60-foot ROW with 4-footside sidewalks and a 6-foot-wide planter strip on both sides of the street, consistent with City’s street standards. This extension, along with Adams Street, would be designed to accommodate emergency service vehicles and maintain accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists according to City street design standards. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-46 through 3.14-47.) The Project would also result in internal public residential streets within the Project site to accommodate neighborhood circulation and provide on-street parking on both sides of the Starr Avenue and Adams Street extensions (where permitted). These roadways would be designed to be consistent with all applicable City street design criteria and conform to the City’s Municipal Code Agenda Item #5.3.
23 (Section 16.32.060) to ensure that emergency service vehicles can adequately access and circulate within the Project site. As explained in the EIR, there are no visual obstructions that would impede vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians from having safe access to and from the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 3.14-47.)
The EIR additionally considered accident data and a collision analysis to determine whether the Project would increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.
The analysis, based on substantial evidence, demonstrates that the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-47 through 3.14-48.) The EIR further analyzed the Project’s potential to increase hazards during Project construction, and the EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact. Notably, while certain construction activities could require temporary lane closures, the Project would first be required to obtain construction permits through the City, and the City’s traffic engineer would first prepare a temporary traffic control plan for the construction activities. As a result, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses during construction of the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-49 through 3.14-50.) For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-thansignificant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-46 through 3.14-51.)
3. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.15-51.) Explanation: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The St. Helena Fire Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, and it did not identify any issues with inadequate emergency access. Notably, the Project includes two primary access points, Star Avenue and Adams Street, as well as a separate emergency vehicle access. In the event of an emergency, there would be three avenues that would enable vehicles to enter or exit the Project site. Moreover, the Project would be consistent with 1993 General Plan Policy 8.5.7 and 2019 General Plan Policy PS4.6, which require all streets and roads be designed with adequate width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress. Additionally, once the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved, the Project’s Final Subdivision Map would be subject to additional review by the St.
Helena Fire Department to confirm that the Project provides proper emergency access. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, p. 3.15-51.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
24 Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1. Utilities Infrastructure
Threshold: Would the Project 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 of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-27 through 3.13-30.) Explanation: While the Project would require new water, sewer, storm drain, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure on site to serve the proposed residential development (e.g., on-site water, sewer, and storm drain lines and utility connections), 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 telecommunication facilities. As explained in the EIR, the City’s water and wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities and the City’s stormwater drainage facilities have the capacity to accommodate the demands of the Project, and the Project would not require the construction of new such facilities or expansion of the existing facilities. Additionally, the City collects development impact fees on new development to pay for public improvements relating to water projects, sewer projects, and stormwater drainage projects. The Project applicant would pay these fees, which would help offset any increased demands on the City’s water, sewer, and stormwater drainage systems. The Project will be served by Marin Clean Energy for electricity service, by Pacific Gas & Electric Company for natural gas service, and by various service providers for telecommunications services. The Project would not require the relocation or construction of electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would result in a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-27 through 3.13-30.)
2. Sufficient Water Supplies
Threshold: Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-31 through 3.13-32.) Explanation: Sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The longterm safe yield of the City’s water supply is 1,950 acre-feet per year, which consists of 600 acrefeet from the City of Napa contract, 900 acre-feet from Bell Canyon reservoir, and an average use of 450 acre-feet from groundwater. Recent water usage in the City is well below the 1,950 acrefeet target, with water usage ranging from 1,882 acre-feet (2013) to 1,465 acre-feet (2016) and averaging 1,637 acre-feet over the last eight years. Even if one were to add the Project’s entire water demand of 37.04 acre-feet per year to the highest water demand in recent years of 1,882 Agenda Item #5.3.
25 acre-feet, this would result in a City-wide water demand of 1,919 acre-feet, which is below the Safe Yield of 1,950 acre-feet.
In addition, the Project will comply with the City’s water neutrality policy, meaning that the 37.04 acre-feet per year of water that would be used during Project operation would be completely offset through a combination of using the on-site water well for irrigation needs and implementation of water conserving measures. Notably, the existing on-site agricultural well is proposed to be used to provide non-potable supplies to the separately plumbed landscape irrigation systems throughout the Project site to irrigate public and private landscaping. The on-site well has sufficient capacity to meet the Project’s estimated landscape water demand of 17.16 acre-feet per year. Moreover, to comply with the City’s water neutrality policy, the Project applicant is required to off-set the Project’s water demand as a condition of approval. To comply with Municipal Code section 13.12.030, the Project applicant shall identify and implement offsite improvements that reduce water loss from the public water distribution system and/or identify and implement offsite improvements that result in a net increase in potable water availability equivalent to 19.8 AFY, or a combination of these.
For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would result in a lessthan-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-31 through 3.13-32.)
3. Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-32 through 3.13-33.) Explanation: The City’s Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”) has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s existing demand in addition to the WTTP’s existing commitments. The WWTP is permitted, and has capacity, to discharge up to 0.5 MGD during dry weather and up to
2.8 MGD during wet weather of treated effluent. The Project is expected to generate an average of
0.018 MGD of wastewater. As the WWTP currently treats an average flow of 0.384 MGD, the additional 0.018 MGD combined with the current average flow of 0.384 MGD would not exceed the plant’s permissible allowable average dry weather flow effluent of 0.5 MGD. Because adequate capacity is available at the WWTP to serve the Project, and for the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13- 32 through 3.13-33.)
4. Landfill Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Agenda Item #5.3.
26 Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-33 through 3.13-34.) Explanation: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, and it would not otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. During construction, the Project would contribute less than 0.1% of the Clover Flat Landfill’s permitted capacity per day. As this is a relatively minimal contribution, the Clover Flat Landfill would have adequate landfill capacity for the Project’s construction debris. During operation, the Project would contribute approximately 0.04 percent of the average unused daily capacity of the Clover Flat Landfill, and the Project would therefore not exceed the capacity of the landfill. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp.
3.13-33 through 3.13-34.)
5. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-33 through 3.13-34.) Explanation: The Project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Notably, the 2016 CALGreen Tier 1 mandatory measures require preparation of a Construction Waste Management Plan that documents the diversion of materials as required by CALGreen and at least 65% of nonhazardous construction waste would be required to be recycled or salvaged. The Project would comply with these mandatory measures. Additionally, the Project would comply with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element solid waste diversion requirement and the AB 939 solid waste diversion requirements. The Clover Flat Landfill provides mandated commercial recycling processing services, production of organic feedstocks for composting, and renewable energy generation. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable local and state solid waste diversion, minimization, and recycling regulations. For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.13-33 through 3.13-34.)
R. WILDFIRES
1. Impairment of Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Agenda Item #5.3.
27 Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone (“VHFHSZ”) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CalFire”) and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue.
Regardless, as noted above and discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8- 20 through 3.8-21.) For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)
2. Exacerbation of Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project, 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?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as VHFHSZ by CalFire and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. Regardless, the Project site is flat, so the Project would not expose Project occupants to fire hazards due to proximity to hilly terrain or landslides due to post-fire conditions. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)
3. Infrastructure-Related Wildfire Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project require 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?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-13 through 4.16-14.) Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as VHFHSZ by CalFire and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. Moreover, the Project does not require installation of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)
4. Landslides and Slope Instability
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, Agenda Item #5.3.
28 including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Explanation: The Project is not located on a site designated as VHFHSZ by CalFire and would therefore have a less-than-significant impact relating to this issue. Regardless, the Project site is flat, so the Project would not expose Project occupants to fire hazards due to proximity to hilly terrain or landslides due to post-fire conditions. For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not result in a significant impact relating to this issue, and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.)
SECTION 2. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a level of less than significant. The potentially significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less-than-significant level, are as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
1. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-41.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project would not create a new source of glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area, and the Project’s impacts relating to glare would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-34.)
The Project would introduce new light sources into an area that is currently undeveloped, and this could potentially impact nighttime views absent mitigation. To ensure that any aesthetic light-related impact of the Project is mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
AES-1: To minimize spillover light while ensuring adequate nighttime security, the Project applicant shall prepare lighting design guidelines for the Project to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Design Review process. The lighting design guidelines shall include a lighting plan noting fixtures and lumens, and standards such as, lighting Agenda Item #5.3.
29 is to be shielded and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light, up cast decorative lighting shall be limited to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the area, and the use of mirrored glass shall not be permitted. The lighting guidelines shall conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. The guidelines and lighting plan shall be approved as part of the Design Review application.
Implementation of MM AES-1 would ensure that light introduced to the Project site would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area by minimizing spillover light and limiting up cast light. With implementation of MM AES-1, the Project’s potential direct and cumulative impacts relating to new lights introduced to the Project site would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-41.)
B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Special Status Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-43 through 3.4-49.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: No federal or state-listed wildlife species have the potential to occur on the Project site. Only a small number of special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur onsite—native bats, the white-tailed kite, and nesting and migratory birds. There is low potential for these species to occur on the Project site. Nevertheless, absent mitigation, the Project could have a potentially substantially adverse effect on these species.
Native bats. The Project is not anticipated to result in any direct impacts to roosting bats.
Roosting habitat, such as rock outcrops, trees, caves, and human-made structures, are absent from the Project site. Additionally, the pallid bat is unlikely to roost on or near the Project site due to frequent human disturbance. Moreover, the Project would avoid potential roost sites within the vicinity of the Project site, such as the trees along the southeastern margin of the site.
Absent mitigation, the Project could potentially have indirect impacts on native bats. If bats were to roost in the area during construction, they could be indirectly impacted by construction-related noise. Indirect impacts to roosting bats could also result from increased light, glare, and activity associated with operation of the Project. To ensure that any potential impacts Agenda Item #5.3.
30 relating to roosting bats are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats in trees adjacent to the Project site within 2 weeks prior to any Project construction (site clearing, grading). The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and presence of guano within the Project site and 50 feet around these areas. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be mapped and described in a survey letter report. If roosting bats (individuals or colonies) are detected within the Project site, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified as soon as possible prior to any construction activity to confirm the bats can be avoided during construction. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely avoided, a qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and approval, and that plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction that could impact the roosting bats or maternity colony.
AES-1: To minimize spillover light while ensuring adequate nighttime security, the Project applicant shall prepare lighting design guidelines for the Project to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Design Review process. The lighting design guidelines shall include a lighting plan noting fixtures and lumens, and standards such as, lighting is to be shielded and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light, up cast decorative lighting shall be limited to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the area, and the use of mirrored glass shall not be permitted. The lighting guidelines shall conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. The guidelines and lighting plan shall be approved as part of the Design Review application.
Implementation of MM BIO-1 would ensure that measures be taken to avoid any potentially significant impact to roosting bats during construction of the Project. Additionally, implementation of MM AES-1 would address indirect impacts to native bats relating to spillover light, which can affect some species. With implementation of these required mitigation measures, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to native bats would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-46 through 3.4-48.) Agenda Item #5.3.
31 White-tailed kites. No white-tailed kites have been observed on or near the Project site during the 2011, 2015, 2018, or 2019 biological surveys of the site. Moreover, no tree removal is proposed as part of the Project, so no direct impacts (such as mortality and/or injury to nesting kites) are anticipated as a result of the Project. However, if white-tailed kites were to be breeding near the site before Project initiation, construction-related activities could potentially cause an adult kite to abandon an active nest that is in close proximity to the construction area, potentially leaving eggs or chicks vulnerable to predation or without provisions. In addition, increased lighting and glare associated with the Project’s operation could result in indirect impacts to the white-tailed kites’ nesting habitat. As explained below, mitigation is necessary to ensure that any potentially significant impact relating to white-tailed kites is mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Nesting and migratory birds. No active nests for nesting or migratory birds were documented on or near the Project site during the 2011, 2015, 2018, and 2019 biological surveys.
However, trees, shrubs, grassland, and vineyards on or adjacent to the Project site provide potential nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) and California Fish and Game Code section 3500. Direct impacts to nesting birds could result from vegetation clearing and site grading during Project construction. Potential indirect impacts to birds nesting near the Project site during construction would essentially be identical to those described above for white-tailed kite.
To ensure that any potential impacts relating to white-tailed kite and nesting and migratory birds are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
BIO-2: If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), the Project applicant or their contractor shall implement the following measures to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting raptors and other nesting birds:
• Preconstruction surveys by a biologist of all potential nesting habitats within 500-feet of construction activities, where accessible, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance. If construction is stopped for 14 days or more during the breeding season, a new preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted before work can be restarted to ensure no new nesting has occurred in the interim.
• If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required, following submittal of a survey report letter to the City of St. Helena Planning Department.
Agenda Item #5.3.
32 • If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a nodisturbance buffer shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined by the biologist that all the young have fledged. The buffers shall be established by the biologist in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Typical buffers may include 500 feet for raptors and 50 to 250 feet for other bird species based on the location of the nest, the nesting species present, and types of construction activities that may cause potential nest abandonment. The perimeter of the buffer zone shall be fenced or marked with staked flagging.
AES-1: To minimize spillover light while ensuring adequate nighttime security, the Project applicant shall prepare lighting design guidelines for the Project to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Design Review process. The lighting design guidelines shall include a lighting plan noting fixtures and lumens, and standards such as, lighting is to be shielded and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light, up cast decorative lighting shall be limited to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the area, and the use of mirrored glass shall not be permitted. The lighting guidelines shall conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. The guidelines and lighting plan shall be approved as part of the Design Review application.
Implementation of MM BIO-2 would ensure that measures be taken to avoid any potentially significant impact concerning white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds during the avian nesting season. Additionally, implementation of MM AES-1 would address indirect impacts to white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds relating to spillover light, which can affect some species. With implementation of these required mitigation measures, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-46 through 3.4-48.)
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM AES-1. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-43 through 3.4-49.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
33 2. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project 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? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-49.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project site supports 0.07 acres of wetlands, 870 linear feet of other waters, consisting of four seasonal wetlands and two agricultural ditches. Construction activities would result in the fill of the four wetlands, and construction of a retaining wall on or near the property line may potentially impact agricultural ditches by filling or otherwise altering the structure or flow of these features. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-49.) To ensure that any potential impacts of the Project relating to wetlands are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
BIO-3: Wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively) shall be obtained prior to any grading work. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate authorization from the Army Corp of Engineers and any other regulatory agency to alter the wetland.
Implementation of MM BIO-3, through the permitting process for waters of the state and waters of the U.S., compensation would be required for a loss of wetlands that can be avoided or replaced on-site. Compensation may be in the form of off-site replacement or purchase of approved mitigation banking credits. With implementation of MM BIO-3, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to wetlands would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-49.)
3. Wildlife Movement and Nesting/Migratory Birds
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-50 through 3.4-51.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor due to the surrounding development, lack of connectivity with other undeveloped areas, and existing and Agenda Item #5.3.
34 historic uses of the site. Moreover, the Project site does not provide suitable aquatic habitat for native resident or migratory fish species, and the Project site does not provide an essential habitat linkage or migratory corridor functions for resident or migratory wildlife. Additionally, existing permitting requirements and conditions of approval (e.g., MS4 Permit and the City’s Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance) are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation and to meet water quality standards, rendering potential indirect impacts to any native resident or migratory fish via construction runoff in the Napa River less than significant.
Absent mitigation, the Project could potentially impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Although the annual grassland onsite does not provide adequate cover or nursery sites for many mammal species, trees along the edge of the site could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats. In addition, some birds may use the grassland for nesting when sufficient (i.e., tall) vegetation is present. Moreover, because the riparian corridor along the Napa River is located approximately 500 feet north of the Project site, absent mitigation, lighting and increased usage of the site by humans may result in indirect effects to local wildlife using the riparian corridor for nursery sites or as a migratory corridor. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
AES-1: To minimize spillover light while ensuring adequate nighttime security, the Project applicant shall prepare lighting design guidelines for the Project to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Design Review process. The lighting design guidelines shall include a lighting plan noting fixtures and lumens, and standards such as, lighting is to be shielded and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light, up cast decorative lighting shall be limited to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the area, and the use of mirrored glass shall not be permitted. The lighting guidelines shall conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. The guidelines and lighting plan shall be approved as part of the Design Review application.
BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats in trees adjacent to the Project site within 2 weeks prior to any Project construction (site clearing, grading). The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and presence of guano within the Project site and 50 feet around these areas. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be mapped and described in a survey letter report. If roosting bats (individuals or colonies) are detected within the Project site, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified as soon as possible prior to any construction activity to confirm the bats can be avoided during Agenda Item #5.3.
35 construction. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely avoided, a qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and approval, and that plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction that could impact the roosting bats or maternity colony.
BIO-2: If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), the Project applicant or their contractor shall implement the following measures to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting raptors and other nesting birds:
§ Preconstruction surveys by a biologist of all potential nesting habitats within 500-feet of construction activities, where accessible, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance. If construction is stopped for 14 days or more during the breeding season, a new preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted before work can be restarted to ensure no new nesting has occurred in the interim.
§ If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required, following submittal of a survey report letter to the City of St. Helena Planning Department.
§ If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a nodisturbance buffer shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined by the biologist that all the young have fledged. The buffers shall be established by the biologist in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Typical buffers may include 500 feet for raptors and 50 to 250 feet for other bird species based on the location of the nest, the nesting species present, and types of construction activities that may cause potential nest abandonment. The perimeter of the buffer zone shall be fenced or marked with staked flagging.
Implementation of MM AES-1 would ensure that lighting associated with the Project would adhere to guidelines and standards that reduce glare and spillover light and would ensure that indirect impacts to wildlife relating to light would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Implementation of MM BIO-1 would avoid any potentially significant impact to roosting bats Agenda Item #5.3.
36 during construction of the Project, while implementation of MM BIO-2 would avoid any potentially significant impact concerning white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds during the avian nesting season. With implementation of MM AES-1, BIO-1, and BIO-2, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-50.) C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-26 through 3.5-29.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project site is undeveloped and there are no buildings present on the Project site that could be considered historical resources under CEQA; therefore, the Project would not have an impact any historical buildings. There are archaeological resources, however, on the Project site that qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. Notably, the Project site is intersected by CA-NAP-406, which is a small site on which 5,711 pieces of lithic debitage, 17 bifaces, one core, seven edge-modified flakes, one hammerstone, 101 charcoal fragments, seven pieces of baked clay, and 40 historical-era artifacts were found. CA-NAP-406 has been determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Properties (“NRHP”) and the California Register of Historic Properties (“CRHP”). Previous investigations evaluating CA-NAP406, however, were restricted to portions of this resource located west of the Project site. Phase 1 and Phase 2 archaeological excavations, as well as a ground-penetrating radar (“GPR”) investigation, were conducted on the Project site, and based on this evidence, no intact deposits or features associated with CA-NAP-406 appear to extent to within the Project site. It is likely that the upper layer of fill present on a majority of the Project site is comprised largely of redeposited and otherwise disturbed cultural deposits associated with CA-NAP-406. Soils identified below the fill were not found to contain cultural deposits or substantial frequencies of cultural material.
However, because there is the potential to unearth unknown resources during Project construction, there could be a potentially significant impact to subsurface archaeological resources, absent mitigation. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
CUL-1: The City shall require that an archaeological monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact previously identified cultural resources or to encounter unanticipated cultural deposits including tribal cultural resources. The determination for Agenda Item #5.3.
37 a Native American monitor to be present shall be made by the City, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribe prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. In addition, prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing work, construction crews shall be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Areas observed to have potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present in depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.
The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be provided a copy of technical reports prepared for the Project and pertinent appendices to inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological and tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the qualified archaeological principal investigator, that meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted, in consultation with the Tribe.
Should it be determined by the Tribe and the archeologist, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. As approved by the City, in consultation with the Tribe this buffer may be adjusted by the Tribe and the archaeological principal investigator to a distance that maintains a protective perimeter around the unanticipated resource, while still allowing for construction to continue in the surrounding area.
Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that proper procedures and protocol are in place in the event a resource is identified. The procedures require work to stop in the event a resource is discovered and require an archaeologist and/or Native American Agenda Item #5.3.
38 representative to be contacted to determine the appropriate course of action depending on the resource. For the reasons discussed herein and the reasons discussed in the EIR, compliance with MM CUL-1, along with Public Resources Code section 5097.98, California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e), would ensure that potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-26 through 3.5-29.) B. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5- 29 through 3.5-30.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: A Cultural Inventory Report and Extended Phase I and Phase II Reports were prepared for the Project, which explain that three archeological sites were previously identified within the Project site (CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP-1008), two of which (CANAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008) were determined not to be NRHP/CRHR eligible. The Cultural Inventory Report determined that impacts to CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 would not represent a significant effect, although appropriate mitigation to account for unanticipated impacts would be required. Resource CA-NAP-406 has been determined to be eligible for CRHR (Criterion 4) and NRHP (Criterion D) listing. The Phase I and Phase II archaeological excavations and GPR investigation did not identify any intact deposits or features associated with CA-NAP406 within the Project site. However, the Project could result in a potentially significant impact relating to this issue absent mitigation, due to the sensitivity of the site for unknown archeological resources that may be present subsurface that could be unearthed during construction activities. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:
CUL-1: The City shall require that an archaeological monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact previously identified cultural resources or to encounter unanticipated cultural deposits including tribal cultural resources. The determination for a Native American monitor to be present shall be made by the City, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribe prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. In addition, prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing work, construction crews shall be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Areas observed to have Agenda Item #5.3.
39 potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present in depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.
The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be provided a copy of technical reports prepared for the Project and pertinent appendices to inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological and tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the qualified archaeological principal investigator, that meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted, in consultation with the Tribe.
Should it be determined by the Tribe and the archeologist, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. As approved by the City, in consultation with the Tribe this buffer may be adjusted by the Tribe and the archaeological principal investigator to a distance that maintains a protective perimeter around the unanticipated resource, while still allowing for construction to continue in the surrounding area.
Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that proper procedures and protocol are in place in the event a resource is identified. The procedures require work to stop in the event a resource is discovered and require an archaeologist and/or Native American representative to be contacted to determine the appropriate course of action depending on the resource. For the reasons discussed herein and the reasons discussed in the EIR, compliance with MM CUL-1, along with Public Resources Code section 5097.98, California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e), would ensure that potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-29 through 3.5-30.) Agenda Item #5.3.
40 C. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5- 30 through 3.5-31.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: A substantial level of archaeological investigation work was conducted to analyze the potential impacts of the Project, including a Cultural Inventory Report, Extended Phase I and Phase II Reports, and a GPR investigation that looked for any subsurface anomalies to a depth of approximately 26 feet below the surface. No human remains have been documented or have been found during the archaeological investigation work conducted for the Project.
Nevertheless, due to the high archeological sensitivity of the area around the Project site, it is possible to inadvertently uncover human remains during ground-disturbing Project activities, such as grading and excavation. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:
CUL-2: In the event any human remains are unearthed during site disturbing activities, Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies protocols to follow in the event human remains are discovered. The Code mandates stopping work within 100 feet of the find and contacting the County Coroner to determine the origin of the remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours to request that the Commission determine the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent shall be provided with the opportunity to make recommendations regarding the means of treating or disposing of the remains with appropriate dignity. Projectrelated ground disturbance in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until all statutory requirements have been met and evidence of completion has been submitted to the City, in consultation with the Tribe.
Implementation of MM CUL-2 provides specific procedures to follow in the event human remains are identified. The procedures require work to stop and the County Coroner contacted to determine the origins of the remains. For these reasons and the reason set forth in the EIR, compliance with MM CUL-2 and with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code would ensure that the Project’s potentially direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Agenda Item #5.3.
41 D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1. Seismic-Related Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6- 21 through 3.6-23.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Seismic ground shaking is an unavoidable hazard for nearly all man-made facilities (buildings and structures) in the region. The geologic setting means proposed facilities are likely to experience ground shaking from at least one major earthquake (e.g., greater than moment magnitude 6.7) sometime during the operational life of a project. The Project site is also underlain by soils that if not properly engineered during construction site preparation, could be subject to secondary effects such as seismically induced liquefaction, differential settlement or compression. If future development of the site is not constructed in a manner that protects residents from geologic and seismic hazards, the Project could have a significant impact. The City General Plan includes policies to address geological impacts, as does the Municipal Code. Initial geotechnical work for the Project site has identified issues related to liquefaction and identified recommendations to avoid or reduce risks due to liquefaction. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:
GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, the Project applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical report prepared and submitted to the City of St. Helena Building Department for review and approval in accordance with adopted City standards. The structural designs shall adhere to the currently adopted version of the California Building Code. The report shall identify specific site preparation methods, grading practices, foundation designs, and other recommendations appropriate for minimizing damage from weak soils, expansive soils, differential settlement, and seismic hazards, including liquefaction. Specifically, the following requirements for the geotechnical and soils report shall be met:
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conduct a detailed evaluation of liquefaction in accordance with California Agenda Item #5.3.
42 Department of Conservation Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. • Additional subsurface soil borings shall be completed as necessary to represent the full range of site conditions, including the southern portion of the parcel mapped as alluvial fan.
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall include recommendations for building foundations and improvements, including sidewalks, parking lots, and subsurface utilities, that take into consideration the potential effects of settlement, collapse, and expansive or corrosive soils. This includes the recommendation to over excavate to an average depth of 4.5 feet (and up to 10 feet in the location of the former pond) due to anticipated settlement. • All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical report shall be implemented as a condition of project approval. This report shall be completed as a condition of approval of the final tentative map.
Implementation of MM GEO-1 and compliance with the California Building Code would ensure that impacts to relating to seismic ground shaking and liquefaction would be reduced to a level of less than significant. With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-23.)
2. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would implementation of the Project occur on weak, compressible, and/or expansive soils that could result in adverse impacts on habitable structures? Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-
24.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the Project indicated that engineered fill was placed on top of a 3-foot layer of soft, weak natural soil with high moisture content across the Project site, and above uncompacted fill in a former pond area. Over-excavation, moisture-conditioning, and recompaction of the recent fill and the underlying weak soils was recommended to avoid future settlement after development. It is anticipated that placement of engineered fill for use as structural building pads, roads, and within utility trenches (including) over excavation and recompaction would remove and/or otherwise address the preexisting Agenda Item #5.3.
43 potential for expansive or corrosive soils. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented: (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-24.)
GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, the Project applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical report prepared and submitted to the City of St. Helena Building Department for review and approval in accordance with adopted City standards. The structural designs shall adhere to the currently adopted version of the California Building Code. The report shall identify specific site preparation methods, grading practices, foundation designs, and other recommendations appropriate for minimizing damage from weak soils, expansive soils, differential settlement, and seismic hazards, including liquefaction. Specifically, the following requirements for the geotechnical and soils report shall be met:
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conduct a detailed evaluation of liquefaction in accordance with California Department of Conservation Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. • Additional subsurface soil borings shall be completed as necessary to represent the full range of site conditions, including the southern portion of the parcel mapped as alluvial fan.
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall include recommendations for building foundations and improvements, including sidewalks, parking lots, and subsurface utilities, that take into consideration the potential effects of settlement, collapse, and expansive or corrosive soils. This includes the recommendation to over excavate to an average depth of 4.5 feet (and up to 10 feet in the location of the former pond) due to anticipated settlement. • All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical report shall be implemented as a condition of project approval. This report shall be completed as a condition of approval of the final tentative map.
Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that impacts to relating to weak, compressible, and/or expansive soils would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM GEO-1 requires compliance with California Department of Conservation Special Publication Agenda Item #5.3.
44 117A, which ensures that unstable soils would be addressed. With implementation of MM GEO1, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-24.)
3. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would implementation of the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6- 24 through 3.6-25.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: there are no records of fossil finds within the City, and the Holocene alluvium mapped at the surface has a low potential for paleontological resources. However, there is a slight chance deeper excavations on-site for underground utilities, for example, could encounter Pleistocene age alluvium with the potential for fossils. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:
GEO-2: In the event that known or suspected paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading or trenching, the area of discovery shall be roped off by the construction contractor to include a 50- foot radius buffer and remain off-limits until cleared by a qualified paleontologist. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines, who shall be tasked with assessing the significance of the fossil find, including documenting the nature, location, and taxa of the find. The qualified paleontologist shall use his/her professional judgement as to the significance of the find, and whether the find should be preserved in a museum repository. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor shall remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. Documentation of the fossil find, including appropriate salvage and recovery of fossil specimens and of transfer of to an appropriate repository (e.g., University of California Museum of Paleontology) shall be submitted to the City of St. Helena as evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure.
MM GEO-2 identifies the appropriate steps if paleontological resources are uncovered during site disturbance. With implementation of MM GEO-2, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-25.)
Agenda Item #5.3.
45 E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Upset and Accident Conditions
Threshold: Would the Project 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?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-16 through 3.8-19.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Due to the historic use of a portion of the site for agricultural uses, specifically an orchard in the late 1940s, there is a potential for contaminated soils to be encountered during construction activities. While the Phase I ESA concludes that it is unlikely that residual levels of pesticides would be present in significant concentrations, the absence of contaminants of concern such as OCPs and arsenic has not been confirmed through on-site soils testing. While potentially significant impacts are not likely, to ensure that any Project impact concerning hazardous materials are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
HAZ-1: As a condition of approval for construction and grading permits for the Project site, the Project applicant shall ensure the following subsurface soils testing and follow-up analysis shall be performed prior to obtaining a grading permit:
• A soils testing work plan shall be developed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (DTSC 2008) by an appropriately licensed individual (i.e., professional geologist, engineer, or similar qualification) for the portions of the Project site historically used for agriculture. Special consideration shall be given to targeting site soils that are representative of historic agricultural use, and to avoid sampling recent fill material placed during levee construction. Prior to carrying out soils testing, the work plan shall be submitted to the Napa County Division of Environmental Health (as the Certified Unified Program Agency for all cities and areas of Napa County) and the City of St. Helena for review and approval.
• The number of soil samples, sampling methods, compounds tested, background samples (if applicable), and laboratory analyses shall Agenda Item #5.3.
46 be completed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance. Should analytical results exceed naturally occurring concentrations or applicable CHHSLs, the health risks of such a condition shall be evaluated in human health risk assessment as described in DTSC standards and guidance (e.g., preliminary endangerment
assessment guidance manual).
• The risk assessment shall describe measures that must be implemented to ensure potential health risks to construction workers, site residents, and the general public as a result of hazardous materials are reduced to a cumulative risk of less than one in one million for carcinogens and a cumulative hazard index of 1 for non-carcinogens, or as required by the Napa County Division of Environmental Health acting as the Certified Unified Program Agency and/or DTSC oversight.
• In the event human health risk assessment shows elevated chemical concentrations pose a risk to human health or the environment, the risks shall be eliminated or substantially reduced by removal (e.g., excavation of soils and off-site disposal) or remediation of contaminated soils, and/or implementation of institutional controls and engineering controls (IC/EC). IC/EC may include use of a construction risk management plan, use of hardscape to cap problem areas, importation of clean soil in landscaped area to eliminate exposure pathways, and/or deed restrictions. If IC/EC are implemented, an Operations and Maintenance Program shall be prepared and implemented to ensure that the measures adopted are maintained throughout the life of the project.
• The soil testing report, and if applicable, the human health risk assessment and Operations and Maintenance Program, shall be subject to review and approval by the City of St. Helena Department of Public Works, the Napa County Division of Environmental Health and/or other regulatory oversight agencies.
Implementation of MM HAZ-1 would ensure that if soils located within the Project site contain pesticides that exceed CHHSLs for residential development and occupancy, such soils would be removed and/or remediated prior to any site disturbance or occupancy. With implementation of MM HAZ-1, a preliminary soil screening survey would ensure that soils on the Project site would comply with CHHHLs for residential development and occupancy ensuring the impact is mitigated to less than significant. With implementation of MM HAZ-2 and compliance Agenda Item #5.3.
47 with all applicable federal, state, and regional regulations regarding hazardous materials, potential impacts related to upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-18).
F. NOISE
1. Local Noise Level Standards
Threshold: Would the Project generate 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? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-14 through 3.11-20.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project would not result in significant operational noise impacts in excess of applicable standards. The EIR includes analysis of stationary and mobile (transportation) noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The analysis concluded that the Project’s operational activities would not result in a substantial noise increase that would exceed applicable City noise standards noise.
Construction of the Project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors (residences) to elevated noise levels. The City’s Health and Safety Code (Chapter 8.24 of Title 8, the Health and Safety Code) requires noise generating construction activities (including demolition, excavation, and building construction), be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and prohibited on Sunday and holidays (City of St.
Helena Chapter 8.24). This ensures that sensitive receptors are not disturbed by early morning or late night activities. However, the City’s 1993 General Plan includes Implementing Policy 8.3.11, which states “Require construction operations to use noise suppression devices and techniques and limit noisy construction activities to the least noise sensitive times (8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday).” Due to the proximity of residences to the Project site and the potential for construction noise to be an annoyance, the impact is considered potentially significant unless City policies and ordinances are implemented. To ensure that short-term construction noise does not have a significant impact upon residential receptors, the following mitigation measure has been identified:
NOI-1: The Project applicant or its contractors shall implement the following for onsite noise control and sound abatement means that, in aggregate, would yield sufficient construction noise reduction during the site preparation, grading/excavation and building construction phases of the Project to ensure compliance with the FTA-based guidance standard of 90 dBA hourly Leq at or beyond the property lines of the nearest residences, as noted.
Agenda Item #5.3.
48 Administrative Controls – At all times during site preparation and construction:
• Comply with Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code with respect to allowable construction periods,
• Minimize idling time of onsite equipment, and
• Either locate onsite stationary construction equipment (such as generators or air compressors) as far from adjacent residential property boundaries as is feasible, or place this equipment inside an approved noise-attenuating casing (e.g., sound-attenuated air intakes and heat vents, exhaust mufflers, etc.), or place this equipment indoors.
Engineering Controls – All mobile and stationary construction equipment employing an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order; and Install Sound Abatement – During site preparation and construction which involves the operation of more than two pieces of heavy equipment (dozer, backhoe, frontend loader, crane, tractor, etc.) for at least one hour and when operating within 25 feet of the exterior of a residence (either offsite or onsite), do the following:
• Erect a temporary barrier (i.e., plywood sheet) or install sound blankets (or comparable temporary solid barriers) on the Project’s construction fencing, or
• Locate sound path intervening containers or trailers onsite to block direct line-of-sight between residences and the operating heavy equipment.
Implementation of MM NOI-1 would substantially lessen construction noise upon adjacent residences by requiring administrative controls, engineering controls, and/or installation of sound abatement. Installation of an effectively placed storage container or a temporary plywood or blanket barrier on a portion of the site boundary that blocks line-of-sight between the source(s) of noise emission and the receptor of concern (e.g., residence) would be expected to provide a minimum of 3-5 dBA of noise reduction. By way of examples, doubling the distance of an operating generator from a receptor would be expected to yield a 6 dB reduction in noise. Proper engine mufflers installed on construction equipment helps ensure that source sound emission levels are further reduced. Implementation of MM NOI-1 would help minimize construction noise impacts to less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-16.) G. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Resources Eligible for Listing in Register of Historical Resources Threshold: 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, Agenda Item #5.3.
49 place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-31 through 3.5-32.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Based on a review of the Cultural Resources evaluation conducted for the Project site and letters provided by the Tribes in response to letters sent by the City pursuant to AB 52, there are no known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) present, as defined in PRC Section 21074, on the Project site or in its immediate vicinity. Due to the sensitivity of the site for unknown archeological resources that could be unearthed during construction activities, it was determined there would also be potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be encountered during Project. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure has been identified:
CUL-1: The City shall require that an archaeological monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact previously identified cultural resources or to encounter unanticipated cultural deposits including tribal cultural resources. The determination for a Native American monitor to be present shall be made by the City, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribe prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. In addition, prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing work, construction crews shall be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Areas observed to have potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present in depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.
The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be provided a copy of technical reports prepared for the Project and pertinent appendices to Agenda Item #5.3.
50 inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological and tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the qualified archaeological principal investigator, that meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted, in consultation with the Tribe.
Should it be determined by the Tribe and the archeologist, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. As approved by the City, in consultation with the Tribe this buffer may be adjusted by the Tribe and the archaeological principal investigator to a distance that maintains a protective perimeter around the unanticipated resource, while still allowing for construction to continue in the surrounding area.
While no known TCRs have been identified that may be affected by the Project, implementation of MM CUL-1 would require construction work to stop and a Native American representative contacted (if not already conducting on-site monitoring) if any TCRs are unearthed and appropriate measures to be implemented to evaluate the significance of the find. Compliance with MM CUL-1 would ensure potential impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-
32.)
2. Resources Determined by the Lead Agency
Threshold: 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, or 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 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?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-31 through 3.5-32.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Based on a review of the Cultural Resources evaluation conducted for the Project site and letters provided by the Tribes in response to letters sent by the City pursuant to AB 52, there are no known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) present, as defined in PRC Section 21074, on the Project site or in its immediate vicinity. Due to the sensitivity of the site for unknown Agenda Item #5.3.
51 archeological resources that could be unearthed during construction activities, it was determined there would also be potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be encountered during Project. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure has been identified:
CUL-1: The City shall require that an archaeological monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact previously identified cultural resources or to encounter unanticipated cultural deposits including tribal cultural resources. The determination for a Native American monitor to be present shall be made by the City, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribe prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. In addition, prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing work, construction crews shall be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Areas observed to have potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present in depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.
The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be provided a copy of technical reports prepared for the Project and pertinent appendices to inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological and tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the qualified archaeological principal investigator, that meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted, in consultation with the Tribe.
Should it be determined by the Tribe and the archeologist, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. As approved by the City, in consultation with the Tribe this buffer may be adjusted by the Tribe and the Agenda Item #5.3.
52 archaeological principal investigator to a distance that maintains a protective perimeter around the unanticipated resource, while still allowing for construction to continue in the surrounding area.
While no known TCRs have been identified that may be affected by the Project, implementation of MM CUL-1 would require construction work to stop and a Native American representative contacted (if not already conducting on-site monitoring) if any TCRs are unearthed and appropriate measures to be implemented to evaluate the significance of the find. Compliance with MM CUL-1 would ensure potential impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-
32.)
SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY
MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. TRANSPORTATION
1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)?
Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-40 through 3.14-46.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).) Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project’s significant and unavoidable impact relates to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Explanation: The Project’s significant and unavoidable impact relates to VMT. The City is using the threshold for residential land uses recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning Research (OPR) in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018).
OPR recommends that a residential project that exceeds a level of 15% below existing VMT per capita would have a potentially significant transportation impact. Existing VMT may be defined as the average for the jurisdiction, or regionally. The City has selected the City of St. Helena as the appropriate basis of comparison. The City’s average VMT per capita is 11.34, as estimate by the Solano Napa Activity-Based Model (SNABM). The Project VMT per capita, estimated by SNABM based on the Project location, is 11.37. Based on the applied threshold of significance, a Project VMT above 9.64 is considered significant.
Agenda Item #5.3.
53 Key factors for VMT are location and regional land use patterns. In other words, VMT correlates to how far residents must travel for work, shopping, and other services. Potential mitigation measures include neighborhood/site design to encourage walking and cycling, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to reduce commute trips. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project includes pedestrian and bicycle network improvements. Generally, employment and retail opportunities are not close enough to the Project site to realize large reduction in automotive travel. It is estimated that the project design may reduce VMT by up to
2.0%. TDM strategies are generally geared towards employment uses, where employers can encourage and incentivize alternative means of commuting. As a residential development, the Project is limited in such measures. The EIR estimates such measures would realize a less than
0.5% reduction in VMT. The Project site is not currently served by the local transit operator. Per the City’s 2019 General Plan, transit usage across the City is only 1%. Therefore, even if extension of transit to the Project site were to occur, VMT reduction would be negligible.
For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project’s effect on VMT is a significant and unavoidable impact on both a direct and cumulatively considerable basis. (Draft EIR, p. 3.14-46.)
SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. The City Council hereby finds as follows:
A. AESTHETICS
As discussed in the EIR, cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-41 through 3.1-42.) the cumulative context for aesthetics includes the area that comprises the viewshed in which the Project site is visible. There were no cumulatively significant aesthetics impacts identified in the 1993 General Plan EIR or the 2019 General Plan EIR. It was determined that the City’s design review process, in combination with General Plan policies would maintain the high-quality visual character of existing and future development, would limit impacts to agricultural lands, and would primarily contain growth within the Urban Limit Line, ensuring that cumulative aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.
Thus, there is no existing cumulative impact related to visual character or scenic quality. At a localized level, there are no approved or reasonably foreseeable projects that would be visible from the Project site, with the exception of a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit and barn under construction to the west of the Project site, which would not result in a cumulative impact.
The Project, along with existing and future development within the City, would contribute to the existing ambient light in the Project vicinity by introducing streetlights, landscape lighting, and interior and exterior buildings lights. The 1993 General Plan EIR found lighting to be a potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with General Plan policies and the design review process. These requirements are incorporated Agenda Item #5.3.
54 into MM AES-1, which would ensure that the Project’s contribution to a cumulative lighting impact would be less than considerable.
B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
As explained in the EIR, the Project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact.
Based on the land use conversion table prepared by the California Department of Conservation, between 2014 and 2016, 35 acres of the 30,654 acres of County’s Prime Farmland were converted to urban and built-up land. However, overall, Important Farmland in the County increased by 149 acres. The Project site contains less than 6 acres of Prime Farmland and less than 1 acre of Farmland of Statewide Importance that were determined to not be of high quality due to a number of factors detailed in the EIR. In addition, the Project site has long been designated for urban use.
The St. Helena 1993 General Plan and also the current 2019 General Plan contains policies regarding the preservation of agricultural lands. For these reasons, the Project would contribute to a cumulative impact related to agricultural resources. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp.
3.2-13 through 3.2-14.)
C. AIR QUALITY
As explained in the EIR, emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts because the Project’s construction-related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-25.)
The cumulative context of an air pollutant is dependent on the specific pollutant being.
Ozone (O3) precursors are a regional pollutant; therefore, the cumulative context would be existing and future development within the entire SFBAAB. This means that O3 precursors generated in one location do not necessarily have O3 impacts in that area. Instead, precursors from across the region can combine in the upper atmosphere and be transported by winds to various portions of the air basin. Consequently, all O3 precursors generated throughout the air basin are part of the cumulative context.
The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is Napa County and surrounding areas, which are located within the SFBAAB for O3. The SFBAAB includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, as well as the southern half of Sonoma County and the southwestern portion of Solano County. The BAAQMD establishes emissions thresholds for regional emissions.
Particulates (fugitive dust and DPM) and TACs would result in localized impacts in close proximity to pollutant sources. There are no other active cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity of the Project site that are anticipated to contribute to localized TAC exposure.
Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative air quality impact.
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Agenda Item #5.3.