St. Helena City Council
May 1, 2023

55 For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to biological resources with the incorporation of specified mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-51.)
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative biological impacts includes the areas contained within the Napa Valley and adjacent foothills (identified as the region), but primarily focused on the area within the city limits. Present and probable future projects within the region (which include, but not limited to, development in the city of St. Helena, Napa County, cities of Calistoga and Napa) are anticipated to permanently remove plant and wildlife resources, which could affect both common and special-status species and their habitat.

The 2019 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (City of St. Helena 2018) notes that development in the City and elsewhere in the cumulative analysis area could cause significant cumulative impacts to nesting raptors and other special-status species; however, these cumulative impacts would be mitigated by compliance with General Plan policies. The Project site is located within an area that has been developed for residential and agricultural purposes and development of this site would not result in the reduction of available habitat, migration corridors, or other essential elements required by special-status species in the region. No special-status species have been documented at the Project site. While the Project would convert approximately 9 acres of potential foraging habitat for raptor species, the area has been disturbed in the past and provides only marginal habitat for burrowing mammal species that are the preferred prey for many resident raptor species. The existing disturbance at the site also greatly limits availability of insect prey for special-status bat species. Additionally, agriculture and natural lands in the vicinity of the city provide greater function and value as foraging habitat for these species. Due to the lack of biological value provided by the Project site, the Project’s contribution to any effects on biological resources would be considered negligible. Implementation of MMs BIO-1 through BIO-7, would further reduce the Project’s cumulative contribution to regional biological resources impacts. For these reasons, the Project’s contribution to any existing cumulative impacts is not considerable.

E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts relating to cultural resources with the incorporation of specified mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-32 through 3.5-33.)
The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources is the City of St. Helena.

The 1993 General Plan EIR concluded that the 1993 General Plan could result in substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical resources and would have a significant and unavoidable impact to prehistoric archaeological sites that may contain human remains with religious significance to local Native American groups (City of St. Helena 2010). The 1993 General Plan states that there are a number of historic resources in the City (dating from the midnineteenth to mid-twentieth century) vulnerable to incompatible alterations and demolition.

Agenda Item #5.3.

56 However, the Project site does not include any known historic resources from this time period. The 2019 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts on cultural resources, including historic, archeological and prehistoric associated with buildout of the city would not result in a significant impact. The EIR notes that compliance with 2019 General Plan Policy HR1.5 would minimize or avoid potential impacts on any resources known or not known at this time and that may be encountered in the future. In addition, there are numerous laws, regulations, and statutes, on both the federal and state levels, that seek to protect cultural resources. These would apply to development within and outside the city. However, because the Project site contains a high p for the discovery of unknown subsurface historical or prehistoric resources, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of cultural resources is considered potentially significant absent mitigation.

Implementation of MM CUL-1 provides specific procedures to follow in the event a resource is identified. Compliance with this measure, along with PRC Section 5097.98, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, would ensure that Project’s incremental contribution would be reduced to less than significant and no additional mitigation is required.

F. ENERGY RESOURCES
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative energy impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.15-20 through 3.15-21.) Other development projects within the region would result in incremental increases in longterm energy consumption similar to the Project through the introduction of new population to the region. Each of these projects, however, would be required to comply with local and state regulations for reducing energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency during operation.

Nonetheless, the overall increase in demand for energy resources is a potentially significant cumulative impact. Similar to the Project, cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen or stricter local regulations which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential buildings. CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require the Project and the cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to meet or exceed the Title 24 building standards, further reducing the inefficient use of energy. Future development would also be required to meet even more stringent requirements, including the objectives set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017), which would seek to make all newly constructed residential homes zero net energy consumers by 2020, and all new commercial buildings ZeroNet-Energy consumers by 2030. Furthermore, various federal and state regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emission Vehicle Program, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. In summary, with adherence to the increasingly stringent building and vehicle efficiency standards the Project would reduce energy consumption and would not contribute to a cumulative impact to the wasteful or inefficient use of energy.

Agenda Item #5.3.

57 G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to geology and soils. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-25.) The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative geologic and soils-related impacts consists of the Project site, as these impacts depend on the site-specific conditions and features on the Project site, such as soil composition and topography. These site-specific impacts would not combine to create cumulative impacts with other projects occurring elsewhere in the City.

Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to contribute to an existing cumulative impact.

The geographic scope for the analysis of cumulative paleontological impacts consists of development slated to occur within the City or Napa County on Pleistocene age alluvium.

Cumulative impacts on paleontological resources consider whether the impacts of the Project together with other related projects substantially diminish the number of paleontological resources within the same or similar context or property type.

As discussed in the EIR, the chance of encountering paleontological resources at the site is considered low because 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 could encounter Pleistocene age alluvium with the potential for fossils. It is possible that construction of the Project in combination with other cumulative projects in undeveloped areas in the City and County underlain by Pleistocene age alluvium could disturb multiple unknown unique paleontological resources, although unlikely to occur. Due to the size of the Project site and the low likelihood of unearthing any fossils, the Project’s contribution to a cumulative paleontological impact would not be considerable.

H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no noncumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. As discussed above, the Project-related GHG emissions would be less than significant. As such, the Project would not result in a potentially significant cumulative GHG impact. (Draft EIR, p. 3.7-37.) I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-22 through

3.8-23.)
The cumulative context for the analysis of potential hazardous materials impacts (including hazardous materials usage during construction, exposure to potentially contaminated soils) is generally site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials on a project-by-project basis Agenda Item #5.3.

58 would be required for all projects within the City. Therefore, these issues are not addressed in the cumulative impact analysis.

Hazardous materials incidents or accidents would also typically be site-specific and would involve accidental spills or inadvertent releases. The effects of such incidents, then, would not be additive to effects from other, similar incidents occurring elsewhere. Associated health and safety risks generally would be limited to those individuals using the materials or to persons in the immediate vicinity of the materials. Therefore, these issues are not addressed in the cumulative impact analysis.

The cumulative context for the use, handling, storage, and transport of hazardous materials is buildout of the City. This geographic scope is selected because (1) cumulative hazardous effects generally require proximity, and (2) City personnel are the first responders to hazardous accidents within the vicinity of the Project site.

The City’s 1993 General Plan determined that the routine use and transport of hazardous materials would be a potentially significant impact. However, the City’s 2019 General Plan Draft EIR (City of St. Helena 2018) was reviewed and it concluded that the routine use and transport of hazardous materials, hazardous materials use near schools, emergency response, and wildfire hazards were less than significant based on the implementation of existing and applicable laws and regulations.

Therefore, compliance with applicable hazardous materials management laws and regulations adopted at the federal, state, and local level would ensure the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than considerable.

J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to hydrology and water quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.7-47 through 3.7-

49.)
The cumulative context for the analysis of potential water quality impacts related to surface water is the Upper St. Helena Reach subwatershed. This is because stormwater discharges originating from this area could combine with those of the Project to result in an increase in nonpoint source pollution discharging into the Napa River upstream of Sulphur Creek. Such increases could result from a combination of construction activities, greater use intensity, increased coverage of impervious surfaces and/or increased use of routine household cleaners and landscape chemicals. New development and/or redevelopment projects in these locations have the potential to generate impacts related to the violation of water quality standards, Basin Plan water quality objectives, and/or TMDLs established for the Napa River.

For groundwater resources, the cumulative context is the Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin) Development of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects within this area that results in an increase in groundwater demand could result in impacts related to depletion Agenda Item #5.3.

59 of the underlying aquifer, regional lowering of the groundwater table level, or depletions of interconnected surface waters.

Due to the residential nature of the Project and compliance with mandatory existing state and local requirements to ensure protection of water quality in the subwatershed and the Subbasin, the Project’s contribution to this potentially significant cumulative impact is less than considerable.

As discussed in the EIR, the rates of groundwater pumping have not exceeded the sustainable yield of the Subbasin. The City has implemented actions to ensure the groundwater Subbasin continues to operate within its sustainable yield. The City’s 2011 Water Neutral Policy for Development requires all new development to be water-neutral, through a combination of onsite water conservation measures, off-site retrofitting and use of well water, as allowed. Future development in the City is not expected to result in an increase in total water demand because new development is required to offset new demand with water conservation retrofits of existing facilities, or in-lieu payments to the City to carry out any retrofit projects. In addition, as discussed in the EIR, the on-site agricultural well is expected to yield 350 gpm (as reported by the Project applicant) and demonstrated an ability to pump at a rate of 40 gpm over a 24-hour period with negligible drawdown, which is far more capacity than the 10.6 gpm the Project would require for on-site irrigation. Based on the findings of the well capacity and sustainability test, this rate of pumping would have a highly localized radius of influence, if any, and would be greatly overshadowed by the radius of influence associated with the agricultural and municipal supply wells in the surrounding vicinity. Therefore, given Napa County’s active management of the Subbasin under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, available information, and the City’s implementation of a water neutral development policy, the Project’s contribution to a cumulative impact with regard to groundwater is not considerable As the Project does not have impacts with regard to flooding (since the potential impact is eliminated through use of the off-site detention basin), it would not contribute to any cumulative flooding impacts in the subwatershed.

For the reasons above and explained in the EIR, the Project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts.

K. LAND USE
The Project would not physically divide an established community, and it would not have any incremental impact towards physically dividing an established community; the Project would have no cumulative impacts in this regard. Moreover, the Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Again, the Project would have no cumulative impacts in this regard. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to land use. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.18-

19.)
Agenda Item #5.3.

60 L. MINERAL RESOURCES
The Project would not impact any mineral resources, as no mineral resources have been identified in or around the Project site, and none of the Project site’s previous uses relate to mining activities or mineral processing. (Refer to Notice of Preparation issued March 6, 2018).) The Project would not have any significant cumulative impacts on mineral resources.

M. NOISE
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to noise. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-20 through 3.11-21.) Construction activities associated with proposed or future development within the area would contribute to cumulative noise levels, but in a geographically limited and temporary manner.

As other development occurs in the area, noise from different types of uses (e.g., traffic, aircraft, fixed noise sources) would continue to combine, albeit on a localized basis, to cause increases in overall background noise conditions within the area. As a result, such sources do not significantly contribute to cumulative noise impacts at distant locations and are not evaluated on a cumulative level.

Non-transportation noise sources (e.g., those associated with Project operation, which for residential properties include HVAC equipment and landscape maintenance activities) and construction noise impacts are typically project-specific and highly localized (i.e., these do not generally affect the community noise level at distances beyond several hundred feet). These noise sources do not significantly contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

The cumulative context for traffic noise is the traffic volume increases resulting from the Project along with buildout of the 1993 General Plan, and the anticipated increase in traffic volumes along local roadways. The traffic analysis assumed a cumulative context of transportation impacts resulting from the Project along with buildout of the 2019 General Plan. The evaluation concluded that roadway traffic levels would not reach significant levels when compared against existing roadway traffic noise levels. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to existing cumulative noise would not be considerable
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area and would not contribute to a cumulative growth impact. 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. The Project would not demolish existing housing or displace residents and would not contribute to a cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-3 through 4.6.) Agenda Item #5.3.

61 O. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Development of the Project would contribute to a cumulative increase in demand for public services and parks and recreational facilities. New fire and police personnel and facilities as well new schools and parks and recreation facilities may be required for 1993 General Plan buildout conditions. This could result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives.

However, future development within the City would be required to comply with policies set forth in the City’s 1993 General Plan (and now the updated 2019 General Plan) and pay applicable development impact fees as specified in Chapter 3.32, Development Impact Fees, of the City’s Municipal Code.

The City recently updated its General Plan in 2019, and the 2019 General Plan EIR notes that the SHFD and the SHPD does not anticipate the need to increase staffing levels or construct any new facilities in order to provide service for future population growth. The projected addition of residents and employees by 2040 (including development of the Project site) would likely increase the demand for emergency fire and police response and preventive services; however, the increase is modest and not expected to create a need for new or expanded fire or police protection facilities and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the Project’s contribution would not be considerable.

The 2019 General Plan notes that the projected addition of residents and employees by 2040 (including development of the Project site) would likely increase the need for more parks and recreation facilities; however, the impact was determined to be less than significant. As discussed above, the Project would comply with all applicable City goals and policies and pay applicable fees. The Project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative increase in demand is considered less than considerable. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.12-17 through 3.12-18.) P. TRANSPORTATION
As set forth in the EIR, the Project will have a significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-51 through 3.14-52.)
The VMT analysis considers both existing conditions, and cumulative year 2040 conditions. The analysis concluded that the Project would result in both a direct (existing plus Project) and cumulative (year 2040 Buildout plus Project) impact. For the reasons discussed above, feasible mitigation measures are not available that would reduce this impact to less than considerable. This cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable.

Q. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts relating to tribal cultural resources with the incorporation of specified mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-33 through 3.5-34.) Agenda Item #5.3.

62 The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for the evaluation of potential cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources is the City of St. Helena.

The 1993 General Plan EIR determined that there would be a significant and unavoidable impact to prehistoric archaeological sites that may contain human remains with religious significance to local Native American groups. However, the City of St. Helena General Plan Update EIR identified that development under the City’s 2019 General Plan would result in lessthan-significant impacts to TCRs. Policy HR1.5 in the 2019 General Plan would minimize or avoid potential impacts on any resources known or not known at this time that may be encountered in the future and would promote coordination with Native American tribes if any tribal resources are discovered at development sites. The impact on Native American tribal cultural resources was therefore determined to be less than significant.

Numerous laws, regulations, and statutes, on both the federal and state levels, seek to protect cultural resources. These would apply to development within and outside the city. In addition, General Plan policies are designed to safeguard cultural resources from unnecessary impacts. Because all significant tribal cultural resources are unique and non-renewable members of finite classes, all adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Although unlikely, there is the potential the Project could adversely affect significant tribal cultural resources that are unique and non-renewable members of finite classes if discovered contributing to a potentially considerable contribution. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative loss of cultural resources is considered potentially significant.

Implementation of MM CUL-1 provides specific procedures to follow in the event a resource is identified. Compliance with this measure, along with PRC section 5097.98, section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, and section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, would ensure that Project’s incremental contribution would be reduced to less than considerable additional mitigation is required.

R. UTILITIES
The Project would not contribute considerably to a cumulative utilities impact. (Draft EIR pp. 3.13-35 through 3.13-37.)
The cumulative context for utilizes is buildout of the General Plan. Both the 1993 General Plan EIR and the 2019 General Plan EIR determined that cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the City related to utilities would be less than significant.

In order to ensure that the City’s future water demand is met by its supplies, the City established a water-neutral policy, which requires all new development to completely offset its water use. With the implementation of this water-neutral policy and other water conservation measures in the City, the City has determined that future water demand is not expected to exceed the 1,950 acre-feet annual use policy limit set by the Safe Yield Committee. As discussed in the EIR, the Project would comply with the City’s water-neutral policy by completing offsetting its Agenda Item #5.3.

63 water use from the City through the use of water conservation measures and the on-site well for landscape irrigation. Additionally, future development in the City would be required to pay for public improvements related to water projects.

As discussed in the EIR, the City’s wastewater treatment plant (“WWTP”) has capacity to accommodate Project wastewater flows for treatment. The City has concluded that WWTP should be expanded to accommodate projected 2030 flows. The Project, and other cumulative projects, pay development fees to fund this planned expansion. The Project would pay its fair share of the planned expansion and would contribute a minimal portion of projected flows.

As discussed in the Final EIR, the existing wastewater collection system has a peak wet weather flow capacity issue to the south of the Project site, which results in some overflow of the wastewater system during wet weather events, due to inflow and infiltration. The Project would contribute only 0.5% of peak wet weather flows to this impacted section of the collection system (Carollo Engineers, June 24, 2022). This amount would not considerably increase the existing cumulative inflow and infiltration issue. The system can accommodate the Project during average dry weather flows. The City’s Wastewater Master Plan has identified a capital project to address this existing issue, known as WWGM-6. The Project, through required development fees would contribute its fair share to fund capital improvement projects.

The Project includes a stormwater detention basin that has been sized to accommodate runoff resulting from development of the Project site. As described in the EIR, the Project’s contribution of stormwater would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact on stormwater and drainage facilities within the City.

The Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact for solid waste disposal. The Clover Flat Landfill has enough capacity to remain open until 2047. As described in the EIR, the Project would generate approximately 0.55 tons per day during the 6-year construction period, which is less than 0.1% of the landfill’s average unused daily capacity, and 0.225 tons per day of solid waste during operation, which is 0.04% of the average unused daily capacity of the Clover Flat Landfill.

For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to utilities.

S. WILDFIRE
The Project is not located in or near a state responsibility area or on land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not have a significant cumulative impact relating to wildfires. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Agenda Item #5.3.

64 SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126.2 (d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental change that would be caused by a project. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible changes if:
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area);
• The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d));
• The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
• The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; • The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; or • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Implementation of the Project would result in the long-term commitment of resources of the Project site to urban land use. These irreversible impacts, which are unavoidable consequences of urban growth, are described in the EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-2 through 4-3.) Future development of the Project site would likely result in or contribute to the following irreversible environmental changes:
• Conversion of undeveloped land currently partially used as a vineyard.

Approximately 16.9 acres of undeveloped land would be converted to urban uses, thus precluding other alternate land uses in the future. • Irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources associated with the future use of the site.

Development of the Project would result in the commitment of the Project site to urban development, thereby precluding other uses for the lifespan of the Project. Restoration of the site to pre-developed conditions would not be feasible given the degree of disturbance, the urbanization of the area, and the level of capital investment.

Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed by Project implementation include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. Wood products, asphalt, and concrete would be used in construction along with gas and diesel fuel. With respect to Agenda Item #5.3.

65 operational activities, compliance with all applicable state and local building codes, as well as mitigation measures, planning policies, and standard conservation features, would ensure that resources are conserved to the maximum extent possible. The Project would incorporate a number of sustainable practices that reduce the consumption of energy and water. Nonetheless, construction activities related to the Project would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, natural gas, and gasoline and diesel for automobiles and construction equipment.

The CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible environmental damage caused by environmental accidents associated with the Project. While the Project would result in the use, transport, storage, and disposal of minor amounts of hazardous materials during Project construction and operation, as described in the EIR, all such activities would comply with applicable local, state and federal laws related to the use, storage and transport of hazardous materials, which significantly reduces the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible environmental damage. The Project itself does not include any uniquely hazardous uses that would require any special handling or storage. Further, the Project does not contain any industrial uses that would use or store acutely hazardous materials.

Implementation of the Project would result in the long-term commitment of resources to urban development. The most notable significant irreversible impacts include the use of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable natural and energy resources, such as lumber and other forest products and water resources during construction activities. Operations associated with future uses would also consume natural gas and electricity.

SECTION 6. FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
As required by section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss ways in which a project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Under CEQA, this growth is not to be considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of significant consequence. Induced growth would be considered a significant impact if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth, directly or indirectly, significantly affects the environment.

In general, a project could foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if the project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service, the provision of new access to an area, or a change in zoning or General Plan amendment approval), or economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., Agenda Item #5.3.

66 changes in revenue base, employment expansion). These circumstances are further described below.

Elimination of Obstacles to Growth: This refers to the extent to which a proposed project removes infrastructure limitations or provides infrastructure capacity (e.g., constructing new roads or extending public utilities), or removes regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval.

Economic Effects: This refers to the extent to which a proposed project could cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic effects can include such effects as the “multiplier effect.” A “multiplier” is an economic term used to describe interrelationships among various sectors of the economy. The multiplier effect provides a quantitative description of the direct employment effect of a project, as well as indirect and induced employment growth. The multiplier effect acknowledges that the on-site employment and population growth of each project is not the complete picture of growth caused by the project.

Elimination of Obstacles to Growth
The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a growth-inducing effect, though not necessarily a significant one. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines into areas that are not currently provided with these services would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth. Because the Project site is located within the City’s Urban Limit Line and existing services are stubbed to the site, elimination of obstacles to growth is not a factor for this Project.

Removal of Infrastructure Limitations or Provision of Capacity The elimination of physical obstacles to growth is considered a growth-inducing effect, although not necessarily a significant one. The physical constraints to growth in the vicinity of the Project site include existing residential development to the south, southwest, west and southeast, which would preclude development immediately to the south, southwest, and southeast of the site, and existing office uses to the west, which would preclude inducing growth to the west of the site.

Utility infrastructure is also stubbed to the site so no off-site connections would be required. The connection to existing City infrastructure to serve the Project site would not induce growth in this area. Due to the location of the Project site within the City’s Urban Limit Line and access to utilities, the Project would not eliminate any constraints that are currently obstacles to growth in this portion of the City that would hasten development of this area.

The City’s Residential Growth Management System is no longer enforceable due to the passage of SB 330 (see Gov't Code sec. 66300) otherwise known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This act prevents cities from establishing or implementing any provision that imposes a limit Agenda Item #5.3.

67 on the number of housing units that can be approved or constructed annually or for some other period. Therefore, the City can no longer limit residential growth to approximately two percent per year (no more than nine building permits for market rate housing could be issued each year), while providing for both market rate and affordable housing units (Municipal Code Chapter

17.152).

Economic Effects
Implementation of the Project would affect the local economy through the construction of new residences that would require construction workers during the short-term and would encourage people to either relocate or move to the City to take advantage of proximity to local shops, restaurants, and other amenities in nearby downtown.

Additional local employment can be generated through the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect tends to be greater in regions with larger, diverse economies due to a decrease in the requirement to import goods and services from outside the region.

Two different types of additional employment are tracked through the multiplier effect.

Indirect employment includes those additional jobs that are generated through the expenditure patterns of direct employment associated with the Project. Indirect jobs tend to be in relatively close proximity to the places of employment and residence.

The multiplier effect also calculates induced employment. Induced employment follows the economic effect beyond the expenditures of the residents within a project area to include jobs created by the stream of goods and services necessary to support residences within the Project site.

When a manufacturer buys or sells products, the employment associated with those inputs or outputs are considered induced employment.

For example, when an employee of the Project goes out to lunch, the person who serves the employee lunch holds a job that is indirectly related to the Project. When the server then goes out and spends money in the economy, the jobs generated by this third-tier effect are considered induced employment.

The multiplier effect also considers the secondary effect of employee expenditures. Thus, it includes the economic effect of the dollars spent by those employees and residents who support the employees of the Project.

Increased future employment generated by employee spending ultimately results in physical development of space to accommodate those employees. It is the characteristics of this physical space and its specific location that will determine the type and magnitude of environmental impacts of this additional economic activity. Although the economic effect can be predicted, the actual environmental implications of this type of economic growth are too speculative to predict or evaluate, since they can be spread throughout the City, Napa County, and beyond.

Agenda Item #5.3.

68 Impacts of Induced Growth
The growth induced directly and indirectly by the Project could contribute to the environmental impacts, in the City and the County, as well as the greater regional area. Any such environmental effects, however, are too diffuse and speculative to predict or describe with any particularity.

Indirect and induced population growth in the City would further contribute to the loss of open space because it would encourage the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses for additional housing and infrastructure. However, it is assumed this new growth would occur within areas of the City designated and zoned for development or planned for potential future urban development. The City has designated areas for future development in order to protect areas of active agriculture, also within the incorporated City but outside of the Urban Limit Line. Again, however, the particular open space that might get converted cannot be predicted with any certainty, all such conversions to urban land use would occur within areas planned for growth designated in the City’s General Plan. Development of the property to the north of the Project site is outside of the City’s Urban Limit Line and would require a general plan amendment and compliance with CEQA to evaluate potential impacts.

In summary, although the Project can be said to induce growth, the consequences of such growth-inducement are too speculative to meaningfully predict and, furthermore, due to the designation of the Project site for future residential development in the City’s 1993 General Plan and 2019 General Plan1, implementation of the Project would not be considered growth inducing. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-3 through 4-6.)
SECTION 7. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The EIR analyzed three alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects while also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives.

A. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following objectives have been established for the proposed Project:
• Subdivide the site consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning for the site to accommodate residential development.
• Provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types, including multi-family, single-family, and accessory dwelling units, affordable to a range of incomes including, very low, low and moderate-income households. 1 Also known as the “St Helena General Plan Update 2040,” the 2019 is referred to in this EIR by the year of its adoption.

Agenda Item #5.3.

69 • Provide opportunities to contribute to the provision of workforce and affordable housing consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
• Minimize traffic-related environmental impacts, such as noise, air quality and greenhouse gases by lowering commute patterns for St. Helena workers by providing more local housing opportunities.
• Support alternative transportation by providing a pedestrian and bicycle linkages through St. Helena, eventually connecting the regional Vine Trail from Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry.
• Exceed the City’s green building ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.53) and incorporate sustainable design features including water conservation measures, drought resistant landscaping with low flow watering systems, south and west side tree placement to reduce reliance on air conditioning units, and pre-wiring for photovoltaic systems.
• Implement the General Plan Circulation Element by completing the planned extension of Starr Avenue and the partial planned extension of Adams Street from where Adams Street terminates to connect to the Project site. • Minimize City water use by continuing the use of an existing on-site water well for irrigation of Project landscaped areas.

B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS
One of the requirements for an alternatives analysis that is set forth in the CEQA Guidelines is identification of alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process. As stated in section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR should briefly explain the reasons underlying this determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are:

1. Failure to meet most of the basic project objectives,

2. Infeasibility, or

3. Inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c))
Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, “among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or Agenda Item #5.3.

70 otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” However, as stated in this subsection, no single factor establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.

An alternate site or off-site alternative was determined to be infeasible for the Project because the Project applicant owns the Project site and it would not be feasible to acquire, control or otherwise have access to a new property within the City large enough to accommodate the Project. Therefore, an off-site or alternate Project location was dismissed from further evaluation.

A reduced density alternative was considered but dismissed because it does not avoid or reduce any potentially significant impacts and would not avoid any health and safety concerns required for the City to make findings under section 15041 of the CEQA Guidelines and Government Code section 65589.5(j). In addition, a reduced density alternative is discouraged by Public Resources Code section 21159.26, if other feasible alternatives exist.

Lastly, a mixed-use alternative that includes commercial uses in addition to residential was also considered and dismissed because it would not be consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning and would require a General Plan Amendment and rezone. An alternatives analysis is not required to consider alternatives that would require changes to the applicable General Plan. Therefore, this alternative was considered but ultimately dismissed from further review. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-3 through 5-4.)
C. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR

1. No Project/No Development Alternative
Description: Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative (“No Project Alternative”) The No Project/No Development Alternative considers the effects of forgoing the Project entirely and leaving the Project site in its current undeveloped condition. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project would not be approved or constructed. This alternative serves to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the property in its existing state. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.) Impacts: The No Project/No Development Alternative would produce no changes on the Project site, because the site would remain in its current undeveloped condition, effectively eliminating the Project impacts discussed in the EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-6 through 5-7.) Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the Project’s objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative on the following grounds: (1) this alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives; and (2) potentially conflicts with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code section 65589.5) which was enacted to increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local Agenda Item #5.3.

71 governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

2. No Project/General Plan Alternative
Description: Under this alternative, it is assumed the Project would be developed consistent with the underlying MDR land use designation and MR zoning which allows development of the Project site with residential uses up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) under the 1993 General Plan MDR designation which was revised to 16 du/ac under the 2019 General Plan consistent with the MR zoning, which permits a maximum density of 16 du/ac. For the purposes of this alternative a density of 9 du/ac was assumed for a total of 152 single-family residential units. Based on the number of units this alternative would result in a population of 372 residents, an increase of 159 residents as compared to the Project. It is assumed Starr Avenue and Adams Street would both be extended to connect to the Project site and the street and lot layout would be very similar to the Project with the exception of the 3.4-acre portion of the site currently designated for multifamily units (Lot 52). This portion of the Project site would be configured to accommodate single-family residences. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) Impacts: Due to the denser development and increased number of residential units, it is anticipated that impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gases, energy, public utilities, population and housing, and noise would be increased. It is anticipated the same mitigation measures for impacts to nesting birds and bats (biological) and the potential to unearth any previously unknown historic, archeological, or paleontological resource (cultural, geology and soils), potential soil contamination from agricultural chemical residues (hazards), and noise from construction equipment would be still be required. No potentially significant impacts associated with the Project would be avoided or reduced. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-7 through 5-11.) Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project/General Plan Alternative would develop the site consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning assuming ag a density of 9 du/ac and would complete the planned extensions of Adams Street and Starr Avenue. However, this alternative would not achieve the Project objective of developing a variety of housing types, including multifamily housing and ADUs. Housing would be less affordable to a range of incomes since development would be limited to single-family homes. This alternative would not minimize traffic-related environmental impacts due to the increase in units and residents. Overall, this alternative would not meet most of the Project objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11.) Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/General Plan Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative does not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; and (2) this alternative meets the Project objectives to a lesser extent than the Agenda Item #5.3.

72 Project. Therefore, the No Project/General Plan Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

3. Park/Open Space Preserve Alternative
Description: The Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative includes an approximately 1-acre park/open space that would preserve a majority of the on-site wetlands to help lessen impacts to seasonal wetlands (Impact 3.4-2), as shown on Figure 5-1, Park Preserve Alternative. To accommodate the park three lots would need to be removed (Lots 44, 45, 46) and vegetated swales to capture runoff would be located adjacent to developed areas. It is anticipated the park would be landscaped with native plants and may include a small tot lot or be left as passive open space. The remaining approximately 16-acres would be developed with approximately the same number of residential units as the Project and would maintain a density of 5.1 du/ac. The single-family lots would be slightly smaller than the Project and there could be an increase in the number of multifamily units. Site access and internal roads would essentially be the same as the Project. The same number of residents, 213, is conservatively assumed under this alternative, the same as the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11.)
Impacts: With implementation of this alternative, the impact to seasonal wetlands would be less severe than the Project. The Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative includes an approximately 1-acre park that would preserve two of the larger wetland features to help reduce the impacts to jurisdictional waters. The area of impacted wetlands would be reduced to .006 acres rather than 0.07 acres from the Project. All other impacts are anticipated to be similar to the Project.

No significant and unavoidable impacts would be avoided. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-12 through 5-13.) Objectives and Feasibility: The Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative would still manage to achieve all stated Project objectives. The main changes from this alternative would be a small decrease in the residential footprint and the avoidance of seasonal wetlands at the Project site. This alternative would still subdivide the site consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning, complete the planned extensions of Adams Street and Starr Avenue, provide a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, and provide more local housing opportunities. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-13 through 5-14.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative does not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; (2) maintenance of isolated wetlands/open space represents an ongoing financial burden on the City; and (3) isolated wetlands offer little habitat value, whereas off-site mitigation may result in higher value habitat with greater connectivity being preserved. Therefore, the Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

Agenda Item #5.3.

73 4. Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative
Description The Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative includes the approximately 1-acre park to preserve a majority of the on-site seasonal wetlands with the remaining approximately 16-acres designated for up to 180 affordable housing units, assuming a density of 11.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) under the existing Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation (current zoning allows for a maximum density of 16.0 du/ac). The units would be attached housing (duplex or triplex) and would be 100% affordable. It is assumed buildings would be no taller than 30-feet, consistent with the underlying MR zoning. Under the technical guidance issued by OPR, a 100% affordable housing project is exempt from the requirement to calculate VMT. Site access and internal roads would essentially be the same as the Project. Using the City’s persons per household factor of 2.45 people per unit for medium/higher density residential land uses this alternative would generate 441 residents, an increase of 194 residents as compared to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-14.) Impacts: Due to the increase in residents, it is anticipated the increase in air pollutants and GHG emissions associated with operation would be slightly higher than the Project due to the increase in vehicle trips, as well as the demand for water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, schools, solid waste disposal, and energy. Construction and footprint-related impacts associated with biological, cultural, and geological resources, hazardous materials, and noise would essentially be the same as the Project, as these impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation. It is anticipated the same mitigation measures for impacts to bats, and nesting birds (biological) and the potential to unearth any previously unknown historic, archeological, or paleontological resource (cultural, geology and soils), and potential soil contamination from agricultural chemical residues (hazards) would be still be required. This alternative would minimize impacts to on-site seasonal wetlands with inclusion of the 1-acre park, similar to the Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative. As a 100% affordable housing project, this Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-14 through 5-17.) Objectives and Feasibility: The Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative would subdivide the site consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning, would complete the planned extensions of Adams Street and Starr Avenue, and would contribute to the provision of workforce and affordable housing objective. However, this alternative would not achieve the Project objective of developing a variety of housing types, including single-family and ADUs. The housing would be affordable to a range of incomes including, very low, low and moderate-income households, but would not include any single-family or market rate homes. This alternative generally meets a majority of the Project objectives but not all of the objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-20.) Finding: The City Council rejects the Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) maintenance of isolated wetlands/open space represents an ongoing financial burden on the City; (2) isolated wetlands offer little habitat value, whereas off-site mitigation may result in higher value habitat with greater connectivity being preserved; and (3) the Alternative Agenda Item #5.3.

74 does not meet the Project objectives to provide a variety of housing types, including single family, and accessory dwelling units. Therefore, the Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. It would avoid all Project-related environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) requires that when the No Project alternative is environmentally superior, another alternative be selected as the environmentally superior alternative. The environmentally superior alternative would be the Park Preserve alternative. This alternative would reduce Impact

3.4-2 by developing a passive park surrounding three out of four of the site’s jurisdictional wetlands. However, this alternative would not avoid all of the significant impacts associated with the Project and all of the identified mitigation would still be required.

SECTION 8. DRAFT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the proposed Project’s unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.” Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effect of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and this Resolution, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the City Council has determined that each of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project separately and individually outweigh the Project’s potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:

A. The Project provides needed housing to the City, particularly affordable housing.

B. 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.

C. 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 dating back to the 1975 General Plan.

Agenda Item #5.3.

75 D. 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.

E. The Project will pay development fees which will assist in needed infrastructure improvements in the City, including wastewater treatment and collection systems.

F. The Project would construct the extension of Starr Avenue and the partial extension of Adams Street consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element.

The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.

Agenda Item #5.3.

EXHIBIT B: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Agenda Item #5.3.

Hunter Subdivision Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
SCH No. 2018032014
City of St. Helena
October 2022
Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 1
Introduction
Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 21081.6(a)(1) requires a lead agency that approves a project where an environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared that identified significant environmental effect to adopt a mitigation monitoring a reporting program (MMRP) for the mitigation measures or conditions of approval adopted to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The City of St. Helena is the lead agency for the EIR prepared for the Hunter Subdivision Project EIR (SCH # 2018032014) and is therefore responsible for the adoption and implementation of this MMRP. The EIR prepared for the Hunter Subdivision Project has identified mitigation measures to avoid or lessen Project impacts.

This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to PRC Section 21081.6 and provides the following:
 Verifies completion of the required mitigation measures;  Provides a methodology to document implementation of the required mitigation;  Provides a record of the monitoring program;
 Identifies monitoring responsibility;
 Identifies timing for completion of the mitigation measure.

This MMRP describes the procedures used to implement the mitigation measures and methods to monitor each action. If, during Project implementation, any of the mitigation measures cannot be successfully implemented, the City shall immediately inform any affected responsible agencies. The City, in coordination with the responsible agency, will then determine if modifications to the Project are required, or if an alternative mitigation is appropriate.

The following provides a monitoring table listing all the Project impacts and mitigation measures, method to verify compliance, timing of verification, entity responsible to verify compliance and date of verification completion.

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 2
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)

3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
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.

Project applicant shall
prepare lighting and
design guidelines for
review by the City.

Prior to Design
Review hearing
Community
Development Dept.

No building permit
will be issued

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 3
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)

3.3 Biological Resources
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
Project applicant shall
retain a qualified biologist
to conduct
nesting/roosting bat
habitat assessment; map
and describe any potential
roosting features in a
survey letter report. If bats
are detected the CDFW
shall be contacted and
bats avoided during
construction, otherwise a
bat mitigation and
monitoring plan shall be
prepared for CDFW
review and approval.

Perform study two
weeks prior to site
clearing/grading.

City reviews and
approves study
before issuing
permits for any
clearing or grading.

Community
Development Dept.
& Public Works
Dept.

No grading permit
will be issued

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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
Project applicant shall
retain a qualified biologist
to conduct preconstruction
nesting bird surveys a
minimum of 14 days if
construction occurs
between February 1
through August 31. A
survey report shall be
prepared documenting
results of the survey. If
nesting birds are present
buffers shall be created
around the trees.

Perform study two
weeks prior to site
clearing/grading.

City reviews and
approves study
before issuing any
permits for clearing,
grading, or
construction.

Community
Development Dept.
& Building Dept.

No grading permit
will be issued

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 5
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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 no-disturbance
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
Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 6
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
of construction activities
that may cause potential
nest abandonment. The
perimeter of the buffer
zone shall be fenced or
marked with staked
flagging.

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.

Obtain required wetland
permit to fill the onsite
wetland from the agency
with jurisdiction.

Prior to site clearing
or grading.

Community
Development Dept.
& Public Works
Dept.

No grading permit
will be issued

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
CUL-1: The City shall require
that an archaeological monitor
is present during all grounddisturbing 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
The project applicant or
their contractor shall retain
an archeological monitor
during all ground
disturbing activities. The
City shall determine, in
consultation with the local
tribe, if a Native American
tribal monitor is also
required to be onsite
During all ground
disturbing activities.

Community
Development Dept.
& Building Dept.

Construction shall
cease until
compliance has
been verified

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 7
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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 yetidentified 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
at 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
during ground disturbing
work.

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 8
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 9
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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.

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
If human remains are
unearthed the contractor
shall stop all work within
100 feet and contact the
County Coroner and the
City.

During all ground
disturbing activities.

Community
Development Dept.
and Public Works
Dept.

Construction shall
cease until
compliance has
been verified

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 10
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
Heritage Commission within 24
hours to request that the
Commission determine the
person or persons it believes to
be descended from the
deceased Native American. The
most likely descendant 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.

3.6 Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of
any site-specific grading or
building permits, the Project
applicant shall have a designlevel 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 project applicant shall
prepare a design-level
geotechnical report that
meets the California
Department of
Conservation Special
Publication 117A:

Guidelines for Evaluating
and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California. The
report shall be reviewed
and approved by the City’s
building dept. The report
Prior to grading or
building permits
Community
Development Dept.
& Building Dept.

No grading permit
will be issued

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 11
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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.
shall contain specific site
preparation methods,
grading practices,
foundation designs and
recommendations.

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 12
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
 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.

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 13
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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
If paleontological
resources are unearthed
during grading or
trenching, the contractor
shall stop all work within a
50-foot radius and contact
a qualified paleontologist
to assess the find and the
City. If it is a fossil the
paleontologist shall
determine the appropriate
steps.

During grading and
trenching.

Community
Development Dept.,
Dept. & Public
Works Dept.

Construction shall
cease until
compliance has
been verified

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 14
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: As a condition of
approval for construction and
grading permits for the Project
site, the Project applicant shall
the ensure 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, environmental
engineer, or similar
qualification) for the
portions of the Project site
historically used for
The project applicant shall
retain a qualified individual
to prepare a soils testing
work plan in accordance
with DTSC’s Interim
Guidance for Sampling
Agricultural Properties to
be submitted to the
County and City for review
and approval. The plan
shall address the proper
steps to follow if any
contaminated soils are
identified.

Prior to grading
permits
Public Works Dept.
and the Napa
County Division of
Environmental
Health and/or other
regulatory oversight
agencies
No grading permit
will be issued

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 15
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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 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
Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 16
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 17
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 18
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
approval by the City of St.

Helena Department of Public
Works, the Napa County
Division of Environmental
Health and/or other regulatory
oversight agencies.

3.11 Noise and Vibration
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.

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,
During construction
activities the contractor
shall demonstrate
compliance with Comply
with Chapter 8.24 of the
Municipal Code. All onsite
construction equipment
shall be located as far
away from any residences
but if within 25 ft of an
occupied residence shall
be shielded to block noise.

During site clearing,
grading and
building
Police Dept. Work shall cease
until compliance
has been
verified

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 19
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
 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., soundattenuated 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

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 20
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
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.

Agenda Item #5.3.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 21

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.3.

Hunter Subdivision
Resolution / Conditions of Approval
May 1, 2023
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 16.9-ACRE PROPERTY INTO 51 LOTS FOR

SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ONE PARCEL FOR MULTI-FAMILY

DEVELOPMENT, AND TWO LETTERED LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
EASTERN TERMINUS OF ADAMS STREET IN THE CITY OF ST.

HELENA, CALIFORNIA, APN 009-030-057
PROPERTY OWNER: Ben and Kelly Van Zutphen APN: 009-030-057 WHEREAS, the property owner requests adoption of a tentative subdivision map in order to accommodate the subdivision of a 16.9-acre parcel into 51 parcels for single family homes; one

3.13-acre parcel for multi-family homes and two parcels for landscaping and an onsite water well on a property located at the eastern terminus of Adams Street in the Medium Density Residential (MR) zoning district.; and
WHEREAS, a public notice was published in the Napa Valley Register and mailed to residents and occupants within 300 feet of the project site in compliance with state and local law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on February 7, 2023, held a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the approval of the Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC2023-002, recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution _______ 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; and
WHEREAS, the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the certified Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Planning Division located at City of St. Helena City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena CA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the findings identified in Municipal Code Section 16.16.080(A) to support the recommended approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, and determined based on the evidence in the record before the Planning Commission as follows:

Agenda Item #5.3.

Hunter Subdivision
Resolution / Conditions of Approval
May 1, 2023

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 the St. Helena Municipal Code; and

2. 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.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. HELENA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds:
(a) That it has reviewed the proposed tentative map and the evidence and testimony received in conjunction with the public hearing on the proposed tentative map, and that the proposed subdivision as conditioned by the proposed conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of the St. Helena Municipal Code; and
(b) That 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.

SECTION 2: Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council does hereby approve the Hunter Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution.

SECTION 3: 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 1088 College Avenue. St. Helena, CA. The custodian for these records is the City of St. Helena City Clerk.

SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.

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: _____
Agenda Item #5.3.

Hunter Subdivision
Resolution / Conditions of Approval
May 1, 2023
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.

Hunter Subdivision
Resolution / Conditions of Approval
May 1, 2023
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agenda Item #5.3.

1 HUNTER SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 5-1-23
Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001
APN 009-030-057
These conditions shall apply to City approval of Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001.

However, the only conditions herein that constitute preconditions to the approval of the Final Map are those that explicitly state that they constitute such preconditions, and such conditions may be satisfied through substantial completion, as determined by the City Engineer, by execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, or a combination thereof. Either substantial completion or execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement or a combination of both, shall enable the City Engineer to make a determination of substantial compliance with these condition and the Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001.

Planning Division: General Conditions

1. This specific approval is limited to the Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2010-40, and is not intended to serve as an approval of the overall project description that was submitted with the tentative map application.

2. This approval is based upon all conditions of approval set forth herein, including mitigation measures and specified plans and agreements included by reference, as well as all applicable City rules and regulations. Any deviations from the conditions must be reviewed and approved by the City for conformity with this approval. Deviations may require approved changes to these approvals and/or further environmental review. Deviations without the above described approval will constitute a violation of permit approval.

3. Except as specifically authorized in these conditions of approval, the grading, development, use, and maintenance of the property; the size, shape, arrangement, and location of the structures, parking areas and landscape areas; and the protection and preservation of resources shall be subject to Planning Commission approval and shall conform to the conditions of approval below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the associated grading and construction of infrastructure for the project shall be permitted without Design Review approval if the design of such infrastructure has otherwise been approved by means of the Tentative Map or Final Map. All plans and agreements (such as landscape maintenance plans) required pursuant to these conditions of approval must be submitted for review and approval and shall be implemented as approved by the City.

4. The use and/or construction of any structures or improvements authorized by this approval shall not commence until all necessary planning and building permits pertaining to the use or construction in question are obtained. Before any grading or building permit will be issued by the City, the Owner/Applicant must obtain written clearance from all departments having conditions; such clearance shall indicate that the Owner/Applicant has satisfied all preconstruction conditions.

Agenda Item #5.3.

2 5. The Owner/Applicant’s acceptance of this permit and/or commencement of use, construction and/or operations under this approval shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions of this approval by the Owner/Applicant.

6. The Owner/Applicant shall ensure that potential contractors are aware of City requirements.

The Owner/Applicant shall notify all contractors and subcontractors in writing of the site rules, restrictions, and Conditions of Approval and submit a copy of the notice to the Planning Department.

7. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, Section 16.16.100, the Tentative Map approval is valid for a two (2) year period ending May 1, 2025, unless later extended by operation of state law. The Final Map shall be filed by this date or an extension of time shall be requested prior to the expiration date.

8. Pursuant to St Helena Municipal Code, any request for an extension of the Tentative Map must be justified in writing and received by the Planning Department at least twenty (20) days prior to expiration. The time at which such map expires may be extended by the City Council for one year, and on further application twenty (20) days before the expiration of the one year extension, the subdivider may request a second one-year extension, and on further application twenty (20) days before the expiration of the second one-year extension may request a third one-year extension. No extension shall be permitted beyond the third one-year extension.

9. Prior to recordation of the Final Map and subject to City approval as to form and content, the Owner/Applicant shall include all of the mitigation measures and conditions of approval associated with or required by this Project approval on a separate informational sheet(s) to be recorded with the Final Map. All applicable conditions and mitigation measures for the Project shall be printed on grading and/or building plans.

10. Compliance with all permit conditions shall occur in accordance with specific regulations but in all cases not later than prior to occupancy or initiation of use unless another time is set by law or by this approval. Occupancy or final inspection of a project may be withheld if all conditions, including payment of fees for services rendered by the City, are not met.

11. In any action or proceeding to attack, challenge, invalidate, set aside, void or annul the City’s approval of applicant’s Project, in whole or in part, applicant shall defend, at its own expense and without any cost to the City, and with counsel acceptable to the City, and shall fully and completely indemnify and hold the City, its agents, officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, causes of action, damages, costs, attorney’s fees and liability of any kind, so long as the City reasonably promptly notifies the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceedings and the City cooperates fully in the defense of the action or proceedings.

12. This Tentative Parcel Map shall be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the real property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall inure to their benefit and benefit of the City of St. Helena.

Agenda Item #5.3.

3 13. If the Tentative Map is proposed to be revised, including revisions to these conditions of approval, the revisions shall be approved pursuant to and in accordance with Section 16.16.130 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

14. The primary purpose of this review is for compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The owner/applicant is responsible for meeting with the Building Official/Fire Inspector to review compliance with Building and Fire Codes, including fire protection systems and the accessibility standards of Title 24.

15. All required fees, including planning fees, development impact fees, park impact fees, and building permit fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit unless such payment has been modified by adopted mitigation measures or conditions of approval. Fees shall be those in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permit.

16. This authorizes the creation of a tentative subdivision of a 16.92-acre parcel (APN 009-030- 057) located at the north/east terminus of Adams Street into 52 lots. In addition, two lettered lots are created: Parcel A (0.06 acres) is an open space lot adjacent to an internal roadway; Parcel B (0.04 acres) will contain a private water well to be used for irrigation of landscaped areas.

17. All uses of the property shall be in compliance with the MR: Medium Density Residential zoning district regulations.

18. The applicant shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigations measures adopted as part of this project and listed in the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted as part of this project.

19. All conditions of approval shall be clearly identified and included on all plans submitted for future permit review and issuance.

20. Prior to applying for building permits, proposed future development on any of the newly created lots or parcels shall require the approval of a Design Review application and Use Permit application as applicable, subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission.

21. The Applicant shall be responsible for all City plan check and inspection costs as described in the St. Helena Comprehensive Fee and Rate Schedule.

Planning Division: Final Map Conditions

22. The owners of the 51 single family residences and the multi-family development on parcel 52 shall be members of a homeowner's association, or another funding mechanism acceptable to the City, dedicated to the maintenance of the project’s common areas, the internal irrigation system (fed by the well on Parcel B), and the well on Parcel B.

23. Prior to recordation of the final map and concurrent with the Subdivision Improvement Plan, the applicant shall submit CC&R's (Codes, Covenants and Restrictions) to the City Attorney, Public Works Director and Community Development Director for review and approval.

CC&R's shall be recorded at time of recordation of final map. CC&R's shall include all Agenda Item #5.3.

4 restrictions and maintenance regulations pertaining to, landscaping and common areas; shall include all restrictions and maintenance agreements pertaining to roads and access easements; and all restrictions and maintenance agreements pertaining to the irrigation well and internal irrigation water distribution system. The CC&Rs must be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit for any structure on the project site.

24. Pursuant to Section 16.20.090, upon approval of the final map by the City Council, the City Clerk shall execute the appropriate certificate on the certificate sheet and shall, subject to the provisions of Section 66464 of the state Subdivision Map Act, transmit the map, or have an authorized agent forward the map, to the county recorder prior to the issuance of a building permit.

25. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all overhead utilities on the site shall be undergrounded.

Planning: Misc. Conditions

26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall develop a building construction plan to be approved by the Planning Director and Building Official to insure that the homes meet or exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and receive a green rating under either the LEEDS, Green Points Checklist, or other acknowledged rating system for energy conservation and green building practices. The latest version of the City of St. Helena green building standards will apply at the time of building permit submittal.

27. All City, state, federal and other applicable local ordinances, rules, regulations and policies in effect at the time of issuance of a grading or building permit shall be complied with.

28. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City of St. Helena, which agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the St. Helena City Council. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Napa County, and shall ensure that the project complies with the requirements of Municipal Code section 17.146.050, Residential development project, inclusionary/in-lieu fee requirements. The Affordable Housing Agreement shall demonstrate how the project satisfies the minimum density requirement of the General Plan to construct a minimum of 87 dwelling units, including single family, multifamily, and accessory dwelling units.

Planning: Flooding Conditions

29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the occupant shall prepare a statement that has been approved by the Public Works Director for inclusion in the disclosure documents provided to purchasers of homes which describes the flood risk present at this location and notifies the buyer of the availability of low-cost Preferred Risk Policy flood insurance.

Planning: Landscape Conditions

30. City of St. Helena Community Development Department shall review the final landscape and fencing plan as part of a Design Review approval and prior to issuance of building permits for Agenda Item #5.3.

5 construction on the property to ensure compliance with Mitigation Measures. Landscaping shall be native, drought tolerant, compatible with oak trees and requiring minimal irrigation.

31. Landscape plans shall comply with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Section 17.112.140 of the St Helena Municipal Code. Plans shall be designed and verified by a landscape professional and shall include drought tolerant landscaping and low water irrigation systems. Landscaping shall not block vision from exits or at street intersections.

Planning: Construction Activities Conditions

32. Mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditioning units and spa equipment, shall be located away from property lines and shall be shielded or enclosed to minimize noise levels.

Noise generated shall not exceed 60 dBa, Ldn. This condition of approval implements Mitigation Measure NOI-1 from the project environmental impact report, Chapter 8.24 of the St Helena Municipal Code, and noise-related policies of the St Helena General Plan, including policy 8.3.11 from the 1993 General Plan and policy PS2.4 from the 2019 General Plan.

33. The applicant and/or construction manager shall notify all contractors and subcontractors that no trespassing is allowed on adjoining properties.

34. To reduce disturbance of residents in the project vicinity, construction activities which generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Delivery of materials/equipment and cleaning and servicing of machines/equipment shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Exceptions to these time restrictions may be granted by the Public Works Director for one of the following reasons: (1) inclement weather affecting work, (2) emergency work, or (3)other work, if work and equipment will not create noise that may be unreasonably offensive to neighbors as to constitute a nuisance. The City Engineer must be notified and give approval in advance of such work. No construction activities shall occur on Sundays or federal or local holidays that generate noise that can be heard at the property line of any parcel of real property within the City limits.

35. This property in the vicinity of an agricultural district. All future purchasers of homes or renters living in the project shall be notified of the expectation of legal, normal agricultural activities on the adjacent land, including day or night disbursement of chemicals, and creation of dust, noise, or fumes, and of the City’s Right to Farm ordinance.

Public Works: General Conditions

36. Prior to recordation, the Final Map shall be designed per City standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director to accommodate the following facilities in the right of way of both Starr Avenue and Adams Street:
• Curb and Gutter in accordance with City Standard #310 for a 24” gutter.

Agenda Item #5.3.

6 • Sidewalks, either attached to the curb or detached from the curb, on both sides of the street along Starr Avenue, and only on the south side of Adams Street, in accordance with City Standard #315
• Parking lane on both sides of the street in accordance with City Standard #301 for a “Collector” street.
• Class II on-street bike lane on both sides of the street in accordance with Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual Index 1003.2 but not less than 5 feet wide. • Two vehicle travel lanes in accordance with City Standard #301 for a “Collector” street. • Striping to delineate parking, bike, and travel lanes.

37. All public improvements utility connections shall be designed in accordance with the City of St. Helena’s Construction Standards (SHMC 16.32.230).

38. The City has adopted the latest edition of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) Post-Construction Manual. Applicant is responsible for conformance construction plans in accordance with the BASMAA Manual, SHMC Section 13.32 et. Seq., and the State Water Resources Control Board Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) General Permit (Order 2013-0001 DWQ). Approval of project by Planning Commission does not constitute compliance with storm water regulations nor a right to develop per approved plans unless this condition of approval is fully satisfied.

39. Grading plans, public improvement plans and connections to public utilities shall be prepared by a California Licensed Civil Engineer.

40. An Encroachment Permit is required prior to starting work within City right of way.

41. All public facilities damaged by construction activities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and shall be repaired per City standards to the satisfaction of the City at the Applicant’s expense.

42. During water shortage emergencies, all construction water used for the project shall be obtained from a source other than a City of St. Helena potable water sources (SHMC

13.04.221).

43. Unless exempted, any ADU or JADU constructed with a new single-family home shall have a separate utility connection directly between the ADU or JADU and the utility and payment of the normal connection fee and capacity charge for a new dwelling are required SHMC

17.116.030(G)(2).

44. Developer shall design and construct all improvements and facilities shown on any approved tentative map, site plan, or other documents submitted for permit approval, in accordance with the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC), and the City of St. Helena Design and Construction Standards. Approval of a tentative map depicting improvements that do not conform to the SHMC or City standards does not constitute approval of an exception to the SHMC or City standards unless explicitly stated herein or in another City resolution.

Agenda Item #5.3.

7 45. The developer shall be responsible for all City plan check, map check and inspection costs.

The developer shall deposit funds with the City upon the initiation of plan check services. The amount of the initial deposit shall be determined by the City Engineer. Additional funds may be required based upon actual plan check and inspection costs.

46. If any of the improvements which the applicant is required to construct or install is to be constructed or installed upon land in which the applicant does not have title or interest sufficient for such purposes, the applicant shall do all of the following at least 60 days prior to the filing of the final or parcel map for approval pursuant to Government Code Section 66457:
a) Notify the City of St. Helena (hereafter “City”) in writing that the applicant wishes the City to acquire an interest in the land which is sufficient for such purposes as provided in Government Code Section 66462.5;
b) Supply the City with (i) a legal description of the interest to be acquired, (ii) a map or diagram of the interest to be acquired sufficient to satisfy the requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 1250.310 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (iii) a current appraisal report prepared by an appraiser approved by the City which expresses an opinion as to the current fair market value of the interest to be acquired, and (iv) a current Litigation Guarantee Report;
c) Enter into an agreement with the City, guaranteed by such cash deposits or other security as the City may require, pursuant to which the applicant will pay all of the City's cost (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and overhead expenses) of acquiring such an interest in the land.

47. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all proposed utilities, both on-site and along project frontages, shall be placed underground. This does not include surface mounted transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets.

48. Except for the existing well on Lot 19 of the Tentative Map that will be providing irrigation water to this development, all existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks shall be abandoned under permit and inspection of Napa County Department of Environmental Health. If applicant determines that there are none, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project engineer shall provide a letter describing the scope of the search done to make this determination and demonstrating, in a manner consistent with City standards and proper engineering practices and to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer, that there are no other existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks within the boundaries of the Tentative Map.

Public Works: Fees

49. Public Works engineering and inspection fees for Improvement Plan and Final Map review shall be due and payable at the time of making the first submittal in connection with the Improvement Plans or the Final Map, as applicable.

Agenda Item #5.3.

8 50. All Public Works Development Impact fees shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of building permit(s) for the improvements to which they are applicable, unless otherwise authorized by the City.

Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

51. Improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted by a California Registered Civil Engineer for the construction of all necessary and required on-site and off-site improvements including grading, water, sanitary sewer, storm drain facilities, roadway improvements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, parkway strips and streetlights. All design and construction shall conform to the City of St. Helena Design and Construction Standards, as applicable.

52. Per Mitigation Measure GEO-1, a detailed Soils Investigation/Geotechnical Report (the “Soils Report”) shall be prepared and submitted for review with the submittal of the improvement plans.

The report shall address, at a minimum, potential for liquefaction, expansive soils, seismic risk, recommendations for roadway structural sections, foundation, and other items as mentioned in the Mitigation Measure. The improvement plans shall incorporate all design and construction criteria recommended in the Geotechnical Report and acknowledgement of inclusion of any recommendations in the soils report applicable to improvements within this development shall be included on a signature line for the Geotechnical Engineer on the cover sheet of the improvement plans. The signature line should include a statement that the Geotechnical Engineer has reviewed the plans and that the plans have incorporated recommendations as outlined in the Soils Report.

53. All private water mains, sewer mains and storm drains shall be clearly labeled “Private” on the improvement plans.

54. Improvements plans shall include a storm water pollution prevention plan. Erosion control measures shall be included within the improvement plans and the projects WDID number shall be included on the cover sheet of the improvement plans.

55. The improvement plans shall include the following note per the Engineering Controls portion of Mitigation Measure NOI-1: “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.”

56. Roadway Improvements:
a. The structural section of all road improvements shall be designed based upon a geotechnical investigation that provides the basement soils R-value and expansion pressure test results. A copy of the geotechnical report shall also be submitted with the first set of improvement plan check-prints.
b. Where new roadway improvements abut existing paving and sidewalk, curb and gutter, the existing pavement and concrete curb and gutter section shall be saw-cut and reconstructed to provide a smooth conforms conform. The limits of such reconstruction shall be as determined by the City Engineer.

Agenda Item #5.3.

9 c. Pavement markings and signage shall be provided on all streets as necessary and as required by the City Engineer. Signage restricting parking and red painted curbing shall be installed where appropriate. Speed limit signs and other regulatory and informational signs shall be installed at locations determined by the City Engineer. d. Street lighting shall be designed to provide to meet safety requirements and minimize glare.

Street light standard and luminaries of the design, spacing, and locations shall be approved by the City Engineer. All lighting must have shields.
e. Ramps for disabled persons meeting the most recent standards shall be provided at all intersections and at the limits of the improvements where they do not adjoin existing sidewalk improvements. Sidewalk warps shall be provided as necessary to allow a clear four-foot-wide walkway at all locations, including areas where mailboxes, streetlights, and fire hydrants obstruct sidewalks.

57. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-1 of the approved environmental document, 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. A written report of the findings shall be provided to the City prior to grading.

58. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-2 of the approved environmental document, if construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), prior to commencement of construction 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.

10 • If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance 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.

59. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-3 of the approved environmental document, 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.

60. Prior to the commencement of grading, the developer shall provide evidence that an archaeological monitor has been retained to be present on the site during all ground-disturbing activities per mitigation measure CUL-1.

61. Per mitigation measure CUL-2 of the approved environmental document, if human remains are unearthed during grading operations, work must stop within 100 feet of the find and the county Coroner shall be contacted immediately.

62. Per mitigation measure GEO-2 of the approved environmental document, if known or suspected paleontological resources are unearthed during grading or trenching operations, the area of discovery shall be roped off by the contractor to include a 50-foot radius buffer and remain off-limits until cleared by a qualified paleontologist.

63. Per mitigation measure HAZ-1 of the approved environmental document, the Project applicant shall ensure the following subsurface soils testing and follow-up analysis 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, environmental 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 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 Agenda Item #5.3.

11 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.

64. Per mitigation measure NOI-1 of the approved environmental document, the contractor 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.

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, front-end 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 Agenda Item #5.3.

12 • Locate sound path intervening containers or trailers onsite to block direct line-of-sight between residences and the operating heavy equipment.

Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

65. Starr Avenue: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Starr Avenue shall join the existing Starr Avenue at Hunt Avenue and shall be improved to include the facilities listed in condition of approval #35. The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

66. Adams Street: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Adams Street shall join the existing section of Adams Street (currently a dead end) and be extended into the subdivision.

The street shall be improved per condition of approval #35. At the northerly terminus of Adams Street, a conform shall be constructed with Class 2 aggregate base to connect to the existing walking path/access road/levee. A gate shall be included at the terminus of the road and connection to the walking path/access road that has appropriate signage indicating it is not a through road for vehicles. The gate shall be constructed per direction from the Fire Chief and shall include a Knox box. The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

67. Street A: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Street A shall be improved to include two 10 ft. travel lanes, two 8 ft. parking lanes, curbs, gutters, a 6 ft. planter strips and 4 ft. sidewalk on the south side of the road and a 10-foot distance from the face of curb to the right-of-way line on the west side of the road. The total right-of-way width shall be 56 feet.

The area between the curb and the right-of-way line on the west side of the street shall be graded such that it can be passable by pedestrians (cross slopes should not exceed 5%). The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

68. Streets B and C: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Streets B and C shall be improved to include two 10 ft. travel lanes, two 8 ft. parking lanes, curbs, gutters, 6 ft. planter strips and 4 ft. sidewalks within an overall 56 ft. right-of-way. The cul-de-sac associated with Street C shall be constructed per City Standard 304. The knuckle at the intersection of Streets B and C shall be constructed per City Standard 305. The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report.

69. EVA: From Street A to levee: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the emergency vehicle access road (EVA) shall be improved to provide an all-weather access road (paved) from Street A up to the existing levee road to the north. The width of the EVA shall be a minimum of 21 feet from face of curb to face of curb within an overall 25 ft. wide dedicated EVA. The EVA shall accommodate emergency vehicles (must provide for turning radii to accommodate fire vehicles as per the Fire Department requirements.) Turning templates shall be provided with the improvement plans during the plan check process to ensure the EVA can accommodate Fire Department apparatus.

70. Access from Lot 52 to Starr Avenue shall be for EVA and pedestrian purposes. Ownership of this parcel shall be the same as Lot 52, or the access point shall be made part of Lot 52.

Agenda Item #5.3.

13 71. Adjacent to Lot 51 there is a portion of existing right-of-way that needs to be vacated by the City prior to the recordation of the final map. The applicant shall provide all descriptions and plats to the City for vacation of this right-of-way. The vacation of the right-of-way by the City of St. Helena shall either be done prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the final map.

72. Per Mitigation Measure AES-1, all streetlights shall include shields and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light and to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the development.

Public Works Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Conditions

73. As detailed in the Final EIR for the project, the Developer is required to off-set the Project’s water demand of 37.04 AFY. The Project’s landscape water demand is estimated at 17.16 acrefeet per year, which is within the capacity of the existing on-site well. Due to the new potable water demand on the City system in the amount of 19.8 AFY, the Developer shall implement an alternative innovative method of mitigating water use as allowed under Section

13.12.030(B) of the SHMC and/or Appendix J of the EIR. The required improvements to offset water demand are as follows: 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. No building permit may be issued until the City has confirmed that the Developer has completed the approved measures and such measures have been accepted by the City, or Developer has entered into a public improvement agreement with the City to ensure the completion of such improvements and provided security in one of the forms described in Government Code section 66499 in an amount equal to the estimated cost of construction of the proposed offsite improvements as determined, or reviewed and approved, by the City Engineer. Any public improvements shall be constructed to St. Helena Public Works Construction Standards whenever applicable.

74. Any modifications to the existing well other than the installation or maintenance of pumping and storage equipment and connection to the onsite irrigation water distribution system, shall require a permit per section 13.16.060 of the St Helena Municipal Code.

75. The Final Map shall include easements to provide for the installation of the private onsite water system connected to onsite well.

76. All homes and the proposed multi-family parcel shall be served by the onsite well for landscaping and other outdoor water use. Only interior fixtures may be served by City of St.

Helena domestic water.

77. All parcels must be connected to the internal irrigation well for outside uses, including landscape irrigation and exterior hose bibs.

78. The Applicant shall make written application to the City of St. Helena in conformance with Chapter 13.04 of the St. Helena Municipal Code for Water Service to the new parcels.

Agenda Item #5.3.

14 79. The applicant/owner shall be required to install water mains and service lines to serve the project parcels with City water. All water mains and lines within the public right of way shall be constructed in conformance with City standards.

80. The applicant/ owner shall make written application to the City of St. Helena for annexation to the Sewer District and for Sewer Service to the new parcels in conformance with Chapter

13.20.070 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

81. All public water and sewer mains must be located in public right-of-way wherever possible.

Where public water and sewer mains must be located on private property, all necessary easement dedications must be made part of the final map or by separate document (if outside of the boundaries of the final map) prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City.

82. Sewer grades must be designed such that ultimate finished floors are a minimum of 12” above upstream manhole or clean-out rim elevations. Inadequate elevation differentials or grade on private laterals, as determined by the City, must be mitigated by either raising finished floor elevation(s) or installing privately owned and operated sewer lift station(s) with grinder/ejector pump(s) on site.

83. All water improvements shall conform to the City standards.

84. The existing 10 ft. public waterline easement shall be abandoned by separate document once the relocated water line has been built and is operational.

85. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, the existing 12-inch waterline running through the development shall be relocated to Starr Avenue by the applicant/developer. At the westerly end of Starr Avenue, the line shall be reconnected to the existing 12-inch waterline outside north of Lot 46.

86. The proposed well and appurtenances (pump, etc.) for this development shall be owned and operated by the Homeowner’s Association for this development. The well shall supply irrigation water for all landscaping of common areas and on all lots within the subdivision to limit use of domestic water produced by the City. Signage shall be provided on each lot warning of the use of well water and that the well water shall not be used for domestic purposes.

Piping for all irrigation water from the well shall be purple pipe (same as used for recycled water). Also, disclosure statements (either through disclosures as required by the Department of Real Estate or on the final map) shall be provided to all property owners notifying them about use of well water and statements warning that well water should not be used for domestic purposes. If the City’s reclaimed water system becomes available at the project site, the onsite irrigation system shall be connected to the reclaimed water system and the well shall be permanently closed.

87. The sewer easement on lot 21 shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and shall be located entirely within Lot 21. Statements shall be included on the final map precluding any permanent structures from being constructed within this easement. The sewer line shall be connected to the existing sewer main in Paseo Grand Drive.

Agenda Item #5.3.

15 Public Works Drainage Improvements Conditions

88. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all City-required improvements related to storm water for the project shall be installed by the project developer at its expense. Drainage improvements shall be designed and funded by the developer in accordance with the Design Criteria utilizing the rationale method and any applicable adopted City drainage plans.

89. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval, drainage plans and hydraulic calculations prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer.

The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following conditions before and after development:
• Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps and drainage courses.

90. Post-Development storm water discharge from parcel 009-030-057 shall not exceed the predevelopment discharge including the projected build-out, expressed as a 30% undeveloped pervious and 70% impervious drainage watershed. Applicant shall prepare an analysis to show compliance with this COA. Refer to COA #90 for additional requirements of the analysis.

91. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide to the City an analysis of the capacity and condition of existing drainage facilities downstream of the development (including any detention/retention ponds), including recommendations for off-site drainage improvements, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Site grading and drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans. In the unlikely event that the downstream facilities require improvements, the applicant shall enter a Funding Agreement as a means of reimbursement from the City.

92. The 100-year overflow and pipeline easement on Lot 25 shall be dedicated on the final map and language shall be included on the final map prohibiting any permanent structures (including garages, sheds, swimming pools, etc.) from being constructed within the easement, as well as provisions (including requirement regarding grading) that ensure that Lot 25 remain in a condition such that it allows relief for the 100-year storm overflows.

93. Prior to Final Map recordation, the developer shall obtain a construction easement from the City over Parcel 009-030-019 to construct the drainage improvements, wall, and fence on lots 5-20. The drainage ditch on Lots 5-20 shall be privately owned and maintained.

Public Works Final Map Conditions

94. A final map, as defined in the State Subdivision Map Act, shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer, showing all parcels, rights-of-way, and easement(s) shall be filed with the City Engineers Office. The final map shall be substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map and all applicable conditions of approval. The final map is not valid until it has been approved and recorded.

Agenda Item #5.3.

16 95. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall secure all necessary rights-of-way and easements for both onsite and offsite improvements. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated on the map or provided by separate instrument. The developer shall prepare all necessary legal descriptions and deeds. Offers of dedication shall be either via easement or fee title).

96. The applicant shall transmit by certified mail a copy of the conditionally approved Tentative Map together with a copy of Section 66436 of the State Subdivision Map Act to each public entity or public utility that is an easement holder of record. Written compliance shall be submitted to the City of St. Helena

97. The final map shall not be approved prior to approval of the Subdivision Improvement Plans.

98. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall either complete required improvements in accordance with the approved improvement plans or enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed consistent with City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

99. Abandonment of existing 10-foot public water easement crossing the property shall be included on the final map or by separate document.
100. The unnumbered lot between Lots 3 and 4 as shown on the Tentative Map shall be included as part of Lot 52 and shall not be a separate lot.

Public Works Construction Conditions
101. No grading or other construction shall be performed until the improvement plans have been approved and signed by the City Engineer. Encroachment Permits and Building Permits will not be issued prior to the approval of the improvement plans. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work within the City’s rights of way.
102. The developer shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud, materials, and debris during the construction period, as is found necessary by the City Engineer.
103. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide evidence that a Notice of Intent has been submitted and received by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. A copy of the project Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan shall be submitted to the City. 104. If any hazardous waste is encountered during the construction of this project, all work shall be immediately stopped and the Napa County Environmental Health Department, the Fire Department, the Police Department, and the City Inspector shall be notified immediately.

Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies. 105. Prior to final preparation of the subgrade and placement of base materials, all underground utilities shall be installed and service connections stubbed out behind the sidewalk. Public Agenda Item #5.3.

17 utilities, Cable TV, sanitary sewers, and water lines shall be installed in a manner which will not disturb the street pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk, when future service connections or extensions are made.
106. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are different from that anticipated in the soil and/or geologic investigation report, or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained in the original soil investigation, a revised soil or geologic report shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. It shall be accompanied by an engineering and geological opinion as to the safety of the site from hazards of land slippage, erosion, settlement, and seismic activity. Additionally, if field conditions warrant installation of any subdrains, the location, size and construction details must be provided to the City for review and approval prior to construction. 107. Prior to placing the final lift of asphalt, all public sanitary sewer lines shall be video inspected at the expense of the contractor/developer. All video tapes shall be submitted to the City. If any inadequacies are found, they shall be repaired prior to the placement of the final lift of asphalt.
108. All streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks or other public facilities damaged in the course of construction associated with this development shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be repaired per City standards to the satisfaction of the City at the Developer’s expense.
109. The applicant shall submit a proposed haul route for all trucking associated with this project to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 110. Dust control must be maintained per City standards to the City’s satisfaction. 111. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed per City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Public Works Subdivision Final and/or Release of Securities Conditions:
112. All public improvements shown on the Improvement Plans shall be completed and accepted by the City prior to release of any security posted.
113. All punch-list work shall be completed, and any outstanding inspection fees or other charges shall be paid prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy or prior to acceptance of the improvements, at the discretion of the City.
114. Video inspections shall be made of all storm drain and sewer lines installed by developer as set forth in the approved improvement plans to ensure that they are clean of dirt, rocks, debris or other material. Contractor/developer shall be responsible for cleaning and flushing all storm drain lines prior to acceptance by the City. If flushing of the storm drain system is required, the contractor/developer shall put sufficient plugs/filters in place to ensure that any debris, mud or other material is not washed beyond the piping system in the subdivision nor into any natural water course. A copy of the DVD of all storm drain lines shall be delivered and reviewed by the City prior to acceptance. This condition shall be satisfied prior to Agenda Item #5.3.

18 issuance of any certificate of occupancy or prior to acceptance of the improvements, at the discretion of the City.
115. Developer shall provide sufficient security guaranteeing the public improvements for a period of one year.
116. A complete set of As-Built or Record improvement plans showing all substantial changes from the original plans shall be certified by the Civil Engineer of record and submitted to the City Engineer prior to acceptance of the public improvements. 117. Prior to acceptance of the public improvements, the developer shall provide a written statement signed by his or her engineer certifying that they observed the work during construction and that site grading and all private site improvements have been completed in accordance with the improvement plans approved by the City Engineer. 118. Prior to acceptance of the public improvements, the developer shall provide a written statement signed by his or her geotechnical engineer certifying that they observed the work and reviewed testing results, and that all of work was performed in accordance with the recommendations included in the Soils Report or other recommendations necessitated by field conditions.

Fire Department Conditions
119. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer is responsible for fire hydrants to be included and installed within the development in compliance with City standards (number, location and spacing) to the satisfaction of the Fire Department.

Locations of the fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of the final map.
120. Plans submitted for building permit shall exhibit compliance with the current St. Helena Fire Code, as adopted and codified in St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36. 121. Prior to issuance of future building permits, all construction plans for homes and other structures shall include fire sprinklers as required by the City of St. Helena Fire Department. 122. One hour minimum fire-resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10’ of property boundary is required. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy.
123. Any gates installed to control vehicular access to a property are required to be setback 30- feet from the property line and/or edge of pavement, whichever is greater. No vehicle gates may be installed without Fire Department and Public Works Department review and explicit approval.
124. Access to the levee road is restricted for public use and only granted to emergency vehicles and emergency egress for Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park residents. Signage prohibiting its use by the public is recommended. Public access will be granted at the discretion of the Authority Having Jurisdiction during emergencies/evacuations.

Agenda Item #5.3.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

C O V E R S H E E T
TM1

T E N T A T I V E M A P

H U N T E R S U B D I V I S I O N

S T H E L E N A C A L I F O R N I A
1 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #5.3.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S
TM2
2 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #5.3.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

G R A D I N G P L A N
TM3
3 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #5.3.

GRADING SECTIONS AND DETAILS
TM4
4 CHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
··
··
·· JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #5.3.

CHECKED
DRAWNDESIGNEDDATEJOB NO.SHEET NO.

OF SHEETS
APPD REVISIONS BY DATE NO.

Printed on Recycled Paper Please Continue the Cycle
RSA | CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS + +
1980
est.
1515 FOURTH STREET
NAPA, CALIF. 94559
OFFICE
www.RSAcivil.com
| 252.3301 707|
+ +

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

ST HELENA CALIFORNIA
5 PRELIMINARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

U T I L I T Y P L A N
TM5
5 JANUARY 23, 2023

Agenda Item #5.3.

1 Hunter Subdivision: 1993 General Plan Consistency
1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
Land Use
Land Use Map The General Plan Land
Use Map designates the site
for Medium Density
Residential, with a density
range of 5.1 to 12.0 units per
gross acre. Applied to the
proposed project, a minimum
of 87 units and a maximum
270 units could be built in
conformance with the
Proposed Land Use Diagram.

The proposed subdivision map includes 51 lots for
single family homes and a separate parcel for
development with multi-family attached units. The
applicant proposes to develop the project with the
following:
• 51 single family homes
• 11 accessory dwelling units (on 11 of the 51
single family lots)
• 25 multi-family units
If constructed with these types and numbers of
units, the project would conform with the minimum
density required by the General Plan. There are
other alternative scenarios which would achieve the
minimum density; the proposed subdivision map
does not preclude achieving the minimum
residential density required by the General Plan.

Conformance with the required General Plan density
will be confirmed at the time an Affordable Housing
Agreement and development plans are submitted
for review and approval.
ü

2.6.1 New development should be
required to occur in a logical
and orderly manner within
well-defined boundaries, and
be consistent with the ability
to provide urban services.

The proposed project is adjacent to existing
development, extends existing roadways, and can be
provided with all required services, including sewer,
water, police, and fire. ü

2.6.2 Urban development shall be
allowed to occur only within
the Urban Service Area during
the time frame of the General
Plan.

The proposed subdivision is within the Urban Service
Area.
ü

2.6.3 Urban services such as sewer,
water, and storm drainage will
only be extended to
development within the
Urban Service Area.

The proposed subdivision is within the Urban Service
Area.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

2 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
Exceptions will be permitted
when undue hardship can be
demonstrated, and proposed
improvements are not found
to be growth inducing.

Tourism

3.4.10 Work with the County to
establish a Valley-wide bicycle
trail network that will allow
users to circulate without
placing additional demand on
local streets, and will allow
visitors to travel within the
Valley from a centrally-parked
vehicle.

Proposed conditions of approval require that Starr
Avenue and Adams Street include on-street bike
lanes.
ü
Community Design

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.
ü

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-desac is included in the proposed subdivision where no other street pattern is feasible. ü

4.4.2 When reviewing development
proposals in areas not already
served by a system of streets,
City staff shall ensure that
proposed development is
sited in such a manner that it
The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the
Public Works department for consistency with the
City’s planned roadway system. The tract will
complete the planned roadway system by extending
and connecting Adams Street and Starr Avenue.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

3 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
will not obstruct the logical
extension of existing streets
and infrastructure, or the
expansion of the City's gridlike pattern of streets into newly developing areas. As
with existing street patterns,
new extensions of the city grid
need not be rigid in their
dimensions and layout, but
should be evaluated on their
contribution to the formation
of a logical, interconnected
system of streets that
facilitates the safe and
efficient flow of pedestrian,
bicycle, and vehicular traffic,
and establishes an attractive
neighborhood environment.

Staff can consider variations
to the logical extension of
existing streets if the project
proponent can demonstrate
that safety, aesthetics,
topography, or other factors
make such an extension
ineffective or undesirable, or
that such an extension would
cause the landowner undue
hardship.

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. ü

4.6.2 Discourage the use of cul-desacs. Where cul-de-sacs are necessary, do not allow
houses to block views out to
the vineyards. View corridors
The proposed subdivision includes one cul-de-sac
with six homes in a location where no other street
connection to avoid a cul-de-sac is available. ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

4 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
out from the ends of streets
should be preserved.

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.
ü
Transportation

5.3.2 Add the following streets to
the existing system:
• Adams Street from its
current eastern terminus
to Silverado Trail
• McCorkle Avenue from
Mariposa Lane to the
extension of Starr Avenue
• Oak Avenue from Mitchell
Drive to Grayson A venue
• Library Lane from its
current terminus to Fulton
Lane
• An unnamed new street
located east of Edwards
Street connecting Hunt
Avenue and Pope Street
• Starr Avenue from the
extension of Adams Street
to the Urban Limit Line
The proposed project will extend Adams Street to
connect with the northward extension of Starr
Avenue, helping to implement this policy.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

5 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information

5.3.3 Preserve rights-of-way for
future collector streets within
the planning area of the City
as follows:
• Starr Avenue from Pratt
Avenue to Adams Street
and from the Urban Limit
Line to Dowdell Lane
• Mills Lane from SR 29 to
Starr Avenue, including a
potential realignment
with Grayson Avenue at
SR 29
• Oak Avenue from Vidovich
Avenue to Grayson
Avenue
The proposed project will extend Starr Avenue to
connect with the eastward extension of Adams
Street, helping to implement this policy.
ü

5.4.1 Service Level C shall be
maintained at all signalized
intersections in St Helena
except along Main Street,
where Service Level D shall be
permitted. Exceptions to this
policy are that lower service
levels shall be permitted at
any location where the
existing service level does not
meet this standard; in these
locations, the Service Level
shall not be lower than that
shown in Table 5-3. The City
Council may also allow an
exception to this policy if it
finds overriding circumstances
which make maintenance of
this policy impractical or
infeasible.

According to the project’s traffic analysis, the
proposed project would add traffic to several
intersections where the existing level of service is D
or F:
• Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Dr.
• Paseo Grande-College Ave/Pope Street
• Silverado Trail/Pope Street
Traffic from the proposed project would not cause
the level of service to exceed C at any additional
intersections.

Because the project would not create any new
exceedences, but would only add vehicles to
locations where LOS C is already exceeded, the
project does not violate this policy.
ü

5.4.2 Service Level C is a goal at
stop-sign-controlled
intersections. If the Service
Level degrades below Level C,
an evaluation of the need for
traffic signalization shall be
According to the project’s traffic analysis, the
proposed project would add traffic to several
intersections where the existing level of service is D
or F:
• Main Street/Pope Street-Mitchell Dr.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

6 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
undertaken according to
standard CAL TRANS signal
warrants. If signals are not
initially warranted, the
location shall continue to be
monitored for signal warrants
on a regular basis.
• Paseo Grande-College Ave/Pope Street
• Silverado Trail/Pope Street
Traffic from the proposed project would not cause
the level of service to exceed C at any additional
intersections.

Because the project would not create any new
exceedences, but would only add vehicles to
locations where LOS C is already exceeded, the
project does not violate this policy.

5.5.1 Collector Streets: All collector
streets designated in the
Circulation Diagram should be
developed with one lane in
each direction for moving
traffic. Rights of way for a
parking lane and sidewalks
shall also be provided on each
side. In undeveloped areas
without development
constraints, the right-of-way
width for collector streets
shall be 60 feet. The City
Engineer may at his discretion
require additional right-ofway at selected locations to permit inclusion of left-tum
lanes.

The proposed project will extend Adams Street and
Starr Avenue, which are both shown as collector
streets on the Street System Heirarchy diagram.

These roadways have been reviewed by the Public
Works department, and conditions of approval are
included which specify Public Works’ required
improvements.
ü

5.5.2 Local streets in newly
developing areas should be
laid out in a manner
consistent with the grid
system currently in place in
the older portions of St
Helena and in conformance
with adopted City standards.

Care should be taken to insure
that these grids contain
enough discontinuity to
discourage their use by nonlocal traffic. Local streets should have a paved width of
36 feet with a ten-foot wide
The proposed street layout follows a grid pattern as
much as possible, given the site’s shape and the
location of adjacent connecting streets. Proposed
street widths have been reviewed by the Public
Works department.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

7 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
area adjacent to curb for
sidewalk and landscaping.

5.8.1 All new development on
collector streets shall provide
sidewalks or walkways to be
located with the City's rightof-way for the collector street.

Further, unless exempted or
deferred by the City Council,
all residential developments
shall provide sidewalks on all
local streets within the
development.

All roadways in the proposed subdivision include
sidewalks.
ü

5.8.2 The City shall develop a
system of bicycle routes to be
located on collector streets
and along open space
corridors. In the interest of
safety, bicycles shall be
discouraged from using Main
Street and shall be
encouraged to use other
parallel streets.

Proposed conditions of approval require that Starr
Avenue and Adams Street include on-street bike
lanes.
ü

5.10.1 All new collector streets
shown in the Circulation
Diagram shall be constructed
as development occurs along
the proposed streets. The
exception to this policy is that
the City Council may require
additional construction to
reinforce system continuity.

The proposed project will extend Adams Street and
Starr Avenue, which are both shown as collector
streets on the Street System Hierarchy diagram.

These roadways have been reviewed by the Public
Works department, and conditions of approval are
included which specify Public Works’ required
improvements.
ü

5.10.2 The City desires that the
Adams Street extension to
Silverado Trail be completed
in an expeditious manner; the
City will work with potential
developers to acquire the
needed combination of public
The proposed project will extend Adams Street
eastward from its current terminus, contributing to
the implementation of this policy. ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

8 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
and private financing required
to implement this project.

Public Health and Safety

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.
ü

8.5.8 Require all new development
plans to be approved by the
Fire Department prior to
issuance of building permits,
grading permits, or final map
approval.

The final map will be reviewed prior to approval by
the City Council.
ü
Public Facilities and Services

9.3.2 Require all new units, except
those in Woodlands and
Watershed Districts, on
parcels less than 2 acres to
connect to the City sewer. All
existing units within 200 feet
of an existing sewer shall
connect to the City sewer
whenever feasible. Many of
the residential units cannot
expand without abandoning
the on-site septic system and
connecting to the sewer
which may, in some cases,
require an extension of the
sewer.

All homes in the proposed subdivision will be served
by the City sewer system.
ü

9.4.1 New development should
provide adequate drainage
improvements to handle
generated storm runoff from
the site to the nearest major
watershed. The watersheds
The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the
Public Works for consistency with City storm
drainage requirements. Drainage from the proposed
project will be directed to an adjacent City flood
control basin which empties into the Napa River.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

9 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
include York Creek, Sulphur
Creek and the Napa River.

9.4.6 Standards for subdivisions
should include the following:

1. All preliminary subdivision
proposals shall identify
the flood hazard area and
the elevation of the base
flood.

2. All final subdivision plans
will provide the elevation
of proposed structure(s)
and pads. If the site is
filled above the base
flood. The final pad
elevation shall be certified
by a registered civil
engineer or surveyor and
provided to the floodplain
administrator.

3. All subdivision proposals
shall be consistent with
the need to minimize
flood damage.

4. All subdivision proposals
shall have public utilities
and facilities such as
sewer, gas, electrical and
water systems located
and constructed to
minimize flood damage.

5. All subdivisions shall
provide adequate
drainage to reduce
exposure to flood hazards.

The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by
various City departments for conformance with all
applicable requirements.
ü

9.6.6 Approval of residential,
commercial, or industrial
development may be
conditioned upon the
mitigation of the impact of
such development on the St
Helena Unified School
The conditions of approval require the payment of
all applicable development impact fees, including
school impacts fees. ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

10 1993 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information
District's ability to serve
school age children.

Parks and Recreation

10.3.1 Enhance the quality of life and
environment in St Helena
through the provision of
adequate parks and
recreation facilities
commensurate with a
community of St. Helena's size
and demographic
composition.

The proposed subdivision does not include a public
park, but will include private open space areas for
individual homes and in the proposed multi-family
development. The conditions of approval also
require the payment of park impact fees to
contribute to the development or improvement of
City parks.
ü

10.3.5 Encourage developers to
provide open space and
recreational facilities as part
of new residential
developments. The City may
consider density bonuses for
the inclusion of significant
public recreational facilities in
new development.

The proposed project is too small to provide for the
inclusion of an onsite public park, but will pay park
impact fees to provide funding for other City parks.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

1 Hunter Subdivision: 2019 General Plan Consistency
2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
Land Use
Land Use Map The General Plan
Proposed Land Use Diagram
designates the site for Medium
Density Residential, with a density
range of 5.1 to 16.0 units per acre.

Applied to the proposed project, a
minimum of 87 units and a
maximum 270 units could be built
in conformance with the Proposed
Land Use Diagram.

The proposed subdivision map includes 51 lots for
single family homes and a separate parcel for
development with multi-family attached units. The
applicant proposes to develop the project with the
following:
• 51 single family homes
• 11 accessory dwelling units (on 11 of the 51
single family lots)
• 25 multi-family units
If constructed with these types and numbers of
units, the project would conform with the minimum
density required by the General Plan. There are
other alternative scenarios which would achieve the
minimum density; the proposed subdivision map
does not preclude achieving the minimum
residential density required by the General Plan.

Conformance with the required General Plan density
will be confirmed at the time an Affordable Housing
Agreement and development plans are submitted
for review and approval.
ü
LU1.1 Require new development to
occur within well-defined
boundaries and be consistent with
the ability to provide urban
services. New development should
mitigate infrastructure impacts by
using sustainable, best
management practices in green
building and stormwater
management and paying its share
of development impact fees, while
minimizing impacts on sewer,
water, energy, and natural
resources.

The proposed project is adjacent to existing
development, extends existing roadways, and can be
provided with all required services, including sewer,
water, police, and fire.
ü
LU1.2 Allow urban development to
occur only within the Urban Limit
The proposed subdivision is within the Urban Service
Area.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

2 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
Line. Consider an exception for onsite employee housing on Agricultural lands. Urban services,
such as sewer, water, and storm
drainage, will only be extended to
development within the Urban
Limit Line.

LU1.5 Require new development to
provide adequate infrastructure
and urban services, including
compliance with the policies and
implementing actions affecting
new development as set forth in
the Public Facilities and Services
Element.

The proposed subdivision is required to install all
infrastructure and facilitate the provision services.
ü
LU2.1 Promote a mix of housing types
and price ranges that are
consistent with the Housing
Element RHNA categories of
housing affordability.

The proposed project includes market-rate single
family homes and two types of units intended to be
more affordable: accessory dwelling units and multifamily units. ü
LU2.3 Protect residential
neighborhood views of
surrounding vineyards and
mountains.

The proposed project will change the appearance of
the site and affect some views, but retains views to
the extent possible while allowing development to
occur.
ü
LU2.7 Ensure safe, walkable, and
bikeable residential
neighborhoods and vibrant, livable
streets.

The proposed subdivision includes sidewalks and instreet bike lanes. Design of the homes and details regarding landscaping will be reviewed in future
applications.
ü
LU2.D Continue to require residential
developers to contribute to the
provision of community facilities
and services (e.g. parks, recreation
facilities and programs, education
facilities, traffic and transportation
facilities, and services), consistent
with State law requiring a nexus
between project impacts and
required mitigation.

Conditions of approval require the applicant to pay
all applicable development impact fees.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

3 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
Economic Sustainability
ES1.4 Encourage the creation of
workforce housing to support the
local employment base in keeping
with small town smart growth.

The proposed project includes market-rate single
family homes and two types of units intended to be
more affordable: accessory dwelling units and multifamily units. ü
Public Facilities and Services
PF1.1 Require that the approval of
new development be contingent
upon the ability of the City to
provide water without exceeding
the safe annual yield of its water
supply system.

The proposed project will use an on-site well for
irrigation uses (reducing domestic water use) and is
also required to implement water system
improvements to achieve water neutrality prior to
the issuance of building permits.
ü
PF1.L Require that all new residential
housing projects incorporate “best
practices” for minimizing water
usage.

The proposed project will be required to adhere to
all applicable codes and requirements related to
water conservation through the building permit
review process.
ü
PF2.1 Ensure adequate sewage
treatment capacity at the City
treatment plant to meet the needs
of population growth, taking into
account the City’s Growth
Management System, the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation, and the
needs of non-residential users.

A study of sewer capacity prepared for the project’s
environmental impact report confirmed that
capacity is available to serve the proposed project.
ü
PF2.A Require all new units on parcels
less than two acres, except those
in the Woodlands and Watershed
District, to connect to the City
sewer. All existing units within 200
feet of an existing sewer shall
connect to the City sewer
whenever feasible. Many of the
residential units cannot expand
without abandoning on-site septic
systems and connecting to the
sewer which may, in some cases,
require an extension of the sewer.

All homes in the proposed subdivision will be
required to connect to the City sewer system. The
applicant is required to install all required sewer
lines to serve the proposed homes.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

4 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
PF2.C Urban services such as sewer,
water, and storm drainage will
only be extended to development
within the Urban Limit Line.

Exceptions will be permitted when
undue hardship can be
demonstrated and when proposed
improvements are not found to
induce growth.

The proposed project is within the Urban Limit Line.
ü
PF3.1 Ensure that new developments
provide adequate drainage
improvements and detention to
mitigate flooding from increased
stormwater runoff attributable to
the development.

The proposed project will provide all required onsite
drainage facilities to carry stormwater to the
adjacent City storm drainage basin, which was
designed to accommodate runoff from the site in a
developed condition.
ü
PF3.C Consistent with Municipal Code
Section 16.32.170, continue to
prohibit the creation of new
residential lots that will be subject
to periodic inundation from
floodwaters. New development
proposals on existing lots of record
must identify flood hazard areas
and mitigate all impacts to base
flood levels and potential flood
damage from grading, filling, and
construction through proper
drainage, construction, and
location of utilities, in accordance
with FEMA requirements.

The project is not subject to inundation, due to the
construction of the Napa River levee and the
adjacent City storm basin.
ü
PF5.4 Require that the approval of
residential, commercial, or
industrial development be
contingent upon the mitigation of
the impact of such development
on the St. Helena Unified School
District’s ability to serve schoolage children.

The proposed project is required to pay all
applicable development impact fees, including
school impact fees.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

5 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
PF5.A Assist the School District in
collecting school facility
development fees generated by
new development. Partner with
the District to identify, establish,
and implement additional
measures to ensure that the
highest quality of education is
provided.

The proposed project is required to pay all
applicable development impact fees, including
school impact fees.
ü
Transportation
CR1.9 Promote a walking and bicycling
environment that is comfortable
and convenient. Ensure that all St.

Helena streets have no more than
a single through-automobile lane
in each direction, plus a single lefthand turning lane where appropriate, even if this
requirement increases vehicle
travel times. Allow exceptions if an
extra lane would reduce the
possibility of collisions.

The proposed project includes roadways consistent
with this policy.
ü
CR2.1 Create a comprehensive bicycle
and pedestrian network that
enhances neighborhood
connectivity. Develop the system
as shown in Figure 5.4 to expand
and improve the pedestrian and
bikeway system.

The proposed subdivision is required to provide bike
lanes in Starr Avenue and Adams Street that
implement the General Plan bikeway system shown
in Figure 5.4. ü
CR2.C Require any new development
and modifications to existing
projects to provide bicycle and
pedestrian improvements and
amenities, consistent with
adopted Engineering Standards
and the St. Helena Bicycle Plan.

The proposed subdivision is required to provide bike
lanes in Starr Avenue and Adams Street that
implement the General Plan bikeway system shown
in Figure 5.4. ü
CR3.6 Support development of the
bikeway and pedestrian networks
to provide a convenient
The proposed subdivision is required to provide bike
lanes in Starr Avenue and Adams Street that ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

6 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
opportunity for at least 20 percent
of commuters to get to work by
walking or bicycling.
implement the General Plan bikeway system shown
in Figure 5.4.

Historic Resources
The project does not contain or affect historic resources. NA Community Design
CD1.1 Ensure high-quality design and
construction through a robust
design review process.

Design of residences built within the proposed
subdivision will be reviewed as part of subsequent
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit reviews
for conformance with City policies and standards.
ü
CD1.8 Require, to the extent feasible,
that all new development include
underground utilities to minimize
their negative visual impact. In
addition, funding sources to
underground electrical lines shall
be sought so the undergrounding
of existing overheard lines can
occur over time.

The proposed project is conditioned to place all
utilities underground.
ü
CD3.1 Limit building envelope sizes
and require adequate side and
rear setbacks to preserve the
character of existing residential
areas and to avoid overbuilt lots.

Require future development to
conform to the pattern and
density of the neighboring areas.

In order to complement existing
town character and protect
against incursion into vineyard
agricultural areas.

Design of residences built within the proposed
subdivision will be reviewed as part of subsequent
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit reviews
for conformance with City policies and standards.
ü
CD3.2 Ensure that new residential
designs contribute positively to
existing neighborhoods by
complementing character and
incorporating design features,
Design of residences built within the proposed
subdivision will be reviewed as part of subsequent
Design Review and Conditional Use Permit reviews
for conformance with City policies and standards.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

7 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
such as front porches, façade
articulation and stepbacks.

CD5.1 Preserve the visual and physical
connection to agriculture by
protecting views from streets,
parks, and open spaces to
vineyards, agriculture, and
hillsides. Where new streets are
extended adjacent to agriculture,
encourage hillside, and vineyard
views by maintaining agricultural
activities at the road edge. Existing
east and west entries should be
maintained in their current
appearance, protecting and
improving views of vineyards and
the surrounding hillsides wherever
possible.

The proposed project will change the appearance of
the site and affect some views, but is consistent with
retaining views while allowing development to
occur.
ü
CD6.1 Ensure a connected circulation
system that maximizes pedestrian
and bicycle connectivity.

The proposed project includes sidewalks on all
streets and bike lanes that implement the City’s
bikeway master plan.
ü
CD6.2 Promote the inclusion of bicycle
and pedestrian trails and bicycle
lanes throughout the City, as well
as connections to regional trail
systems, such as the Napa Valley
Vine Trail.

The proposed project includes sidewalks on all
streets and bike lanes that implement the City’s
bikeway master plan. ü
Open Space and Conservation
OS1.1 Preserve and enhance St.

Helena’s riparian corridors for
their value in providing wildlife
habitat, biodiversity, natural
drainage, and visual amenity.

The proposed project does not directly or indirectly
affect any riparian corridor.
ü
Public Health, Safety and Noise
PS1.4 Promote an optimized land use
development pattern that
minimizes cumulative air quality
The proposed project is consistent with the General
Plan Land Use policy map. ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

8 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
impacts from proposed
developments.

PS2.B Enforce the Land Use
Compatibility Standards presented
in the State of California’s General
Plan guidelines when siting new
uses. These standards identify the
acceptability of a project based on
levels of noise exposure.

Based on the analysis in the project’s environmental
impact report, the proposed development is
consistent with applicable noise standards.
ü
PS2.C Adopt and enforce Title 24
Standards for all types of new
residential construction, including
single family dwellings, duplexes,
apartments, and dormitories.

Conformance with Title 24 standards will be
determined at the time of building permit review.

PS2.D Require an acoustical study,
prepared by a qualified acoustical
consultant for:
• All proposed projects that are
likely to be exposed to noise
levels greater than the
standards;
• All proposed projects that
would generate noise where
impacts on other uses would
be greater than the standards;
• Any project exposed to
outdoor noise at or above a
day-night average sound level
(Ldn) of 60 or for any noise
source that could create such
outdoor noise levels for
adjacent uses; and
• Any project exposed to or that
creates noise which may
exceed the adopted City
standards.

A noise analysis of the proposed project is included
in the project’s environmental impact report.
ü
PS3.1 Minimize risk of injury, loss of
life and property damage from
The proposed project will be required to conform
with all applicable building codes, and all
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

9 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
seismically induced and other
known geologic hazards.
construction plans will be reviewed at the time of
building permit review.

PS3.3 The required soils and geologic
reports for new development shall
include geotechnical analysis for
construction in areas with
potential geological hazards
and/or for purposes of
environmental analysis. The
analysis shall investigate all
potential geo-hazard issues for the
site where there is substantial
evidence of a potential risk.

PS3.4 Geologic reports for new
development shall describe
hazards and include mitigation
measures to reduce risks to
acceptable levels. Where
appropriate, an engineer’s or
geologist’s certification shall be
required stating that risks have
been mitigated to an acceptable
level.

A geotechnical analysis conforming with these
requirements is included in the project’s
environmental impact report.
ü
PS3.A Require a soils and geologic
report to be submitted for new
construction prior to the issuance
of grading and building permits
and the submission of final maps.

The proposed project is required to provide these
reports prior to final map recordation.
ü
PS3.B Prohibit any development—
including any land alteration,
grading for roads, and structural
development—in areas of slope
instability or other geologic
concerns until mitigating measures
are taken to limit potential
damage to levels of acceptable
risk.

The proposed project does not involve any areas of
unstable slopes or other geologic concerns.
ü
PS3.E All development and
construction proposals shall be
reviewed by the City to ensure
Review of construction proposals will take place at
the time that plans are submitted. ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

10 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
conformance to applicable
building standards.

Recommendations of the
geotechnical analysis shall be
implemented.

PS4.6 Ensure that all streets and roads
are adequate in terms of width,
turning radius, and grade in order
to facilitate access by City
firefighting apparatus, and to
provide alternative emergency
routes of ingress and egress.

The proposed subdivision has been reviewed by the
Fire Department for conformance with all applicable
standards.
ü
PS5.1 Minimize the risk to people,
property and the environment
caused by flooding hazards. Site
new development to minimize
potential damage from a 100-year
flood. Continue to require that any
new development is constructed
FEMA standards. Prohibit the
siting of uses within Flood Hazard
Areas inconsistent with FEMA
standards that could result in
health and safety hazards,
including those due to the release
of chemicals or other substances
as a result of inundation or
erosion. Ensure that any new flood
protection projects comply with
federal and State standards.

The adjacent Napa River levee was designed and
constructed to provide protection from a 200-year
storm, exceeding the protection required by this
policy.
ü
Climate Change
CC1.1 Promote a “walkable” and
“bikeable” city.

The proposed project includes sidewalks on all
streets and bike lanes that implement the City’s
bikeway master plan and will help promote walking
and biking.
ü
Agenda Item #5.3.

11 2019 General Plan Policies Consistency Analysis
ü – Consistent Ò – Inconsistent
? – Insufficient Information NA – Not Applicable
Parks and Recreation
PR1.4 Require park land dedications
or civic improvement fees on all
new residential, commercial, and
industrial developments to meet
the standard of 5.0 acres of parks
per 1,000 residents.

The proposed project is required to pay all
applicable development impact fees, including park
fees. ü
PR6.1 Promote walking and bicycling
as safe and convenient modes of
transportation.

The proposed project includes sidewalks on all
streets and bike lanes that implement the City’s
bikeway master plan and will help promote walking
and biking.
ü
PR6.2 Develop a comprehensive
network of bicycle and pedestrian
trails to enhance bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity
throughout the city and the
region.

The proposed project includes sidewalks on all
streets and bike lanes that implement the City’s
bikeway master plan. The project does not affect the
existing public trail on the levee road adjacent to the site.
ü
PR6.3 Promote the inclusion of bicycle
and pedestrian trails, and bicycle
lanes throughout the city, as well
as connections to regional trail
systems, such as the Napa Valley
Vine Trail.

The proposed project includes sidewalks on all
streets and bike lanes that implement the City’s
bikeway master plan. The project does not affect the
existing public trail on the levee road adjacent to the site.
ü
Parks and Recreation
This Element does not include policies which apply directly to this project. NA Agenda Item #5.3.

Agenda Item #5.4.

Agenda Item #5.4.

DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
for the
Hunter Subdivision Project
SCH No. 2018032014
Volume I
Prepared for:

City of St. Helena
Planning and Community Improvement Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
Contact: Maya DeRosa
Planning and Building Director
[email protected]
Prepared by:
1102 R Street
Sacramento, California 95811
SEPTEMBER 2021
Agenda Item #5.4.

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Agenda Item #5.4.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page No.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ACR-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................ES-1 ES.1 Document Purpose..........................................................................................ES-1 ES.2 Project Location...............................................................................................ES-1 ES.3 Project Description ..........................................................................................ES-1 ES.4 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ..................................................ES-3 ES.5 effects found to be less than significant ..........................................................ES-3 ES.6 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................ES-4 ES.7 Summary of Project Alternatives ...................................................................ES-15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR.......................................................1-1

1.0 Purpose and Intended Use of This EIR..............................................................1-1

1.1 Use of Previously Prepared Environmental Documentation...............................1-1

1.2 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies.........................................................1-2

1.3 EIR Process .......................................................................................................1-3

1.4 Scope of the Draft EIR .......................................................................................1-5

1.5 Organization of the Draft EIR .............................................................................1-7 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................2-1

2.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Site .........................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................2-13

2.3 Proposed Project..............................................................................................2-14

2.4 Discretionary Actions and Use of this EIR........................................................2-32

2.5 References .......................................................................................................2-33 CHAPTER 3.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS..............................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources...........................................................................3.1-1

3.2 Agriculture And Forestry Resources................................................................3.2-1

3.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................3.3-1

3.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................3.4-1

3.5 Cultural And Tribal Cultural Resources…....................... ………………………3.5-1

3.6 Geology And Soils...........................................................................................3.6-1

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................3.7-1

3.8 Hazards And Hazardous Materials..................................................................3.8-1

3.9 Hydrology And Water Quality ..........................................................................3.9-1

3.10 Land Use .......................................................................................................3.10-1 Agenda Item #5.4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-ii

3.11 Noise And Vibration.......................................................................................3.11-1

3.12 Public Services And Recreation ....................................................................3.12-1

3.13 Utilities And Service Systems........................................................................3.13-1

3.14 Transportation And Circulation......................................................................3.14-1

3.15 Energy ...........................................................................................................3.15-1 CHAPTER 4 CEQA CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................4-1

4.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Significant Environmental Effects.......................................................................4-1

4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts .........................................4-1

4.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts...................................................4-2

4.4 Growth-Inducing Impacts ...................................................................................4-3

4.5 Energy Usage.....................................................................................................4-7

4.6 Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................4-7 CHAPTER 5 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES................................................................................5-1

5.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Alternatives Considered in this EIR....................................................................5-4

5.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...............................................................5-21

APPENDICES
A Notice of Preparation and Comments Received
B California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Results C California Emissions Estimator (CalEEMod) Model Results D Biological Resources Reports
E Confidential Cultural Resources Reports (not available for public review) F Geotechnical Engineering Report
G Phase I ESA
H Hydrology Report
I Noise Model Outputs
J Water Neutral Report
K Traffic Impact Study
L Well Capacity Study

FIGURES
2‐1 Regional Location.....................................................................................................2-3 2‐2 Project Location........................................................................................................2-5 2‐3 Existing On-Site and Adjacent Land Uses ...............................................................2-7 2‐4 Proposed Tentative Map ..........................................................................................2-9 Agenda Item #5.4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-iii
2-4a Proposed Tentative Map with Conceptual Multi-Family Layout .............................2-15 2-5 Conceptual Layout of Lot 52 ..................................................................................2-19 2-6 Conceptual Rendering of Multi-Family Housing .....................................................2-21 2-7 Landscape Plan......................................................................................................2-27

3.1-1 Photo Locations.....................................................................................................3.1-5

3.1-2 Existing Views .......................................................................................................3.1-7

3.1-3 Existing Views .......................................................................................................3.1-9

3.1-4 Existing Views .....................................................................................................3.1-11

3.1-5 Existing Views .....................................................................................................3.1-13

3.1-6 Visual Simulation Locations ................................................................................3.1-29

3.1-7 Simulation 1.........................................................................................................3.1-31

3.1-8 Simulation 2.........................................................................................................3.1-35

3.1-9 Simulation 3.........................................................................................................3.1-37

3.1-10 Simulation 4.........................................................................................................3.1-39

3.2-1 FMMP Classification..............................................................................................3.2-3

3.4-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types..................................................3.4-5

3.4-2 On-Site Seasonal Wetland and Drainage Features ..............................................3.4-7

3.4-3 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ..............................................................3.4-13

3.4-4 CNDDB Occurrences ..........................................................................................3.4-15

3.6-1 Geologic Map ........................................................................................................3.6-5

3.6-2 Soils.......................................................................................................................3.6-7

3.9-1 Surface Water Hydrology ......................................................................................3.9-3

3.9-2 FEMA Flood Hazard Zones...................................................................................3.9-9

3.9-3 Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin ...................................................................3.9-17

3.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations............................................................................3.11-7

3.14-1 Project SIte Location and Study Area .................................................................3.14-3

3.14-2 General Plan Future Roadway Network..............................................................3.14-5

3.14-3 Existing Pedestrian Facilities...............................................................................3.14-9

3.14-4 Proposed Bicycle Network ................................................................................3.14-11

3.14-5 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Single Family & Accessory Dwelling Units....................................................................................................3.14-31

3.14-6 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Multi-Family Housing .........................3.14-33

3.14-7 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Total (All Uses)..................................3.14-35

3.14-8 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Saturday (All Uses)............................3.14-37

3.14-9 VMT Screening Map..........................................................................................3.14-43

5.1-1 Park Preserve Alternative.......................................................................................5-15 Agenda Item #5.4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-iv
TABLES
ES-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................ES-5 ES-2 Comparison of Impacts of Project Alternatives ...................................................ES-17 2-1 Proposed Project Land Use ...................................................................................2-17 2-2 Earthwork Summary...............................................................................................2-31

3.2-1 Important Farmland...............................................................................................3.2-2

3.2-2 Storie Index Ratings for On-Site Soils...................................................................3.2-6

3.2-3 LESA Model Scoring Thresholds ........................................................................3.2-10

3.3-1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status ..........3.3-11

3.3-2 Local Ambient Air Quality Data ...........................................................................3.3-12

3.3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................3.3-15

3.3-4 Construction Phasing Assumptions – 6-Year Buildout1.......................................3.3-21

3.3-5 Construction Scenario Assumptions ...................................................................3.3-23

3.3-6 CalEEMod Default and Adjusted Trip Rates .......................................................3.3-25

3.3-7 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................3.3-27

3.3-8 Average Daily Unmitigated Construction Emissions – 6-Year Buildout ..............3.3-32

3.3-9 Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions ...........................................................3.3-33

3.4-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types..................................................3.4-9

3.4-2 Special-Status Plant Species Occurrence Potential on the Project Site .............3.4-17

3.4-3 Special-Status Wildlife Occurrence Potential on the Project Site........................3.4-25

3.5-1 Extended Phase I and Phase II Testing Results .................................................3.5-10

3.6-1 Soil Map Units Within the Project Site...................................................................3.6-4

3.7-1 Top Six Greenhouse Gas–Producing Countries and the European Union ...........3.7-4

3.7-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California ...............................................3.7-5

3.7-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in St. Helena..............................................3.7-6

3.7-4 CalEEMod Default and Adjusted Trip Rates .......................................................3.7-28

3.7-5 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Six Year Buildout..............................................................................................................3.7-30

3.7-6 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................3.7-31

3.7-7 Proposed Project Consistency with Scoping Plan Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies ...........................................................................3.7-33

3.9-1 Napa River Flood Stages at St. Helena (at Pope Street Bridge).........................3.9-11

3.9-2 Well Completion Report Records on the Project Site and Vicinity ......................3.9-16

3.9-3 State and Regional Water Quality-Related Permits and Approvals ....................3.9-26

3.9-4 Project Demand from City Groundwater Wells During Average and Critically Dry Years..............................................................................................3.9-42

3.11-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terminology .................................................................3.11-3

3.11-2 Existing Ambient Noise Measurement Results ...................................................3.11-5 Agenda Item #5.4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-v

3.11-3 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .........................................................3.11-10

3.11-4 Construction Equipment List by Phase .............................................................3.11-12

3.11-5 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels...............................................3.11-15

3.11-6 Outdoor Construction Noise Levels by Phase...................................................3.11-16

3.11-7 Vibration Velocities for Typical Construction Equipment...................................3.11-18

3.11-8 Proposed-Project-Related Traffic Noise Levels ................................................3.11-20

3.12-1 SHUSD Enrollment and Capacity Data ...............................................................3.12-3

3.12-2 City of St. Helena Recreational Facilities ............................................................3.12-4

3.12-3 Projected Proposed Project Student Generation ..............................................3.12-12

3.13-1 City of St. Helena Potable Water Deliveries by Source.......................................3.13-3

3.13-2 Bell Canyon Reservoir Storage ...........................................................................3.13-3

3.13-3 City of Napa Water Supply ..................................................................................3.13-5

3.13-4 Lake Hennessey Statistics ..................................................................................3.13-5

3.13-5 Milliken Reservoir Statistics.................................................................................3.13-6

3.13-6 SWP Reliability Assumptions ..............................................................................3.13-7

3.13-7 City of St. Helena Safe Yields .............................................................................3.13-8

3.13-8 City of St. Helena Projected Water Supply and Demand ..................................3.13-10

3.13-9 Proposed Project Water Demands (acre-feet per year)....................................3.13-25

3.13-10 Proposed Project Breakdown of Water Demand...............................................3.13-25

3.13-11 Proposed Project Projected Waste Generation.................................................3.13-26

3.14-1 Weekday Proposed Project Trip Generation.....................................................3.14-28

3.14-2 Saturday Proposed Project Trip Generation .....................................................3.14-29

3.14-3 Proposed Project VMT Summary......................................................................3.14-41

3.14-4 Collision Summary (2014-2018)........................................................................3.14-48

3.15-1 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2017 Electricity Consumption ..........................3.15-2

3.15-2 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2017 Natural Gas Consumption ......................3.15-3

3.15-3 Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment ...............................................3.15-12

3.15-4 Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ..........................................................3.15-15

3.15-5 Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand ...............................................3.15-15

3.15-6 Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand ......................................................3.15-16

3.15-7 Estimated Electrical Demand – Proposed Project Operation............................3.15-17

3.15-8 Estimated Natural Gas Demand – Project Operation........................................3.15-18

3.15-9 Mobile Source Fuel Consumption – Proposed Project Operation.....................3.15-18 5-1 Alternative 2: No Project/General Plan Alternative Residential Water Demand.......5-9 5-2 Alternative 2: No Project/No Action Alternative Projected Solid Waste Generation....... 5-10 5-3 Alternative 2: No Project/No Action Alternative Student Generation......................5-11 5-4 Alternative 4: Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative Residential Water Demand ....................................................................................5-19 Agenda Item #5.4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10389
September 2021 TOC-vi
5-5 Alternative 4: Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative Projected Solid Waste Generation .........................................................................................5-20 5-6 Alternative 4: Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative Student Generation ................................................................................................5-20 5-7 Comparison of Project Alternatives ........................................................................5-21 Agenda Item #5.4.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-1

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADU accessory dwelling unit
AFY acre-feet per year
amsl above mean seal level
AP Act Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
APE area of potential effects
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane
CHHSL California Human Health Screening Level
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of St. Helena
cm centimeter
cmbs centimeters below the surface
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
Agenda Item #5.4.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-2
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
County County of Napa
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Authority
GHG greenhouse gas
GPR ground-penetrating radar
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HDR High-Density Residential
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
kWh kilowatt-hour
LE Land Evaluation
LESA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
LOMR Letter of Map Revision
m meter
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCE Marin Clean Energy
MDR Medium-Density Residential
MGD million gallons per day
MMT million metric tons
Agenda Item #5.4.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-3
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric ton
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCFCWCD Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O3 ozone
OCP organochlorine pesticide
PFC perfluorocarbon
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PGA peak ground acceleration
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
Proposed Project Hunter Subdivision Project
PSHA probabilistic seismic hazard assessment
QSD Qualified SWPPP Developer
QSP Qualified SWPPP Practitioner
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RMS root mean square
ROG reactive organic gas
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SA Site Assessment
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDC Seismic Design Category
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Agenda Item #5.4.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ACR-4
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
SHFD St. Helena Fire Department
SHPD St. Helena Police Department
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SHUSD St. Helena Unified School District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR tribal cultural resource
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UVD Upper Valley Disposal & Recycling
VdB vibration decibel
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQO Water Quality Order
WRA Wetland Research Associates
WTP water treatment plant
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
ZEV zero emissions vehicle
Agenda Item #5.4.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This chapter provides a summary of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Proposed Project). Included in this chapter are areas of known controversy and issues to be resolved, a summary of Proposed Project alternatives, a summary of all Proposed Project impacts and associated mitigation measures, and a statement of the ultimate level of significance after mitigation is applied.

ES.1 DOCUMENT PURPOSE
This EIR was prepared by the City of St. Helena (City), as lead agency, to inform decision makers and the public of the potential significant environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines; 14 CCR 15000 et seq.) published by the Public Resources Agency of the State of California.

This Draft EIR is a “project” EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. A project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific project. Feasible mitigation measures are recommended, when applicable, that could reduce significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance or avoid significant environmental impacts.

ES.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The 16.9-acre Project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number is 009-030-057) is located in the northeast portion of the City, at the eastern terminus of Adams Street, three blocks east of downtown and State Route 29, and west of the Napa River (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description). The Project site is generally rectangular with a “panhandle” extension that connects the site to Adams Street west of the panhandle (see Figure 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description).

ES.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Background
The majority of the Project site was acquired by Dennis Hunter in 1997. Planning efforts were first initiated for development of the Project site in 2005 and an application was submitted to the City in September 2010 that included a request for a Tentative Map to subdivide the property for residential development. A completeness letter for the proposed subdivision was issued by the City on March 28, 2011. Since the Proposed Project application was submitted in September 2010 and deemed complete by the City in 2011, this EIR uses the 1993 General Plan as the applicable general plan for the purposes of evaluating the Proposed Project. Nonetheless, this Agenda Item #5.4.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-2
EIR also evaluates consistency with the City’s current “General Plan Update 2040” 1 for
informational and consistency purposes.

The Proposed Project would consist of subdividing the 16.9-acre Project site to include 51 lots to accommodate single-family residences, a 3.4-acre parcel that would accommodate 25 attached residential units, a 0.06-acre parcel “A” that would not be developed, and a 0.04-acre parcel “B” for an existing agricultural well site.

The 25 attached units would be income restricted, with 5 units affordable to very low-income families, and 20 to moderate income families. The 51 lots would be developed with single-family market-rate housing units (one dwelling per lot). The Proposed Project applicant has proposed accessory dwelling units on 11 of the single-family lots, designated for above-moderate income groups. The City’s Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 17.116.030) and state law provides for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit on any lot which is zoned for residential use and has an existing single-family residence. The 87 residential units (including single-family, multi-family and accessory dwelling units) would have an average density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre.

Project Objectives
Proposed Project objectives allow for the analysis of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project. Reasonable alternatives must be analyzed in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The Proposed Project objectives are as follows:
• Subdivide the site consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning for the site to accommodate residential development.
• Provide opportunities to develop a variety of housing types, including multi-family, singlefamily, and accessory dwelling units, affordable to a range of incomes including, very low, low and moderate-income households.
• Provide opportunities to contribute to the provision of workforce and affordable housing consistent with the City’s adopted Housing Element and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). • Minimize traffic-related environmental impacts, such as noise, air quality and greenhouse gases by lowering commute patterns for St. Helena workers by providing more local housing opportunities.
1 For consistency, this EIR refers to the “General Plan Update 2040” as the “2019 General Plan,” reflecting the year it was adopted (as with the “1973 General Plan” and the “1993 General Plan”).

Agenda Item #5.4.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-3
• Support alternative transportation by providing a pedestrian and bicycle linkage through St.

Helena, eventually connecting the regional Vine Trail from Calistoga to the Vallejo Ferry. • Exceed the City’s green building ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 15.53) and incorporate sustainable design features including water conservation measures, drought resistant landscaping with low flow watering systems, south and west side tree placement to reduce reliance on air conditioning units, and pre-wiring for photovoltaic systems. • Implement the General Plan Circulation Element by completing the planned extension of Starr Avenue and the partial planned extension of Adams Street from where Adams Street terminates to connect to the Project site.
• Minimize City water use by continuing the use of an existing on-site water well for irrigation of Proposed Project landscaped areas.

ES.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Section 15123(b) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that areas of controversy known to the lead agency must be stated in the executive summary prepared as part of the EIR. Section 15123(b)(3) of the Guidelines requires that an EIR identify issues to be resolved; this includes the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant impacts. Issues of interest to the public and public agencies were identified during the 30-day public comment period for the Notice of Preparation that was circulated from March 6, 2018 through April 9, 2018.

Concerns raised from public agencies and the public include impacts to the property from potential flooding, traffic and circulation impacts, increased water demand, and impacts to cultural resources. All of these concerns are addressed in this EIR.

The Notice of Preparation and comment letters received during the Notice of Preparation review period are included in Appendix A of this EIR.

ES.5 EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Due to certain aspects of the Proposed Project, characteristics, or existing regulatory requirements, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have significant impacts regarding wildfire. The following provides an overview of why the effects associated with this issue area was found this be less than significant and therefore not further analyzed in further in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR.

Wildfire
The Proposed Project is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The Agenda Item #5.4.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-4
Project site is located in a non-VHFHSZ within a Local Responsibility Area, with the closest VHFHSZ in a State Responsibility Area approximately 1 mile to the northeast (CAL FIRE 2008).

Between the Project site and the VHFHSZ is the Napa River.

Starting in August 2020 there were a number of wildfires including the LNU Lightning Complex Fire and the Glass Fire that burned large areas of Napa County including a small portion of the Project site. Based on the current CAL FIRE maps the Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area and is not designated as a VHFHSZ. Emergency access and the potential for the Proposed Project to expose people or structures to loss, injury or death involving wildland fires is addressed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Adequate emergency access is addressed in Section 3.8 and Section 3.14, Transportation. The Project site is flat so fire hazards due to proximity to hilly terrain or landslides due to post-fire conditions would not be a concern. In addition, the Proposed Project does not require installation of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk. Because the Project site is not located within a VHFHSZ and future development is not anticipated to have significant impacts due to wildfire this topic is not further analyzed in this document.

ES.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND

MITIGATION MEASURES
Table ES-1, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, provides a summary of the impact analysis and a summary of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).

For a more detailed discussion of Proposed Project impacts, please see Chapter 3 of this EIR. Table ES-1 also lists the level of significance of an impact prior to mitigation and lists all applicable mitigation measures identified for significant impacts, as well as providing the level of significance after mitigation.

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-5
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources

3.1-1: Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.1-2: Would the project conflict with applicable
regulations governing scenic quality or
substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? This would be a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.1-3: Would the project potentially create a
new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area? This would be a potentially significant
impact.

PS 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.

LTS

3.1-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative changes in the existing visual
character or conflict with applicable regulations
governing scenic quality? The project’s
contribution would not be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.1-5: Would the proposed project contribute to
a cumulative increase in light and glare? The
project’s contribution would not be considerable
with mitigation.

PS See Mitigation Measure AES-1. Mitigation Measure AES-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

3.2-1: Would the project convert Prime
Farmland and Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use? This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.2-2: 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? This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.2-3: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts associated with the loss or
conversion of existing agricultural resources?
The project would result in a less than
considerable contribution.

LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-6
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.3 Air Quality

3.3-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.3-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard? This is a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.3-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.3-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative air quality emissions within the
existing area? The contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.4 Biological Resources

3.4-1: Would the proposed project have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on 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? This would be a
significant impact.

PS 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.

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 no-disturbance 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.

See Mitigation Measure AES-1. Mitigation Measure AES-1, which addresses spillover light that can affect some species mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required.

LTS

3.4-2: Would the proposed project have a
substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? This would be a significant impact.

PS 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.

LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-7
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.4-3: Would the proposed project interfere
substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS See Mitigation Measures AES-1, BIO-1 and BIO-2. Mitigation Measures AES-1, BIO-1 and BIO-2 mitigate this impact and no additional mitigation is required.

BIO-1 (requires preconstruction habitat assessment and avoidance of roosting bats), BIO-2 (requires preconstruction surveys and avoidance of nesting birds), and AES-1 addresses spillover light that can affect some species.

LTS

3.4-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts with respect to biological
resources? The project’s contribution would not
be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources

3.5-1: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5? This would be a
significant impact.

PS 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 at 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.

LTS

3.5-2: Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.5-3: Would the project disturb human
remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? This would be a less-thansignificant impact.

PS 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 descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant shall be provided with the opportunity to make recommendations regarding the means of treating or disposing of the remains with appropriate dignity. Project-related 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.

LTS

3.5-4: Would the proposed project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance
of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources, or a resource determined
PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-8
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
by the lead agency to be significant? This
impact is considered potentially significant.

3.5-5: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts to cultural resources,
including historical and archeological resources
as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5 and human remains? This impact is
considered potentially significant.

PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.5-6: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources,
currently listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or
in a local register of historical resources, or a
resource determined by the lead agency to be
significant? This impact is considered
potentially significant.

PS See Mitigation Measure CUL-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.6 Geology and Soils

3.6-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic
ground shaking and/or liquefaction? This would
be a potentially significant impact.

PS 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.

LTS

3.6-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project occur on weak, compressible, and/or
expansive soils that could result in adverse
impacts on habitable structures? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

PS See Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 mitigates this impact and no additional mitigation is required. LTS

3.6-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site? This would be
a potentially significant impact.

PS 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.

LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-9
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.6-4: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative impacts related to geologic or
seismic hazards? This would be a less than
considerable contribution.

LTS None required. LTS

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.7-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.7-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project would conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
This would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.7-3: Would the proposed project contribute to
cumulative GHG emissions within the region?
The project’s contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.8-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? This would be a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required LTS

3.8-2: Would implementation of the proposed
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? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS HAZ-1: As a condition of approval for construction and grading permits for the Project site, the Project applicant shall the ensure 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, environmental 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 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 LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-10
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
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.

3.8-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.8-4: Would implementation of the proposed
project expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.8-5: Would implementation of the proposed
project contribute to a cumulative increase in
the potential exposure of people to sites where
soil contamination could be present from past
or current uses, or to hazards associated with
the use and transport of hazardous materials?
The project’s contribution would be less than
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.9-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project violate water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality? This would be a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9-3: Would implementation of the proposed
project substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area through the addition
of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; increasing the rate or
amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding
on- or off-site; contributing runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-11
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
provide polluted runoff; or impede or redirect
flood flows? This would be a less-thansignificant impact.

3.9-4: Would implementation of the proposed
project release pollutants during flooding? This
would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.9-5: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.10 Land Use

3.10-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with the City’s 1993 General
Plan policies or other regulations adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? This would be a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.11 Noise and Vibration

3.11-1: Would short-term construction noise
levels cause a substantial temporary increase
in ambient noise levels? This would be a
potentially significant impact.

PS 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.

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, front-end 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.

LTS

3.11-2: Would existing residential areas be
exposed to vibration peak-particle velocities
greater than 0.2-inch per second or vibration
levels greater than 80 VdB due to project
construction? This would be a less-thansignificant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-12
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.11-3: Would on-site operation noise from the
proposed residences result in noise exposure
levels that would impact adjacent residences?
The impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required. LTS

3.11-4: Would the proposed project vehicle
trips result in off-site roadway noise level
increases that could impact noise sensitive land
uses located along such roadways? The impact
would be less than significant.

LTS None required. LTS

3.11-5: Would the proposed project, in addition
to cumulative development in the City, increase
traffic noise that exceeds the City’s noise
standards? The project’s contribution would not
be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.12 Public Services and Recreation

3.12-1: Would the proposed project increase
demand for public services requiring the need
to construct new facilities, or expand existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts? This would
be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.12-2: Would the proposed project increase
the use of existing neighborhood parks or other
recreational services such that a substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur, or require the construction or expansion
of facilities that could have a physical adverse
effect on the environment? This would be a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.12-3: Would the proposed project contribute
to a cumulative increase in demand for public
services, schools, and recreation facilities? The
project’s contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13 Utilities

3.13-1: Would the proposed project require or
result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-13
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.13-2: Would the proposed project have
sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years? This is a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-3: Would the proposed project result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project
that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-4: Would the proposed 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? This
is a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-5: Would the proposed project comply with
federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? This is a
less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.13-6: Would the proposed project contribute
to an increase in demand for water supply,
wastewater treatment, stormwater or solid
waste? The project’s contribution would not be
considerable.

LTS None required. LTS

3.14 Transportation and Traffic

3.14-1: Would the proposed project conflict with
an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities? This would be a less-than-significant
impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.14-2: Would the proposed project conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3(b)? This is a significant impact.

SU None available. SU

3.14-3: Would the proposed project increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible use? This is a less-thansignificant impact.

LTS None required. LTS
Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-14
Table ES-1
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impact
Impact Before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

3.14-4: Would the proposed project result in
inadequate emergency access. This is a lessthan-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.14-5: Under Cumulative conditions, would the
proposed project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)? This is
considered a significant impact.

SU None available. SU

3.15 Energy

3.15-1: Would implementation of the proposed
project result in wasteful, inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during construction or operation? This would be
a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.15-2: Would implementation of the proposed
project conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
This would be a less-than-significant impact.

LTS None required. LTS

3.15-3: Would the proposed project contribute
to an increase in wasteful, inefficient or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during construction or operation? The project’s
contribution would not be considerable.

LTS None required. LTS
PS= Potentially Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS = Less than Significant NI= No Impact

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-15
ES.7 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines identifies the parameters within which consideration and discussion of alternatives to a project should occur. As stated in this section of the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives must focus on those that are reasonably feasible and that attain most of the basic objectives of the project. Each alternative should be capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of that project. The rationale for selecting the alternatives to be evaluated and a discussion of the No Project Alternative are also required, per Section 15126.6.

Alternatives Evaluated
This EIR includes an evaluation of the following alternatives:
• Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development
• Alternative 2 – No Project/General Plan
• Alternative 3 – Park/Open Space Preserve
• Alternative 4 – Increased Density/Affordable Housing
Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development
The No Project Alternative assumes that the Proposed Project would not be developed and the current undeveloped Project site would remain and not be altered.

Given the development assumptions of the 1975 General Plan, the 1993 General Plan and the 2019 General Plan, all of which assumed residential development on the project site, it is unlikely that this site would remain undeveloped. The Project site is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR) in both the 1993 General Plan and the 2019 General Plan.

According to the 1993 General Plan, the Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation provides for single-family detached and attached homes, secondary residential units, public and semi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Although the No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives identified for the Proposed Project and those development assumptions in the General Plans, CEQA requires an alternative that forgoes the project be analyzed.

Alternative 2 – No Project/General Plan
Under this alternative, it is assumed the Project would be developed consistent with the underlying MDR land use designation and MR zoning which allows development of the Project site with residential uses up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) under the Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-16
1993 General Plan MDR designation which was revised to 16 du/ac under the 2019 General Plan consistent with the MR zoning, which permits a maximum density of 16 du/ac.

For the purposes of this alternative a density of 9 du/ac was assumed for a total of 152 singlefamily residential units. Based on the number of units this alternative would result in a population of 372 residents, an increase of 159 residents as compared to the Project.

It is assumed Starr Avenue and Adams Street would both be extended to connect to the Project site and the street and lot layout would be very similar to the Project with the exception of the

3.4-acre portion of the site currently designated for multifamily units (Lot 52). This portion of the Project site would be configured to accommodate single-family residences.

Alternative 3 – Park/Open Space Preserve
This alternative includes a 1-acre park that would preserve a majority of the on-site wetlands.

Although three lots would need to be removed to accommodate the 1-acre park, this alternative would include approximately the same number of units as the Proposed Project, including the 25 affordable housing units. It is assumed up to 11 Accessory Dwelling units could still be constructed on the larger lots.

Alternative 4 – Increased Density/Affordable Housing
The Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative includes the approximately 1-acre park to preserve a majority of the on-site seasonal wetlands with the remaining approximately 16-acres designated for up to 180 affordable housing units, assuming a density of 11.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) under the existing Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation (current zoning allows for a maximum density of 16.0 du/ac). The units would be attached housing (duplex or triplex) and would be 100% affordable. It is assumed buildings would be no taller than 30-feet, consistent with the underlying MR zoning.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table ES-2, Comparison of Impacts of the Alternatives, provides a summary of the alternatives impact analysis considered in the EIR and identifies the areas of potential environmental effects per CEQA, and ranks each alternative as better, the same, or worse than the Proposed Project with respect to each issue area.

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-17
Table ES-2
Comparison of Impacts of Project Alternatives
Environmental Issue Area
Proposed
Project
Alternative 1
No Project/
No
Development
Alternative 2
No Project/
General
Plan
Alternative 3
Park/Open
Space Preserve
Alternative 4
Increased
Density/
Affordable
Housing
Aesthetics/Visual Resources LTS/MM ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Air Quality LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Biological Resources LTS/MM ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
Cultural Resources LTS/MM ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Geology and Soils LTS/MM ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Land Use LTS ▼ ▬ ▬ ▬
Noise and Vibration LTS/MM ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Public Services and Recreation LS ▼ Δ ▬ Δ
Utilities LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Traffic and Circulation SU ▼ ▬ ▼ ▼
Energy LTS ▼ ▬ Δ Δ
Δ Alternative is likely to result an increase in severity of the impact when compared to Proposed Project. ▬ Alternative is likely to result in similar impacts when compared to Proposed Project. ▼Alternative is likely to result in reduced impacts when compared to Proposed Project.

LTS/MM = Less than significant impact with mitigation, LTS = Less than significant impact, SU=Significant and Unavoidable As indicated in Table ES-2, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts, and subsequently would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, 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 alternatives evaluated above, Alternative 2, the Park Preserve alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

Agenda Item #5.4.

ES – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 ES-18

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #5.4.

Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR

1.0 PURPOSE AND INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR
The City of St. Helena (City) has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to inform the general public, the local community, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other interested public agencies, and the City’s decision-making bodies (City Council) regarding the potential significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Proposed Project), as well as possible measures to mitigate those potential significant effects including alternatives to the Proposed Project. This Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), and the City’s procedures for implementing CEQA. This Draft EIR is a “project” EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161. A project EIR examines the environmental impacts of a specific project.

As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to a proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. As the CEQA lead agency for this Proposed Project, the City is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the Proposed Project entitlements requested. The basic requirements for an EIR include providing information that establishes the environmental setting (or project baseline), and identifying environmental impacts, mitigation measures, project alternatives, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. In a practical sense, an EIR functions as a method of fact-finding, allowing an applicant, the public, other public agencies, and agency staff an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure.

Additionally, this EIR provides the primary source of environmental information for the lead agency and also those responsible agencies to consider when exercising any permitting authority or approval power directly related to implementation of this Proposed Project. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

1.1 USE OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Proposed Project application to develop the site was submitted to the City in 2010, and the City retained an environmental consultant in 2011 to prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project.

The environmental review process was completed, and in September 2013, the City’s Planning Commission reviewed comments received on the Draft EIR, but no action was taken by the Commission and the item was continued. Revisions were subsequently made to the Proposed Project that required the Draft EIR to be updated.

Agenda Item #5.4.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-2
Updates to the Draft EIR were completed in 2017, but the City opted to not release the Draft EIR for public review due to problems with that document that required additional work.

Ultimately, the City released a Request for Proposals for the preparation of this (2021) EIR.

The 2012 and 2017 Draft EIRs were reviewed in preparation of this EIR.

In May 2019, the City adopted the “General Plan Update 2040.” 1 However, since the Proposed
Project application was submitted in September 2010 and deemed complete by the City in 2011, this EIR uses the 1993 General Plan as the applicable general plan for the purposes of evaluating the Proposed Project. Nonetheless, this EIR will also evaluate consistency with the City’s adopted 2019 General Plan for informational and consistency purposes.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 allows for incorporation by reference of “all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public.” Incorporation by reference is used principally as a means of reducing the size of EIRs. This Draft EIR relies in part on data, environmental evaluations, and mitigation measures from the prior Draft EIRs, and other components of environmental documents and plans prepared by the City for areas within the Proposed Project vicinity. These documents are listed here and used as source documents for this Draft EIR. All documents are available for public review during normal business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) at the City of St. Helena Planning Division, 1480 Main Street, St. Helena, California 94574, and on the City’s website at http://www.ci.st-helena.ca.us/planning/page/ceqa-document-center. • Hunter Subdivision Project Revised EIR, October 2017
• City of St. Helena 1993 General Plan, adopted September 28, 1993 • City of St. Helena General Plan Update 2040, adopted June 2019 • St. Helena Municipal Code, updated through October 2020

1.2 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
Lead Agency
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15050 and 15367, the City of St. Helena has been designated the “lead agency,” which is defined as the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving a project.” The lead agency is also responsible for determining the scope of the environmental analysis, preparing the EIR, and responding to comments received on the Draft EIR. Prior to making a decision to approve a 1 For consistency, the “General Plan Update 2040” document is referred to in this EIR as the “2019 General Plan”.

Agenda Item #5.4.

1 - INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
September 2021 1-3
project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.

Responsible Agencies
Responsible agencies are state and local public agencies, other than the lead agency, that have some authority to carry out or approve a project or that are required to approve a portion of the project or approve a permit for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Initial Study/Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15813). The following agencies would potentially act as responsible agencies for the purposes of this Proposed Project:
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board. Ensures compliance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for any stormwater discharge associated with construction activity.
• Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Oversees air quality and has the authority to require mitigation fees.

Trustee Agencies
Trustee agencies are designated public agencies with legal jurisdiction over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of California and that would be affected by a project, whether or not the agencies have authority to approve or implement the project (CEQA Guidelines Section15386). The following agency was identified as a trustee agency with potential jurisdiction over the Proposed Project:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife

1.3 EIR PROCESS
Notice of Preparation
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated for public and agency review from March 6, 2018 through April 9, 2018 (included as Appendix A). The purpose of the NOP is to provide notification that an EIR for the Proposed Project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. A summary of the comments received on the NOP is included in the Executive Summary, as well as in the introduction of each technical section.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the lead agency held a public scoping meeting on March 12, 2018. Responsible agencies and members of the public were invited to attend and provide input on the scope of the EIR. Comments from agencies and the public in response to Agenda Item #5.4.