St. Helena City Council
May 9, 2023

Climate Hazards
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment 3
3 Climate Hazards

3.1 Temperature
Observations over the past century indicate that temperature has increased across the San Francisco Bay Area region, which includes Napa County. According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment San Francisco Bay Area Regional Report the region’s average annual maximum temperature has increased by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit from 1950-2005 (CEC 2019). As a result of these findings, warming is expected to increase in St. Helena in the coming decades as evidenced under the two GHG emission scenarios:
▪ Under RCP 4.5, future model-average temperature values are projected to increase by 3.3°F by mid-century (2040-2069) and 4.2°F by end of century (2070-2100) (CEC 2021). The average hottest day of the year is expected to increase by 3.9-6.4°F by the end of the century, depending on location in the San Francisco Bay Area Region (CEC 2019). ▪ Under RCP 8.5, future model-average temperature values are projected to increase by 4.4°F by mid-century and 7.2°F by end of century (CEC 2021). The average hottest day of the year is projected to increase by 6.3-10°F by the end of the century, depending on location in the San Francisco Bay Area Region (CEC 2019).

Additionally, the intensity and frequency of extreme heat days is expected to increase. In St. Helena an extreme heat day is when the maximum temperature exceeds 100.4°F. Historically, between 1961-1990, the city experienced four extreme heat days per year on average. ▪ Under RCP 4.5, by the end of the century, extreme heat days are expected to increase to 17 days per year.
▪ Under RCP 8.5, extreme heat days are expected to increase to 31 days per year (CEC 2021).

Changes in average maximum temperature and extreme heat days are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. In both figures, the purple lines show high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5), the blue line shows the medium emissions scenario (RCP 4.5), the grey lines show the current trend (observed). The shaded areas indicate the range for the emissions scenario to account for uncertainty in future projections and variability between climate models. For example, the blue shaded areas represent the range of data for the medium emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) (CEC 2021).

Because these scenarios are driven by global GHG emissions and regional climate change caused by global emissions, the scenarios applicable to St Helena and the San Francisco Bay Region will likely vary based primarily on regional, national, and global actions to reduce such emissions and adapt to such climate changes.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Safety Element Update
4 Figure 1 Annual Average Maximum Temperature
Figure 2 Extreme Heat Days
Agenda Item #10.2.

Climate Hazards
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment 5

3.2 Precipitation
Historically, precipitation over the San Francisco Bay Area region is highly variable from year to year.

In this region, and in most of California, large, discrete storms generate a significant portion of the region’s total precipitation. Generally, model projections suggest that potential changes in average precipitation in the coming decades will be trivial in comparison to the region’s historic natural variability (see Figure 3). However, both wet and dry periods are expected to become more extreme and frequent, leading to overall increased variability in the region and in California. Climate models project that by the end of the century the largest precipitation events in the Bay Area region will increase in volume (inches of rain per day) between 6% to 21% under RCP 4.5 and 37% under RCP

8.5 (CEC 2019). Increased heavy precipitation events can pose particular risk to St. Helena’s lowlying residential areas near the Napa River, which are prone to flooding (Napa County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan [MJHMP] 2020).

Climate projections suggest that with overall temperatures increasing through the century, irrespective of whether average precipitation increases or decreases, there will likely be longer and more extreme droughts in the state. Changes in precipitation are shown in Figure 3. The purple line shows the high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5), the blue line shows the medium emissions scenario (RCP 4.5), the grey line shows the current trend (observed). The shaded areas indicate the range for the emissions scenario. For example, the blue shaded areas represent the range of data for the medium emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) (CEC 2021). However, such changes in precipitation in St.

Helena are likely to vary primarily based on global, national, and regional activities to reduce or adapt to such changes.

Figure 3 Figure Annual Precipitation
Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Safety Element Update
6 3.3 Wildfire
Climate change is projected to exacerbate wildfire risk by creating hotter and dryer landscapes, notably, due to increased variability in precipitation. In the San Francisco Bay Area Region, wildfire risk is influenced by a multitude of compounding factors that include its mostly warm and dry Mediterranean-type climate, continuing expansion of the wildland urban interface, drought events, periodic episodes of offshore Diablo winds, historical fire suppression, human activities, topographical factors, and the type and spatial distribution of vegetation (CEC 2019).

Napa County’s unique topography is marked by a narrow valley with surrounding and intermixed hilly, wooded landscapes that are at high risks to wildfires, according to the Napa County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. St. Helena lies in the center of Napa Valley and is surrounded on the east and west by CAL FIRE designated State Responsibility Area (SRA) and Local Responsibility Area (LRA) very high fire hazard severity zones. SRAs are lands in which CAL FIRE has financial and legal responsibility for wildfire protection and where CAL FIRE administers fire hazard classification and building standard regulations. LRAs are lands in cities, unincorporated areas with low wildfire risk, cultivated agricultural area, lands that not do not meet the criteria for SRA or Federal Responsibility Areas (FRA), and fire-prone lands that are owned by a federal agency.

Many cities in Napa Valley, including St. Helena, have areas that are within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Land and developments in the WUI are susceptible to property damage as a result of wildfire events. Wildfires pose a significant threat to St. Helena’s vineyards and winery properties.

California’s 6th largest wildfire on record, the Lake Napa Unit (LNU) Lighting Complex, scorched Napa County along with five other surrounding counties in August 2020. Residents in St. Helena and the surrounding area were evacuated as fires drew nearer and air quality levels rose to unhealthy levels.

In this event, dry vegetation, decreases in precipitation, and high temperatures were contributing factors in the rate of wildfire spread and the total acreage burned.

Findings from modeling studies suggest that overall, there will be increased fire probability in the Bay Area, due to variable and decreasing precipitation and increasing temperatures. However, over time, urban and rural areas may see reduced fire risk as high-density human development increases and vegetation land are subject to human-initiated defensible space and wildfire hazard mitigation activities and projects.

Wildfire often generates secondary hazards that can greatly impact public health and community safety. For example, wildfires can trigger smoke events that can travel long distances and negatively impacts public health in the region. Wildfire smoke can cause health impacts, from mild eye burning to irritated air ways, heat stroke and even cardiac issues. Wildfire smoke disproportionately impacts children, elderly, people with chronic diseases, pregnant people, and outdoor workers (Napa County MJHMP 2020).

Agenda Item #10.2.

Vulnerable Populations
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment 7
4 Vulnerable Populations
While all people in a community will experience climate change, some may be more affected than others. For example, older adults and young children may be more at-risk to heat illness during an extreme heat event. Sensitivity to climate hazards can be influenced by several factors, including:
differences in individual health, age, and ability; institutional bias or exclusion from political and decision-making power; inequities in infrastructure and access to health care, economic opportunity, education and other services; and inequities in environmental and living conditions.

Vulnerabilities within a community can inhibit that community’s adaptive capacity or their ability to cope with climate change impacts. Development and implementation of programs and projects that improve the community’s adaptive capacity, including addressing some of the underlying contributing factors will reduce the negative impacts that climate change could have on vulnerable populations.

Climate change may disproportionately impact certain populations in St. Helena, depending on the interaction of climate change with other variables, such as availability of social services; hazard mitigation programs; emergency preparation and assistance; and climate adaptation programs. The following vulnerable populations have been identified in St. Helena based on the Healthy Places Index mapping tool:
▪ Young Children. St. Helena has one of the highest concentrations of children in Napa County (St.

Helena General Plan 2019). Children are particularly at risk to climate hazards because they are dependent on others for care, are vulnerable to injury or sickness, and may not understand or are not capable of taking the measures needed to protect against or evacuate from climate hazards.
▪ Older Adults. Silverado Orchards Retirement Community and Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park are two particularly vulnerable facilities in the city, as they are home to a substantial population of elderly individuals.
▪ Outdoor Workers. Extreme heat and smoke events pose disproportionate health risks to the city’s outdoor workers who are employed in viticulture, agriculture, construction, and other outdoor occupations
▪ Individuals that are Linguistically Isolated. Individuals that are linguistically isolated have no to limited English proficiency. Linguistically isolated households may not understand important safety, public health, or evacuation orders and communications when conducted exclusively in English during a hazard event, which may compromise the ability of residents to remain safe and healthy.
▪ Visitors. St. Helena is surrounded by an expanse of vineyards and agricultural lands. The city is a popular tourist destination in Napa County. Visitors are at risk during climate hazard events as they may not receive warning and may not have knowledge regarding access to emergency services.

All residents of St. Helena rely on various infrastructure and services such as water systems, electricity, natural gas, and roads. These systems and assets are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which puts the wellbeing of residents at risk. Those with pre-existing and chronic health conditions that rely on services and systems, are particularly vulnerable in situations where hazard events impact access to electricity, food, water supplies, healthcare, sanitary resources, Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Safety Element Update
8 transportation, and communication platforms. To help reduce negative impacts on vulnerable populations and increase adaptive capacity, it is vital that strategies and policies are implemented to ensure continuity of systems and services in the event of climate hazard events.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Conclusion
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment 9
5 Conclusion
The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment provides a brief summary of the climate conditions projected to occur in St. Helena and the populations most vulnerable to climate change impacts.

Although climate change is one of the more pressing challenges that St. Helena faces, it presents an opportunity to address the overarching City of St. Helena General Plan goal to address both the needs of current and future generations, provided that the General Plan is consistent with and recognizes global, national, and regional efforts that primarily address and adapt to the causes of climate change, including GHG emissions. The assessment provides a foundation for the City to begin to understand vulnerabilities to climate change in the community and to take actions that serve to increase community resilience.

The update to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element will include goals, policies and programs that will better prepare the community for the effects of climate change, based on the information provided in this Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and best practice. The City’s General Plan (2019) and Napa County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (2020) include policies and mitigation actions that address climate change related to drought, wildfire, and flood risk. As discussed in this assessment, additional consideration may be needed to prepare for extreme heat and increased temperatures as well as the unique needs of vulnerable populations. The updated Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element will include new policies to increase resilience for vulnerable populations. There may also be opportunities to augment the existing policies relating to drought, wildfire, and flood risk to better increase resilience.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Safety Element Update
10 6 References
California Energy Commission (CEC). Cal-Adapt Local Climate Change Snapshot for Napa County. 2021. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/local-climate-change-snapshot California Energy Commission (CEC). San Francisco Bay Area Region Report, California Fourth Climate Change Assessment. 2019. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 11/Reg_Report-SUM-CCCA4-2018-005_SanFranciscoBayArea_ADA.pdf California Healthy Places Index (HPI). California Healthy Places Index Map. 2022. https://map.healthyplacesindex.org
City of St. Helena General Plan. 2019.
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning_resources/pag e/3505/final_plan_compiled.pdf
IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report. 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FullReport
Napa County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. 2020. https://www.dropbox.com/s/5z55exd6ws4ndgx/NAPA-MJHMP-VOL-1.pdf?dl=0 Agenda Item #10.2.

References
Climate Change Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment 11
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena 2023 General Plan Update
Addendum
prepared by
City of St. Helena
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2023
Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena 2023 General Plan Update
Addendum
prepared by
City of St. Helena
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2023
Agenda Item #10.2.

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Table of Contents
Addendum i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations.................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Project Title.........................................................................................................................3

1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................3

1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................3

1.4 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3

1.5 Project Description..............................................................................................................6

1.6 Environmental Review ........................................................................................................7

1.7 Discretionary Action............................................................................................................7

1.8 Prior Environmental Document(s) ......................................................................................8

1.9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s) ...................................................................8 Project Context...............................................................................................................................9

2.1 St. Helena General Plan ......................................................................................................9

2.1.1 Housing Element...............................................................................................10

2.1.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element ........................................................14

2.1.3 2040 General Plan EIR.......................................................................................15 Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164...............................................................................17 Environmental Effects & Determination ......................................................................................19

4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or Substantially More Severe Significant Effects Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR ...............................................19

4.2 Determination...................................................................................................................19 Addendum Methodology..............................................................................................................21

5.1 2040 General Plan Consistency.........................................................................................21

5.2 Accommodation of the RHNA...........................................................................................21

5.3 Consistency with Horizon Year 2040 Projections .............................................................22

5.4 Preliminary Environmental Considerations......................................................................23 Addendum Evaluation ..................................................................................................................25

6.1 Aesthetics..........................................................................................................................25

6.2 Agricultural Resources......................................................................................................29

6.3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................33

6.4 Biological Resources..........................................................................................................39

6.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources..............................................................43

6.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change.............................................................47

6.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity...........................................................................................51

6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................55

6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................59

6.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing ..................................................................................65

6.11 Noise .................................................................................................................................69

6.12 Public Services and Recreation .........................................................................................73

6.13 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................77 Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
ii

6.14 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................81 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................85 References....................................................................................................................................86 Bibliography..................................................................................................................................86 Tables
Table 1 City of St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation......................................................12 Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the 2040 General Plan Update EIR...........15 Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category ................................................................................22 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location................................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Project Area ........................................................................................................................5 Figure 3 Housing Element Sites Inventory Locations – Vacant and Underutilized (Nonvacant) Sites...................................................................................................................................13 Agenda Item #10.2.

Acronyms and Abbreviations
Addendum iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADU Accessory dwelling unit
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP Best management practices
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
EIR Environmental impact report
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HRA Health risk assessment
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM Particulate matter
ROG Reactive organic gas
SB Senate Bill
SHMC Saint Helena Municipal Code
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile organic compounds
Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
iv
This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Executive Summary
Addendum 1
Executive Summary
The proposed project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the City of St.

Helena General Plan. State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The project would update the City of St.

Helena Housing Element as part of the 6
th cycle of updates. For St. Helena, the planning period runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. The Housing Element update identifies residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups, defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). It analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons. The proposed project also includes revisions to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Elements to be consistent with California law regulating evacuation routes and climate change vulnerability.

The Housing Element update establishes objectives, policies, and programs to assist the City of St.

Helena in achieving state-mandated housing goals. The City’s implementation of these policies and programs includes amendments to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan and the rezoning of several sites in the inventory of potential sites for meeting the city’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligation. No formal land use changes or physical development is proposed at this time and future changes would require environmental evaluation as potential impacts are location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until a project site and development proposal are identified.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583(c)(1), these actions will be accomplished within three years of the City of St Helena’s adoption of the Housing Element update. As required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(8), the Housing Element update provides a timeline for processing each of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other land use documents which implement the Housing Element update.

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, the City determined that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the 2040 General Plan update (2040 General Plan update Final EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001) is of continuing informational value. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the Housing Element update are within the scope of the previously certified Final EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 exist. Based on the information and analysis provided below, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified Final EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
2 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Introduction
Addendum 3
Introduction
This document is an Environmental Impact Report Addendum that analyzes the City of St. Helena’s (City’s) proposed Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update Project (hereafter also referred to as the “General Plan update,” “proposed project,” or “project”).

1.1 Project Title
City of St. Helena General Plan Update

1.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of St. Helena
Department of Planning
1088 College Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574

1.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director
(707) 967-2783 x 530

1.4 Project Location
The Housing Element update planning boundaries (Plan Area) coincide with the St. Helena city limits. The area encompasses approximately 5 square miles of land in the western portion of Napa County. The city is located northwest of the City of Yountville and southeast of the City of Calistoga, surrounded by unincorporated areas of the County. State Route 29 and 121 provide regional access to the city from the north and south. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the Plan Area, and Figure 2 shows the Plan Area’s boundaries in its immediate location. In addition, the project identifies 11 vacant and underutilized sites within the city that can accommodate new housing or rezone. The vacant and underutilized sites to be studied for housing opportunities are shown broadly in Figure 3 and correspond to the list provided in the Housing Resources chapter of the needs assessment of the Housing Element update. Not all parcels have street addresses at this time.

With most of the City developed and preservation of open space a priority, all draft vacant and opportunity sites are on currently underdeveloped, underutilized, or vacant lots.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
4 Figure 1 Regional Location
Agenda Item #10.2.

Introduction
Addendum 5
Figure 2 Project Area
Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
6 1.5 Project Description
The project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan and update to the existing Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan. These elements are a part of the St. Helena General Plan, which is a long-term document with text and diagrams that express the goals, objectives, and policies necessary to guide the community toward achieving its vision over approximately 20 years (i.e., 2040). The General Plan was subject to a comprehensive update as well; it underwent extensive environmental review in the form of an EIR, which was certified in 2019. The EIR for the St. Helena 2040 General Plan includes discussion of alternatives and growth inducing impacts (direct and indirect impacts) associated with urban development in the city.

State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Sections 65580 to 65589.8). The Housing Element update identifies residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and needs of special population groups, defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). It analyzes governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons. The project would update the City of St.

Helena Housing Element as part of the 6
th cycle of updates. For St. Helena, the planning period runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031.

Additionally, the Housing Element update would bring it into compliance with state legislation passed since the adoption of the 2040 General Plan and 2015-2023 Housing Element. There are multiple main components of the Housing Element update that mirror those of the previous Housing Elements, but that have been updated to reflect current conditions, including:
▪ An introduction to review the requirements of the Housing Element, public participation process, and data sources
▪ A profile and analysis of the city’s demographics, housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs
▪ An analysis of constraints on housing production and maintenance, including market, governmental, and environmental limitations to meeting the City’s identified needs ▪ A review of resources available and results of a housing sites inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of St. Helena’s ability to satisfy its share of the region’s future housing need
▪ A review of the City’s housing programs and evaluation of accomplishments under the 2013- 2021 Housing Element
▪ A Housing Plan to address the city’s identified housing needs, which identifies the City’s housing goals, policies, and implementing programs
▪ An identification of the goals, policies, and programs and the city’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 planning period, by income group, based on growth estimates, past and anticipated development, and income data
The Housing Element update establishes objectives, policies, and programs to assist the City in achieving state-mandated housing goals. The city’s implementation of these policies and programs includes future amendments to other elements of the General Plan and the rezoning of several sites in the inventory of potential sites for meeting the city’s RHNA obligation. Pursuant to Government Agenda Item #10.2.

Introduction
Addendum 7
Code section 65583(c)(1), these actions will be accomplished within three years of the City of St.

Helena’s adoption of the Housing Element update. As required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(8), the Housing Element update provides a timeline for processing each of the amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other land use documents which implement the Housing Element update.

1.6 Environmental Review
In April 2019, the City of St. Helena certified the St. Helena 2040 General Plan update and Final EIR (City of St. Helena General Plan 2040, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001) for an update to General Plan, including the Land Use Element. The certified Final EIR discussed the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) associated with future development allowed under the General Plan update and included a thorough analysis of the estimated build out of the City through the horizon year 2040. The EIR estimated new development for residential, commercial, office, industrial, hospital and hotel uses throughout the city and sphere of influence and evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with an estimated total buildout of 400 new dwelling units. The EIR found that, with implementation of the policies and programs contained in the General Plan and recommended mitigation measures, all impacts (direct and indirect) associated with future development under the General Plan update would be less than significant, except impacts on agricultural resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, and transportation and traffic which would be significant and unavoidable.

In considering the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update, the City determined that the EIR certified for the 2040 General Plan update is of continuing informational value. The City also determined that the potential environmental impacts (both direct and indirect impacts) of the Housing Element update are within the scope of the previously certified EIR and that none of the conditions requiring subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 exists. Based on the information and analysis provided below, the City determined that only minor or technical changes to the previously certified EIR are necessary and that that preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

Like the 2040 General Plan update, the Housing Element update does not include any development proposal or approval and future development of any specific housing site would be subject to additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c).

1.7 Discretionary Action
Implementation of the Housing Element would require the following discretionary actions by the City of St. Helena City Council:
▪ Approval of an Addendum to the General Plan EIR
▪ Adoption of the updated Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element In addition to the above-mentioned actions, future amendments to the St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) consistent with the implementing programs of the updated Housing Element would also be adopted by the City Council.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development reviews the proposed Housing Element in accordance with California law. No other review by outside public agencies is required.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
8 1.8 Prior Environmental Document(s)
The City of St. Helena General Plan 2040 Final EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2010042001.

1.9 Location of Prior Environmental Document(s)
The location and custodian of the City of St. Helena General Plan 2040 EIR is the City of St. Helena Planning Department, 1088 College Avenue St. Helena, CA 94574. A copy of the EIR also is available online at the City of St. Helena website: https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/2040- general-plan-update
Agenda Item #10.2.

Project Context
Addendum 9
Project Context
The project consists of a comprehensive update to the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan and update to the existing Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element of the General Plan (collectively referred to as “project”). These elements are a part of the St. Helena General Plan, which is a long-term document with text and diagrams that express the goals, objectives, and policies necessary to guide the community toward achieving its vision over approximately 20 years (i.e., 2040).

2.1 St. Helena General Plan
California law requires that each city and county in California adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan,” the purpose of which is to plan for important community issues such as new growth, housing needs, and environmental protection. Furthermore, the General Plan is used to project future demand for services such as sewer, water, roadways, parks, and emergency services. A General Plan is only successful when it reflects the priorities and values of the community and is a key tool for influencing quality of life.

City of St. Helena decision-makers (e.g., City Council and Planning Commission), rely on the General Plan as the basis for making decisions on matters such as land use and the provision of public facilities (e.g., roads, parks, fire stations). It is also a policy document that guides decisions related to protecting, enhancing, and providing those things that the community values most, such as open space, habitat conservation, economic development, and protecting the character of the community.

California law requires that every general plan, at a minimum, address certain subject categories (called “elements”), which include land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources, open space, noise, safety, and environmental justice. A general plan may also address other subjects that are of importance to the community‘s future, such as sustainability, community design, and public art. St. Helena’s adopted General Plan includes the following elements which address all state-mandated elements with additional policies and actions to address Environmental Justice issues:
▪ Land Use and Growth Management
▪ Economic Sustainability
▪ Public Facilities and services
▪ Circulation
▪ Historic Resources
▪ Open Space and Conservation
▪ Public Health, Safety, and Noise
▪ Climate Change
▪ Housing
▪ Parks and Recreation
▪ Arts, Culture, and Entertainment
Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
10 2.1.1 Housing Element

2.1.1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City of St. Helena with a coordinated and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the community. A priority of both state and local governments, Government Code Section 65580 states that “the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the highest order.” Pursuant to the state law, the Housing Element has two main purposes:

To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in meeting these needs
To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs The Housing Element is one of the eight General Plan elements the state mandates in Government Code Section 65302. The Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The City of St. Helena’s current Housing Element, adopted in 2015, identifies strategies and programs that focus on:

Conserving and improving existing affordable housing
Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community Assisting in the provision of affordable housing
Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities
The residential character of St. Helena is largely determined by the variety, location, and maintenance of its housing. The Housing Element is an official response to the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the population, establishing goals, policies, and programs that will guide the City of St. Helena decision making and set forth an action plan to implement these housing programs through an established planning period.

2.1.1.2 Updates to the Housing Element
State law requires that housing elements be updated every eight years (California Government Code Section 65588). The Housing Element must identify residential sites adequate to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels and to meet the needs of special population groups as defined under state law (California Government Code Section 65583). The Housing Element analyzes market and governmental constraints to housing maintenance, improvement, and development; addresses conservation and improvement of the condition of existing affordable housing stock; and outlines policies that promote housing opportunities for all persons.

The previous Housing Element covered an eight-year planning period (January 31, 2015 through January 31, 2023), Government Code Section 65588(e).

The City of St. Helena Housing Element is now being revised as part of the 6 th cycle of updates, the
period of which runs from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031. Therefore, this update is referred to as the “Housing Element update.”
Agenda Item #10.2.

Project Context
Addendum 11
The 2023-2031 Housing Element would bring the Element into compliance with California law enacted since the City’s adoption of the 2015-2023 Housing Element and with the current Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG’s) RHNA. The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes the following components, as required by California law:
▪ An assessment of the City’s population, household, and housing stock characteristics, existing and future housing needs by household types, and special needs populations. ▪ An analysis of resources and constraints related to housing production and preservation, including governmental regulations, infrastructure requirements and market conditions such as land, construction, and labor costs as well as restricted financing availability. ▪ Identification of the City’s quantified objectives for the 2023-2031 RHNA and inventory of sites determined to be suitable for housing.
▪ Opportunities for Conservation in Residential Development: California law requires cities to identify opportunities for energy conservation in residential development. ▪ Review of the 2015-2023 Housing Element to identify progress and evaluate the effectiveness of previous policies and programs.
▪ A Housing Plan to address the City’s identified housing needs, including housing goals, policies, and programs to facilitate the 2023 Housing Element update (6 th Cycle).

2.1.1.3 Changes in California Law
The following items represent substantive changes to California law since the City’s last Housing Element was adopted and certified in 2015. The Housing Element update incorporated and addressed all pertinent housing law changes.
▪ Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process: Senate Bill (SB) 35 (2017) ▪ Additional Housing Element Sites Analysis Requirements: Assembly Bill (AB) 879 (2017) and AB 1397 (2017)
▪ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: AB 686 (2017)
▪ No-Net-Loss Zoning: SB 166 (2017)
▪ Safety Element to Address Adaptation and Resiliency: SB 1035 (2018) ▪ By Right Transitional and Permanent Supportive Housing: AB 2162 (2018) and B 101 (2019) ▪ Accessory Dwelling Units: AB 2299 (2016), SB 1069 (2016), AB 494 (2017), SB 229 (2017), AB 68 (2019), AB 881 (2019), AB 587 (2019), SB 13 (2019), and AB 671 (2019) ▪ Density Bonus: AB 1763 (2019)
▪ Housing Crisis Act of 2019: SB 330
▪ Surplus Land Act Amendments: AB 1486 and AB 1255 (2019) ▪ Housing Impact Fee Data: AB 1483 (2019)
▪ Emergency and Transitional Housing Act of 2019: AB 139 (2019) ▪ Standardization of Sites Inventory Analysis and Reporting: SB 6 (2019) Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
12 2.1.1.4 Regional Housing Needs Assessment and Required Buffer The Housing Element must address the City's fair share of the regional housing need (as determined by ABAG) and specific California statutory requirements. It must also reflect the vision and priorities of the local community. As of December 2021, ABAG determined a final RHNA Allocation of 256 units for the City of which 162 must be affordable to lower-income households, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 City of St. Helena Regional Housing Needs Allocation Income Category (Percent of Napa County Area Median Income) Very Low
(<50%)
Low
(50-80%)
Moderate
(80-120%)
Above Moderate
(>120%)
Total
Housing Units
RHNA Housing units 104 59 26 67 256
RHNA + 20% Buffer 121 71 31 79 302
California law requires local jurisdictions to identify enough future housing sites inventory to not only cover the jurisdiction’s 6th Cycle RHNA, but to also provide for an additional buffer capacity above the RHNA. The buffer capacity is required to accommodate realistic production rates of affordable housing units. Additionally, the buffer can allow for instances when a smaller residential project must be considered for a given property or when existing units are demolished. The “No Net Loss” Law (Government Code Section 65863) requires maintenance of sufficient sites to meet the RHNA for all income levels throughout the planning period. With this required buffer, the number of housing units identified in the Housing Element is 307.

To meet the objectives of the RHNA and provide sufficient capacity for housing development, the Housing Element identifies sites for residential development. The Housing Element update identifies some sites for land use changes either to be consistent with the existing Land Use Element or to permit or increase residential uses on the sites. However, neither the Housing Element nor the City itself develops housing. Moreover, as described in further detail in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, below, the Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not itself implement land use changes, but puts forth goals and policies that support housing efforts. As described in the Housing Element update, the City’s RHNA can be accommodated in the following categories:
▪ Vacant or underutilized sites, where new residential units can be developed under current General Plan regulations;
▪ Sites to be rezoned to permit residential uses or permit them at a high density ▪ Planned or pending projects where no rezoning is required; and ▪ Current accessory dwelling units, also known as “granny flats” Figure 3 shows the locations of the vacant and underutilized sites identified in sites inventory in the Housing Element update. All sites in the housing sites inventory are within the City’s limits.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Project Context
Addendum 13
Figure 3 Housing Element Sites Inventory Locations – Vacant and Underutilized (Nonvacant) Sites

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
14 2.1.1.5 Zoning and General Plan Amendments
The project would involve an amendment to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to rezone existing land use designations to Mixed-Use, Medium Density Residential, and High Density Residential. Some existing sites are designated as land uses other than a residential land use category and would be rezoned to mixed-use or residential land use categories. Select sites would be upzoned from existing residential land use categories to more dense residential land use categories. Most of these sites are located in the central areas of the City to reflect the intensity of existing nearby higher density parcels. Future development of those sites would require separate CEQA review and compliance with local development standards.

Due to the proposed zoning modifications on particular Draft Housing Element vacant and underutilized sites, a General Plan Amendment would be required to change the land use designations on those sites to be consistent with the zoning.

2.1.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element
The Safety element is one of the eight General Plan elements the state mandates in Government Code Section 65302. The project includes revisions to the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element which identifies forces of nature and events resulting from human action that have the potential to cause harm to life and property in the City. The goal of a Safety Element is to reduce the potential short and long-term risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, climate change, and other hazards.

Identifying the source of such threats allows decision-makers to take preemptory action to minimize the damage, particularly as it relates to new development. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element also addresses noise, fire and police protection, hazardous materials, solid waste, and public utility systems. A climate change vulnerability assessment identifying potential impacts from climate change on vulnerable populations and natural and built assets in St. Helena was also conducted for the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update.

California law requires specific changes to a safety element when the municipality undergoes an update to the Housing Element. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update includes revisions to be consistent with California law through the following actions:
▪ Identify and propose policies for residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. ▪ Update information relating to flood and fire hazards and city assets at risk due to climate change vulnerability.
▪ Propose and strengthen policies related to risk reduction, emergency preparedness and evacuation, and community and facility resilience infrastructure and strategies. ▪ Propose additional policies to address climate change hazards, including extreme heat days, extended drought, increased precipitation, and worsening air quality such as investing in backup power sources, funding for weatherization of homes, and providing cooling centers.

2.1.2.1 Changes in State Law
The following represent bills passed by the California State Legislature and approved by the Governor that require substantive changes to a Safety Element when a municipality undergoes an update. The Safety and Community Services Element update has incorporated and addressed all pertinent safety element law changes.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Project Context
Addendum 15
▪ Residential Emergency Evacuation Routes: SB 99 (2019) ▪ Evacuation Routes: AB 747 (2019)
▪ General Plans: SB 1035 (2018)
▪ Climate Change Adaptation: SB 379 (2015)
▪ Integration of Local Hazard mitigation Plan: AB 2140 (2006) ▪ Seismic and Geologic Hazards: SB 926 (2004)
▪ Flood Mapping: AB 162 (2007)

2.1.3 2040 General Plan EIR
The 2040 General Plan update EIR addressed the potential environmental effects (direct and indirect) of the planned buildout of St. Helena through the year 2040 and concluded that implementation of the General Plan would result in levels of environmental impacts as detailed in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of Areas of Potential Impact under the 2040 General Plan Update EIR Issue Area Highest Level of Impact Mitigation Proposed in the General Plan EIR Aesthetics Less than significant None
Agricultural Resources Significant and Unavoidable None Air Quality Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6
Biological Resources Less than significant None
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural
Resources
Less than significant None
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate
Change
Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measure GHG-1
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Less than significant None Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than significant None Hydrology and Water Quality Less than significant HYDRO-1 Land Use, Population, and Housing Less than significant None Noise Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measure NO-1 Public Services and Recreation Less than significant None Transportation and Traffic Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measures TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR-5, and TR-6
Utilities and Service Systems Less than significant None The General Plan has an approximate year 2040 horizon, but actual buildout of all planned land uses may occur earlier or later, as long-range demographic and economic trends are difficult to accurately predict. The designation within the proposed General Plan of a site for a certain use does not necessarily mean that the site will be developed or redeveloped with that use during the planning period, as most development will depend on property owner initiative and market conditions.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
16 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164
Addendum 17
Overview of CEQA Guidelines Section
15164
Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when changes are proposed to a project that has a previously certified EIR. When considering the need for additional environmental review, the fundamental determination a lead agency must make is whether the previously certified EIR retains some informational value or whether changes in the project or circumstances have rendered it wholly irrelevant. If the previously certified EIR has continuing informational value, the lead agency then must determine whether the proposed changes in the Project requires additional environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides that a lead agency will prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) states that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR may be prepared for a project with a certified EIR unless the lead agency determines, based on substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

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

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

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

The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.

Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.

Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The analysis pursuant to Section 15162 demonstrates whether the lead agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the existing certified EIR, that an addendum to the existing EIR would be appropriate, and no new environmental document, such as a new EIR, would be required.

The addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
18 final EIR, and the decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to deciding on the project.

The City of St. Helena prepared this Addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, to evaluate whether the project’s environmental impacts are covered by and within the scope of the General Plan Final EIR). The following Addendum details any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and/or "new information of substantial importance" that may cause one or more significant effects to environmental resources.

The responses herein substantiate and support the City of St. Helena’s determination that the potential environmental impacts of the Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update policies and programs are within the scope of the General Plan EIR, do not require subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and, in conjunction with the EIR, preparation of an Addendum pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 is appropriate.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Environmental Effects & Determination
Addendum 19
Environmental Effects & Determination

4.1 Environmental Areas Determined to Have New or
Substantially More Severe Significant Effects
Compared to Those Identified in the Previous EIR
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in Project, change in circumstances, or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages.
■ None
□ Aesthetics □ Agricultural Resources □ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Energy, Greenhouse
Gases, and Climate
Change
□ Geology, Soils, and
Seismicity
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use, Population, and
Housing
□ Noise □ Public Services and
Recreation
□ Transportation and Traffic □ Utilities and Service Systems

4.2 Determination
Based on this analysis, the 2040 General Plan EIR has continuing informational value and:
□ Substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is "new information of substantial importance," as that term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT or SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Methodology
Addendum 21
Addendum Methodology

5.1 2040 General Plan Consistency
To promote a uniform and compatible vision for the development of the community, California law requires the General Plan be internally consistent in its goals and policies. The Housing Element and the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element are components of the General Plan, and thus, the Housing Element update and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update must be consistent with the vision of the General Plan and supported by goals and policies of the other General Plan elements. General Plan elements and policies that affect housing are summarized below:

The Land Use and Growth Management Element directs the location, amount, and type of residential development in St. Helena. It presents the desirable pattern for the ultimate development of the city and reflects the community’s evolution and changing demographics over the General Plan horizon. The Land Use Plan details the location and the density of development allowed throughout the city.

The Community Design Element guides the form, character, and appearance of the community to preserve the city’s history and character in future commercial, industrial, and residential development.

The Circulation Element defines a safe, efficient, and adequate circulation system in St. Helena that responds to all circulation needs. Circulation means the actual physical circulation system consisting of freeways, streets, bicycle routes, sidewalks, and trails, as well as modes of transportation, including cars, buses, trucks, trains, bicycles, ridesharing, and walking.

The Open Space and Conservation Element and Parks and Recreation Element establish goals and polices to protect sensitive resources from development impacts; maintain and improve appropriate access to open space; and ensure park and recreation opportunities are sufficient to meet the needs of future residents.

The Economic Sustainability Element establishes goals and policies to guide city efforts to maintain an economically viable community, including providing a range of housing and employment opportunities that meet the needs of residents and workers alike, that attract families and businesses to create demand for planned land uses, and that establish and fund public service levels to preserve St. Helena’s quality of life.

The Climate Change Element directs the City’s response to and plans for climate change by addressing energy and water conservation, renewable energy production, transportation, sustainable business development, and reduction of climate change impacts in the city.

5.2 Accommodation of the RHNA
The City’s RHNA for the current planning period is 256 units, which includes 162 very low and lowincome housing units, 26 moderate income housing units, and 68 above moderate housing units.

The City must demonstrate the availability of sites with appropriate zoning and development standards that can facilitate and encourage the development of such units. As shown in Table 3, the City anticipates the development of 72 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) during the eight-year planning period and 93 units would be accommodated from planned and approved (pipeline) Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
22 projects, which can count towards the RHNA. A total of 307 units were identified on vacant and nonvacant sites under the existing General Plan land uses, as well as on sites requiring rezoning under Program H-A.

Although the housing sites inventory has been identified for future planning purposes as part of the Housing Element update, the adoption of the Housing Element itself does not change the current zoning or General Plan designations of the properties. California Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the start of the Housing Element planning period to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards.

Therefore, the City’s rezoning program, which is identified as Program H-A of the Housing Element update, would be a separate project and evaluated in accordance with CEQA at the time of its review. Prior to the approval of any changes in land use, the City would evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the rezoning or change in land use.

Table 3 Housing Unit Yield per Site Category
Site Category/Approach Very Low/Low Moderate Above Moderate Total RHNA plus buffer 192 31 79 302
Vacant or underutilized parcels 203 69 35 307
Planned or Pending Projects, no rezone 4 1 88 93
Accessory Dwelling Units 0 0 72 72
Total 207 70 195 472
RHNA Surplus (15) (39) (116) (171)
As shown in Table 3, existing vacant or underutilized residentially zoned properties, planned, and pending projects that require no zone change, and accessory dwelling units would yield four very low and low income housing units under current conditions. Therefore, the City of St. Helena needs to account for the additional 188 very low and low income housing units through a combination of the remaining approaches. The 188 very low and low income housing units fall within the projected horizon year buildout and housing unit assumptions addressed in the General Plan and General Plan EIR.

5.3 Consistency with Horizon Year 2040 Projections
The General Plan EIR reports that in 2018 there were 2,735 existing housing units in St. Helena and predicts that by horizon year 2040, St. Helena will have 3,067 units (Chapter 2, Project Description), assuming an addition of 332 new housing units citywide between 2018 and horizon year 2040. As discussed above, the City of St. Helena’s RHNA for the current planning period is 256 units. In addition, the Housing Element includes a required buffer which plans for a total of approximately 302 units during the planning period. Including the pending and approved projects, ADU trends, and vacant and nonvacant sites, the Site Inventory would accommodate approximately 472 units as shown in Table 3 which would exceed the 332 units by an additional 140 units. Therefore, additional environmental analysis would be required prior to the implementation of the rezoning program identified as Program H-A in the Housing Element.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Methodology
Addendum 23

5.4 Preliminary Environmental Considerations
The Housing Element update, in and of itself, does not propose specific development projects, but rather puts forth goals, policies, and programs that support housing efforts in St. Helena. Each future housing development project and housing program adopted in the Housing Element would be subject to separate review to determine potential impacts on the environment related to each project as potential impacts are location-specific and cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until a project site and development proposal are identified. When a specific development proposal is considered for approval, that project would be subject to adopted development guidelines and standards and be required to incorporate applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the 2040 General Plan EIR certified in 2019 (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(3)). If a subsequent activity (in this case a specific development proposal) would have effects not identified in the program EIR (the 2040 General Plan EIR and this Addendum), the lead agency must prepare additional CEQA documentation.

Similarly, the goals, policies and programs in the updated Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element, in and of themselves, do not propose specific projects that result in a physical change to the environment. Should a project associated with implementation of the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element have the potential to result in a physical change in the environment, it would be subject to separate review under CEQA.

This Addendum Evaluation, therefore, includes the analysis of the changes and potential impacts related to the adoption of Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates.

No physical development or changes in land use are addressed or evaluated. The City would analyze any future development or changes in land use separate from the adoption of the Housing Element.

This Addendum Evaluation is intended to demonstrate the project’s consistency with the existing St.

Helena 2040 General Plan update Final EIR to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. In particular, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, this Addendum Evaluation assesses whether the updated Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element, as a policy and programs document, includes impacts not addressed or analyzed as significant effects in the St.

Helena 2040 General Plan update Final EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
24 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
Addendum 25
Addendum Evaluation

6.1 Aesthetics
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
a publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
26 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely
affect daytime or nighttime views in
the area?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Aesthetics
Addendum 27
2040 General Plan EIR Aesthetics Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to aesthetic resources would be less than significant for scenic vistas, scenic highways, visual quality, and light and glare (Section 3.1, Aesthetics). It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to projectspecific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban design and visual quality. As such, all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning aesthetic resources such as those that address architectural design, lighting, landscaping, building setbacks, and visual compatibility.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards. The City would evaluate any proposed land use changes for potential environmental impacts prior to approval of the proposed land use change. Furthermore, future development proposals could be subject to further environmental analysis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) and as required by state law, to evaluate potential impacts specific to that proposal.

Because it is a policy document, the Housing Element update would not, in and of itself, result in impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, or visual character, and would not create new sources of substantial light or glare which adversely affects views. The sites are located on vacant as well as non-vacant properties such as those with existing buildings or vineyards. However similar to the analysis within the 2040 General Plan EIR, any individual development projects consistent with the Housing Element would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban design and visual quality. As such, all projects proposed under the Housing Element implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning aesthetic resources such as those that address architectural design, lighting, landscaping, building setbacks, and visual compatibility.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. None of the implementation items would cause impacts to scenic vistas or resources or directly develop new structures which would impact views and create substantial glare. Any potential updates to structures to mitigate potential risks to wildfire or other climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to goals and policies in the Land Use and Growth Management Element and Community Design Element related to urban Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
28 design and visual quality. Therefore the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to aesthetics.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR and no additional environmental assessment of aesthetics is required.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Agricultural Resources
Addendum 29

6.2 Agricultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Significant and
Unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. 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?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
30 2040 General Plan EIR Agricultural Resources Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources (Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources). The EIR found that implementation of the 2040 General Plan could result in the loss of up to 118 acres of land identified as Important Farmland, including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. The 2040 General Plan EIR found the loss of farmland is not directly mitigable, without preventing development altogether. No feasible mitigation measures were identified for agricultural land conversion that would fulfill the objectives of and implement the 2040 General Plan update. Therefore, and implementation of the plan would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Important Farmlands.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards. .

The General Plan goals and policies support continued farming and restrict uses that would interfere with farming and open space uses in certain areas. Most of the sites identified within the Housing Element update are located on sites with existing development and on sites zoned for residential or commercial uses. The Housing Element update includes one site identified for housing which is located on prime farmland. However, the site has a land use designation of Public and Quasi-Public and housing development would not result in any more severe impacts to agricultural resources than were a public facility developed on the site as currently shown in the General Plan. In addition, the 2040 General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts to farmland (Section 3.2, Agricultural Resources). Therefore, the Housing Element update would not result in new or more severe impacts than those identified in the General Plan EIR. .

There would also be no new impacts to Williamson Act contracts, as none of the identified sites in the sites inventory are under Williamson Act contract.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. These updates would not convert existing farmland or forested land and would not impact any land under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no impact related to agricultural resources.

Conclusion
The Housing Element Update does not propose the development on housing on any areas of the City not already analyzed for development in the 2040 General Plan EIR. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would update information and goals, policies, and objectives to be consistent with the State legislation and would not change growth assumptions or buildout assessed Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Agricultural Resources
Addendum 31
in the 2040 General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR and no additional environmental assessment of agricultural resources is required.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
32 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 33

6.3 Air Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Violate air quality standards or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-1, AQ-2,
and AQ-3
No No No Yes Yes
c. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
Significant and
Unavoidable
AQ-1, AQ-2,
and AQ-3
No No No Yes Yes
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
AQ-4, AQ-5,
and AQ-6
No No No Yes Yes
e. Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
34 2040 General Plan EIR Air Quality Findings
As discussed under in Section 3.3, Air Quality, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to consistency with applicable air quality plans would be less than significant. The 2040 General Plan would support the goals of Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) 2017 Clean Air Plan, include all applicable control measures, and would not conflict with its implementation.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to criteria pollutants would be significant and unavoidable. Construction emissions associated with a potential level of annual development that is consistent the General Plan’s 2040 growth projections could result in reactive organic gas (ROG), NOx, CO, and particulate matter (PM) emissions construction activity that exceeds BAAQMDrecommended CEQA significance thresholds. All other potential construction emissions would be below BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds. In addition, maximum daily operational emissions associated with potential 2040 growth under the General Plan would result in ROG and PM10 emissions that could exceed BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds.

All other potential operational emissions would be below BAAQMD-recommended CEQA significance thresholds. To reduce impacts related to air quality emissions of criteria air pollutants, the 2040 General Plan EIR required implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3 which would reduce ROGs from architectural coating, and PM from construction, as well require all development with the potential to create point-source air quality impacts to receive BAAQMD review prior to approval. In addition, any development under the 2040 General Plan would be required to comply with all applicable air quality plans, California Air Resources Board (CARB) and BAAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing air pollution emissions. However, because the detail of future projects under the General Plan cannot be known, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require construction projects in the City of St. Helena to implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. BMPs may include:
▪ Watering all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) three times per day using recycled water. ▪ Covering all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material. ▪ Removing all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ▪ Limiting all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ▪ Completing all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved as soon as possible. Laying building pads soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ▪ Minimizing idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ▪ Maintaining and properly tuning all construction equipment in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper working condition prior to operation. • Staging construction equipment as far as possible from existing sensitive receptors (away from the southeast property line and surrounding residences).

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 35
▪ Posting a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
▪ Where warranted, the project sponsors shall incorporate the following language into construction specifications if significant risk is anticipated based on design level construction schedule, duration and concurrent construction activities:
▪ Powering portable equipment by electricity if available or if electricity is not available, using propane or natural gas if feasible. Diesel engines shall only be used if electricity is not available and it is not feasible to use propane or natural gas. ▪ Ensuring that all mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on the site for more than two days continuously or 20 hours cumulative meets, at a minimum, U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines or equivalent and be equipped with diesel particulate matter filters that meet CARB-certified Level 2 or 3 Diesel Particulate Filters. Alternatively-fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would meet this requirement.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require that applicants proposing development of projects within the City of St. Helena require contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce constructionrelated fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-volatile organic compounds (VOC) coatings that have a VOC content of 10 grams/liter (g/L) or less be used during construction. All project applicants shall submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require all development applications with the potential to create point-source air quality impacts be referred to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for review and comment to ensure compliance with BAAQMD requirements prior to approval of the project.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require development projects to meet CARB setback recommendations from air contaminant sources for sensitive uses, or conduct specific air quality and health risk impact analyses and identify project specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To protect sensitive receptors require discretionary projects in proximity to Highway 29, Silverado Trail and the Rail Corridor to include an analysis of mobile source toxic air contaminant health risks. The analysis, if necessary, shall identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce health risks to acceptable levels.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6: All applicants proposing development of projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD, shall prepare a site-specific construction health risk assessment (HRA) taking into account both project-level and cumulative health risks (including existing toxic air contaminant sources). If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures for adjacent receptors will be less than BAAQMD project level and cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), then additional mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA demonstrates that health risks would exceed BAAQMD project-level and/or cumulative thresholds (as appropriate), additional feasible on- and offsite mitigation shall be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest extent practicable.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
36 The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to sensitive receptors regarding pollutant concentrations by the General Plan would be less than significant. Although implementation of the General Plan could result in new sensitive residential receptors and new non-residential land uses that would potentially be emissions sources, permitted stationary sources in St. Helena are primarily located in commercial or semi-rural areas while most of the sensitive receptors, such as schools, residences, and retirement homes, are located in the downtown area of the city. In addition, individual development projects would be evaluated through the BAAQMD permit process and the CEQA process to identify and mitigate any significant exposures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 would reduce potential impacts to sensitive receptors to less than significant.

Buildout under the General Plan would not cause or significantly contribute to CO concentrations that exceed State or federal ambient air quality standards for CO. Regulatory mechanisms, including asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulations for demolition and renovation outlined in BAAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 11-2, would ensure impacts from asbestos containing materials present during demolition of existing structures would be less than significant.

Heath risks associated with receptor exposure to Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) would be less than significant because the use of off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would be temporary and would combine with the highly dispersive properties of DPM, additional reductions in exhaust emissions would occur in the future, and construction-related activities would be short-term, incremental through time, and would occur at scattered locations throughout the city such that an individual receptor location would not be exposed to DPM exposure for a prolonged period of time.

However, without specific details on the locations of building footprints or their construction schedules, a quantitative evaluation of potential health risk impacts is not possible. Mitigation Measures AQ-1, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-6 would mitigate air quality impacts from construction to reduce health related impacts.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined impacts related to objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people would be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Government Code Section 65583 (c)(1)(A) states that cities have up to three years from the time a Housing Element is adopted to rezone sites, including adoption of minimum density and development standards.

While potential air quality-related impacts of future projects cannot be assessed in a meaningful way until the project site and development design is known, including the number of units, potential number of residents, and potential vehicle miles traveled, operational impacts would be addressed by provisions in the General Plan, the Green Building Code, and other regulations and standards that govern air quality in St. Helena. Short-term air quality impacts resulting from construction of the sites, such as dust generated by clearing and grading activities, exhaust emissions from gas- and diesel-powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers would be subject to BAAQMD rules and protocols Further General Plan goals Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Air Quality
Addendum 37
and policies support reduction of air quality impacts. Mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR will be implemented to help reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. These measures would remain in practice with implementation of the Housing Element update.

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could contribute to impacts related to criteria pollutants. Annual development under the Housing Element update could increase construction emissions from indirect land use changes. Potential impacts caused by more development would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 identified in the General Plan EIR.

However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation, the same as impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could impact sensitive receptors. However, the Housing Element update does not proposed new land use changes which would place new sensitive receptors in areas with emission sources.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not directly result in development or activities that would generate air pollutants, cause an increase in VMT, or generate objectionable odors. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would not allow for more housing units or increase projected growth forecasts in the city. In addition, the updates would be subject to all applicable air quality plans, CARB and BAAQMD regulations, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing air pollution emissions. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have less than significant impacts related to air quality.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
38 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Biological Resources
Addendum 39

6.4 Biological Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
40 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect
on state or federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan,
natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Biological Resources
Addendum 41
2040 General Plan EIR Biological Resources Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to biological resources would be less than significant for effects to listed species or their habitats, loss of significant populations of sensitive species, protected wetlands, wildlife migration or movement corridors, local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or conflicts with conservation plans and habitat management plans and habitat groups identified therein (Chapter 3.4 Biological Resources). Individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review. As such, all projects proposed under General Plan implementation would be required to conform to zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning the protection of biological resources, including listed species, habitats, and all planning resources designed to protect and conserve these resources.

Furthermore, future development would be required to comply with State and federal law and policies within the Open Space Element of the General Plan that protect biological resources. The General Plan is consistent with the SHMC and Open Space and Conservation Element policies and standards for tree preservations. The General Plan does not include any policies that would interfere with the Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Habitat Conservation Plan for PG&E facilities, rightsof way, buffer lands, owned lands and easements, access routes and mitigation areas.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan that identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th cycle RHNA throughout St.

Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density.

As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Most sites identified in the sites inventory are located in previously developed areas with limited potential for disruption to undeveloped habitat areas, including sites that have previously been developed or infill sites in well developed areas. The sites inventory also includes vacant sites, although these sites have been previously disturbed and are in proximity to developed areas.

Consistent with the 2040 General Plan EIR, the project would not adversely affect biological resources, including special-status species, riparian habitats or wetlands, or migratory species and wildlife corridors, to a greater extent than buildout under the General Plan, and impacts would remain less than significant. Build out under the Housing Element update would be subject to all applicable requirements of the SHMC and Open Space and Conservation Element policies as well as the PG&E Habitat Conservation Plan for PG&E facilities, rights-of way, buffer lands, owned lands and easements, access routes and mitigation areas.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. Policies contained within the update include vegetation management and maintenance and debris removal in stream channels that are designed to mitigate wildfire, erosion, and flood risk. These policies also stipulate that such activities must use best practices to protect wildlife and habitat. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including zoning, design standards, and other regulations concerning the protection of biological Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
42 resources, including listed species, habitats, and all planning resources designed to protect and conserve these resources. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to biological resources.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum 43

6.5 Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in CEQA § 15064.5?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA § 15064.5?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
44 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native Tribe and
that is:
▪ Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or
▪ A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Addendum 45
2040 General Plan EIR Cultural Resources Findings
As discussed under Impact CUL-1 in Section 3.4, Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Cultural Resources, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Future development under the General Plan could result in demolition, deconstruction, relocation, or alteration of historic resources. The SHMC establishes procedures for archaeological surveys and mitigation measures for archaeological and paleontological resources and protections for significant architectural or historical buildings. Policies within the Historic Resources Element would further mitigate potential impacts on historic districts and buildings.

Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant with implementation of existing regulations and the proposed policies and implementation actions within the Historic Resources Element.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th
cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program 1.1 to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update, including associated construction activities would result in less than significant impacts to historic, cultural, and tribal cultural resources within the Plan Area. Buildout under the Housing Element update would adhere to State and local development guidelines that govern historical, cultural, and tribal cultural resources, including AB 52 and SB 18 and policies in the City’s Historic Resources Element. Native American tribes requesting consultation will be notified of projects when project-specific environmental review begins, according to AB 52 and SB 18 (if applicable), and tribal representative requests will be included into project approval, including notification, monitoring, and consultations in accord with federal and state requirements. Any evidence of cultural resources that might be unearthed in the process of construction would be required to comply with SHMC which establishes mitigation measures for archaeological resources.

Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to archaeological resources and human remains would remain less than significant, the same as impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with relevant policies and standards within the General Plan Historic Resources Element and the SHMC previously adopted to protect archaeological and paleontological resources and significant architectural or historical buildings. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts related to cultural resources.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
46 Conclusion
The 2040 Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
Addendum 47

6.6 Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Significant and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
Significant and
Unavoidable
GHG-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Cause wasteful, inefficient, and
unnecessary consumption of
energy during project
construction, operation, and/or
maintenance?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Conflict with the CBC Energy
Efficiency Standards, the CARB
passenger vehicle GHG emission
reduction targets for 2020 and
2035, or any other applicable
energy conservation regulations?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
48 2040 General Plan EIR Energy, Greenhous Gas Emissions, and Climate Change Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be significant and unavoidable, Section 3.6, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Climate Change.

Buildout under the 2040 General Plan would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions from baseline conditions by 2040 and would not make substantial progress towards meeting the State’s 2050 goal of 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels pursuant to Executive Order S-03-05. The primary source of GHG emissions under the General Plan would be from the transportation sector and the second largest source of emissions would be from the commercial/industrial sector. To reduce impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure GHG-1. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measure and policies within the 2040 General Plan aimed at reducing GHG emissions, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: The City of St. Helena shall adopt and begin to implement a Climate Action Plan within a goal of 18 months, but no later than 36 months, of adopting the Proposed Plan update to address the GHG reduction goals of Executive Order B‐30‐15 and Executive Order S‐ 03‐05 for GHG sectors that the City has direct or indirect jurisdictional control over. The Climate Action Plan shall include a community inventory of GHG emission sources, and quantifiable GHG emissions reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, and an interim target for the General Plan buildout year 2040, that are consistent with the statewide GHG reduction targets.

The City shall monitor progress toward its GHG emissions reduction goals and prepare reports every five years detailing that progress.

In addition, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulation regarding GHG reductions would be significant and unavoidable.

Under buildout of the 2040 General Plan, per capita emissions would exceed the significance threshold of 2.3 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population in 2040, which would conflict with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, AB32, and Executive Order S-03-05, and BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would help reduce GHG emissions, however further action at the State and federal level would be necessary to achieve State reduction targets. At the time, there were no post‐2030 State or federal measures that would assist the city in achieving the efficiency target in 2040, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. Therefore, the General Plan could potentially conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, meaning impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to energy resources would be less than significant for energy consumption and consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan would decrease net energy consumption and per service population energy consumption due to delivery of energy through Marin Clean Energy which has higher goals for renewable energy than PG&E and through an increase in fuel efficiency for vehicles. Furthermore, policies within the General Plan aim to reduce energy consumption of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline and diesel fuels by fostering an increase in energy efficiency and renewable energy, encouraging bicycle and pedestrian transit, and decreasing use of cars. All future development under the Proposed Plan would be required to comply with the latest California Building Code (CBC) requirements, including CBC Energy Efficiency Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Energy, Greenhouse Gases, and Climate Change
Addendum 49
Standards, as well as all federal, State, and local rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation.

By decreasing demand for energy- and fuel-related energy resources both overall and on a per service population basis and complying with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, impacts to energy consumption and consistency with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031).

Implementation of the Housing Element update could increase the demand for electricity and natural gas. However, new development would be required to comply with statewide mandatory energy requirements outlined in CALGreen, which could decrease energy consumption in new and retrofitted structures. In addition, consistent with the General Plan, the Housing Element supports higher density that would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fuel consumption compared to existing lower-density development. Therefore, energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and the Housing Element update would not conflict with nor obstruct a State or local plan for increasing renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of GHG emissions or otherwise conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases. Annual development under the Housing Element update could exceed the GHG significance threshold applied in the 2040 General Plan EIR and conflict with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Potential impacts caused by development allowed under the Housing Element would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, identified in the General Plan EIR. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation, the same as impacts identified in the General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not increase built out or population increases in the city and would not directly result in development or activities that would increase demand for energy or increase VMT. Policies within the update encourage use of renewable back-up power sources and storage that would support the City’s a more reliable and less wasteful source of energy for use during emergencies. In addition, any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk from climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with the CBC Energy Efficiency Standards, policies within the General Plan aimed at reducing energy consumption of natural gas, electricity, and gasoline and Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
50 diesel fuels, and all federal, State, and local rules and regulations pertaining to energy consumption and conservation. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have less than significant impacts related to GHG emissions, energy or climate change.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Addendum 51

6.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the Housing Element update:
a. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

No No No Yes Yes

1. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map or based on
other substantial evidence of
a known fault?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

2. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

4. Landslides? Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
52 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion
or topsoil loss?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Section 1803.5.3,
Expansive Soil, of the California
Building Standards Code (2013),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Addendum 53
2040 General Plan EIR Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity would be less than significant for adverse effects related to rupture of a known fault, strong ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides; soil erosion; landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse; locating development on expansive soils; and installing septic tanks and alternative waste water disposal systems in expansive soils, Section 3.7, Soils, Geology, and Seismicity. It further stated that individual development projects would be subject to projectspecific development and planning review, including adherence to standards for geology, soils, and seismicity impacts. Implementation of the 2040 General Plan would be less than significant in regard to impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, buildout under the Housing Element update could result in impacts related to geologic hazards, including seismic activity, faults, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, and unstable soils. However, new development would be required to comply with local and state codes and requirements related to geologic hazards, including the CBC, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, and applicable General Plan policies. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts would remain less than significant. In addition, consistent with buildout allowed under the General Plan, new development under the Housing Element update would connect to the existing sewer system and not include septic tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions that would mitigate potential impacts related to geology and soils by requiring soils and geology reports for new development, prohibiting development on instable slopes, and limiting development in hillside areas with potential for slope failure. None of the implementation items would directly result new structures that would be exposed to seismic activity, faults, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, or unstable soils or involve septic tanks. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and any impacts would be mitigated through compliance with all applicable General Plan policies, the CBC, the NPDES program, and all other applicable local and state codes and requirements. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
54 Conclusion
The Housing Element update as well as the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element Updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum 55

6.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Be located on a site that is included
on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
56 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
g. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport, public use airport, or
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Planning
Area?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addendum 57
2040 General Plan EIR Hazards and Hazardous
The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts for hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant for transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school; location of development projects on hazardous materials sites such that the new use would create a hazard to the public or the environment; interference with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan; and risk from wildland fire in lands adjacent to urbanized or residential areas, Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. It further stated that the Plan Area. The 2040 General Plan EIR described that individual development projects would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, including adherence to state, regional, and local regulations and standards related to hazards. There are no airport land use compatibility plans within the planning area or public airports, public use airports, or private airstrips within two miles of affecting any portion of the General Plan planning area.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the 2040 General Plan, construction and operation of the development allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing regulations related to use, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials.

Applicable regulations would include those set forth by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation, and BAAQMD. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure impacts related hazardous materials would remain less than significant, consistent with the 2040 General Plan EIR. The proposed Housing Element update would not include circulation changes and is not located within the planning boundaries of any airports. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions to enhance emergency response and evacuation procedures through testing of response exercises and maintaining the City’s emergency response plan. In addition, policies and implementation actions address risk associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wildfire prevention and response. The update is would not directly result in development that would have the potential to impact hazards or hazardous materials. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with relevant Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
58 policies within the General Plan California, as well as applicable standards from the Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation, and BAAQMD.

Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in significant adverse impacts.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 59

6.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
60 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Place housing within a 100-year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation
map?
Less than
significant
with
Mitigation
HYDRO-1 No No No Yes Yes
g. Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
h. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam, or inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 61
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
i. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
62 2040 General Plan EIR Hydrology and Water Quality Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant for water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, depletion of ground water, drainage, runoff, erosion, and siltation. It further stated that new development under the General Plan would primarily result in redevelopment of previously developed sites with residential, commercial, and public uses, which would have a limited effect on local drainage or runoff characteristics. The 2040 General Plan EIR also concluded that on-going compliance with the NPDES requirements, including required implementation of BMPs to treat storm water runoff and protect water quality, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and General Plan policies would reduce potential impacts related to water quality, runoff, and flooding. Buildout of the General Plan would generate a small increase in impervious surfaces, although the planning area is already largely developed. However, it would not be anticipated that new development would contribute to a significant impact on water quality, groundwater recharge, or runoff.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to placement of housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map would be less than significant with mitigation.

Implementation of the General Plan could result in development on sites partially or fully within the 100-year flood zone or construction of new housing within flood hazard zones. Policies within the General Plan and compliance with the SHMC regulate development in flood hazard areas, consistent with standards from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To further reduce impacts related to development within flood zones, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1: Any proposed development or redevelopment on land designated as regulatory floodway on current Federal Emergency Management Agency maps shall, prior to issuance of a construction permit, obtain and submit to the City a Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, demonstrating that a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis showed that grading modifications were performed such that the proposed development would no longer be within the floodway. These modifications shall be completed without raising the base flood level or impacting other properties.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Development allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing regulations, including NPDES requirements, required BMPs, San Francisco Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association ’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and General Plan policies related to water quality, runoff, and erosion, siltation, and flooding control. Compliance with these existing regulations would ensure Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Addendum 63
impacts related to water quality, drainage, erosion, siltation, runoff, and flooding would remain less than significant, the same as impacts identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update, including associated construction activities could result in impacts to groundwater supply.

Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 identified in the General Plan EIR and project-level environmental review, which would identify potential impacts and reduce impacts to a less than significant level, the same as under the General Plan.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions that reduce risk of floods and impacts related to flood hazards. None of the policies or implementation actions would impact hydrology or water quality or directly result in development that would alter existing drainage patterns, contribute to runoff, degrade water quality, impact groundwater supply and recharge, or expose people or structures to flood hazards. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with NPDES requirements, including required implementation of BMPs to treat storm water runoff and protect water quality, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s Manual design guidance for stormwater treatment, Title 16 of the SHMC, and applicable General Plan policies. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not have an adverse impact and hydrology and water quality.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
64 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Land Use, Population, and Housing
Addendum 65

6.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Physically divide an established
community?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
d. Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
66 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing or people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Land Use, Population, and Housing
Addendum 67
2040 General Plan EIR Land Use Planning, Housing, and Population Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant as they pertain to dividing established communities, conflicts with applicable land use plans, habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan, and displacing substantial numbers of existing housing or people, Section 3.10 Land Use, Population, and Housing. The 2040 General Plan EIR further found that General Plan implementation would not physically divide an established community and would beneficially increase connectivity throughout the city. The 2040 General Plan EIR further stated that individual development projects under the General Plan would be subject to project-specific development and planning review, which would ensure adherence to standards for land use planning, housing, and population.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies a range of sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of
these sites may differ from those identified in the General Plan EIR. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031Consistent with development under the General Plan, the Housing Element update would not involve circulation changes to the Plan Area, and individual development projects would occur within private and City-owned property in already developed areas. In addition, projects under the Housing Element update would be subject to General Plan policies related to increased connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, and drivers in the City. Therefore, development under the Housing Element update would not physically divide a community, and impacts would remain less than significant. Moreover, consistent with the General Plan, development under the Housing Element update would be subject to existing zoning and development regulations in the SHMC and policies in the General Plan. Compliance with these regulations and policies and required development and planning review would ensure individual projects would not conflict with applicable land use policies, plans, and regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. None of the policies or implementation actions would result in new structures that would physically divide a community or change existing land uses. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would not displace people or housing or result in population growth. would not result in significant adverse impacts related to land use, population, and housing.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
68 This page intentionally left blank.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Noise
Addendum 69

6.11 Noise
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Expose persons to or generate
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the proposed
General Plan Noise Element, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Expose persons to or generate
excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
NO-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the Planning
Area above levels existing
without the project?
Significant and
unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Result in a substantial temporary
or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the
project
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
70 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, expose people residing or
working in the Planning Area to
excessive noise levels?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes
f. For a project within the vicinity of
a private airstrip, expose people
residing or working in the
Planning Area to excessive noise
levels?
No Impact None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Noise
Addendum 71
2040 General Plan EIR Noise Findings
As discussed under in Section 3.11, Noise, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, impacts related to construction, traffic, railway, and stationary noise sources would be less than significant. Policies within the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element address construction operation noise, noise compatibility along the rail line, traffic noise impacts, and stationary noise sources. Impacts from to traffic-related vibration and rail vibration was determined to be less than significant with mitigation.

The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to vibration during construction would be less than significant with mitigation. Impacts related to traffic vibration and rail vibration were less than significant. Construction of new development under the 2040 General Plan could result in use of heavy duty equipment that could produce vibration that may be felt by adjacent uses.

Construction equipment operating within 25 feet of sensitive land uses could generate distinctly perceptible vibration, non-pile driving construction activities occurring within 25 feet of sensitive uses could result in significant vibration impacts. In addition, pile driving occurring within approximately 175 feet or 300 feet of sensitive uses for vibratory/sonic pile drivers and impact pile drivers, respectively, could also result in significant vibration impacts. As the specific future projects to be developed under the General Plan are not known at this time, and as the level of construction activity that would occur at various locations for future projects is also not known, it is possible the future construction activities could result in significant vibration impacts in portions of the Planning Area near historic structures and sensitive receptors such as schools and residences. To reduce construction related vibration impacts, the General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measure NO-1 which would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NO-1: Where vibration impacts have the potential to cause structural damage or distinctly perceptible human response (reference Tables 3.11-12 to 3.11-14, or more recent sources), require a vibration study, prepared by a qualified vibration consultant. The study should include a site-specific engineering assessment of potential vibration impacts to structures and sensitive receptors from construction activities and specify a mitigation plan to minimize the impacts using all reasonable and feasible means available. The mitigation plan should include a procedure for establishing threshold and limiting vibration values for potentially affected structures, based on an assessment of each structure’s ability to withstand the loads and displacements due to construction vibrations and a commitment to develop a vibration monitoring plan during the engineering phase and to implement a compliance monitoring program during construction.

The 2040 General Plan EIR reported there would be no noise impacts related to exposure of people residing or working in the Planning Area to excessive noise levels related to use of a public airport or private airstrip since the Planning Area is not in proximity to either a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest public airport to St. Helena is Angwin-Parrett Field located 4 miles northeast of the Planning Area and the nearest private airstrip is the Pope Valley Airport located 7 miles northeast of the Planning Area.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
72 change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, construction of individual projects under the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of noise levels within the city. Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to Mitigation Measure NO-1, which would reduce construction vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Operation of individual projects under the proposed Housing Element update could increase the frequency and/or severity of traffic-related noise levels within the city but they would be less than significant. Individual projects allowed under the Housing Element update would be subject to policies identified in the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element and standards within the SHMC related to noise. Compliance with these requirements would ensure impacts related to increases in noise levels from construction, traffic, rail, and stationary sources would remain less than significant. Consistent with development allowed under the General Plan, the proposed project would not be located within the vicinity of a private air strip or an airport land use plan and would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive airport-related noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, the same as those identified in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update contains policies and implementation actions aimed at minimizing noise, including noise generated by construction and traffic. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and would be required to comply with noise standards within the SHMC and General Plan. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no impact related to noise.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum 73

6.12 Public Services and Recreation
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need
for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for fire
protection, police protection, schools,
parks, or other public facilities?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
74 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Implementation of the Proposed Plan
would not include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Public Services and Recreation
Addendum 75
2040 General Plan EIR Public Services and Recreation Findings As discussed in Section 3.12, Public Services, of the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout under the 2040 General Plan would not result in significant impacts to local fire and police agencies or other public facilities within the City of St. Helena. Projected new development under the 2040 General Plan could result in population and employment increase but would not result in substantial increase demand for fire services, police services, schools, parks, recreation, and library facilities. The increase in service population would not require construction of new or expansion of existing facilities for fire service, police service, schools, parks or other public facilities. Policies within the General Plan monitor the need for additional public facilities, pursue sites for future facilities, require Fire Department and Police department review of individual development projects, and implement public safety impact fees. In addition, potential new or expanded public service facilities would be subject to additional CEQA review. Therefore, impacts were found to be less than significant.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). Consistent with buildout under the General Plan and analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR, buildout under the Housing Element update could increase the demand for fire, police, schools, parks, and library services within the city but is not anticipated to generate a need for the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing ones. Most sites are urban infill sites where development already exists and public services are already being provided. New development would be required to pay safety impact fees and subject to review by the Fire Department and Police Department. Additionally, General Plan policies governing public services would remain in effect for the Housing Element update and future development projects.

Compliance with General Plan goals and policies regarding public services and recreation would ensure that new housing would not result in a substantial demand to public services. These goals and policies would continue to apply to projects implemented under the Housing Element update.

Therefore, potential impacts to public services associated with implementation of the updated Housing Element are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update would not result in development that would increase demand for public services or governmental or recreational facilities. The update includes policies and implementation actions that would ensure adequate provisions of public services, including fire and police protection, and protect of City facilities from potential natural and made-made hazards which would improve response times and safety. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would increase service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for public services and facilities. Potential development Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
76 would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with General Plan goals and policies regarding public services and recreation. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no impact related to public services or recreation.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Transportation and Traffic
Addendum 77

6.13 Transportation and Traffic
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized
travel and relevant components
of the circulation system,
including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways,
and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Significant and
unavoidable
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Conflict with an applicable
congestion management
program, including, but not
limited to level of service
standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county
congestion management agency
for designated roads or
highways?
Not discussed None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
78 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed? Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
e. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f. Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease
the performance or safety of such
facilities?

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Transportation and Traffic
Addendum 79
2040 General Plan EIR Transportation Findings
The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to transportation would be significant and unavoidable regarding consistency with policies and regulations related to roadway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, Section 3.13, Transportation. The 2040 General Plan EIR determined 7 out of 27 analyzed intersections would have significant impacts. Policies and actions within the General Plan aim to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips, improve circulation throughout the city, and promote options for alternate forms of transportation. To reduce impacts to intersections, the 2040 General Plan EIR required Mitigation Measures TR-1, TR-2, TR-3, TR-4, TR5, and TR-6. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Main Street is a State highway (State Route 29), therefore mitigation measures along Main Street are subject to Caltrans approval and cannot be guaranteed by the City. In addition, improvements to accommodate future traffic volumes may not be implemented due to lack of funds. Therefore, because the City cannot guarantee that needed improvements would be implemented, impacts to intersection traffic operations are significant and unavoidable.

The 2040 General Plan EIR determined that other transportation impacts would be less than significant, including potential to conflict with applicable congestion management programs, change in air traffic patterns, increase in hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, emergency access, and potential to conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, that could be developed to meet the City’s 6
th cycle RHNA throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031), including urban infill sites and sites with existing development.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 5064.3, subdivision(b), a project’s transportation impact is now based on VMT instead of an level of service analysis as conducted under the 2040 General Plan EIR. Under the updated State requirements, VMT are derived based on location and the amount and distance of vehicle travel attributable to a project, including induced automobile travel. Significance criteria used to determine VMT impact include questions as to whether the project would cause substantial additional VMT, or substantially induce additional automobile travel by increasing physical roadway capacity in congested areas (e.g., by adding new mixed flow travel lanes) or by adding new roadways to the network.

The Housing Element update would facilitate development of 307 units to meet the City of St.

Helena’s RHNA for the current planning period. The proposed housing sites in the Housing Element update would concentrate housing development in the City, which would reduce overall VMT.

Furthermore, the policies within the General Plan encourage the use of transit, bicycling and pedestrian routes and work to reduce VMT. Buildout under the Housing Element update would be subject to comply with these policies. Therefore, potential transportation impacts associated with Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
80 implementation of the updated Housing Element are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update includes policies and implementation actions to alleviate evacuation constraints for residential developments with less than two emergency evacuation routes and would strengthen emergency preparedness and evacuation procedures. None of the policies or implementation actions would impact congestion management programs, change air traffic patterns, increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use, impair emergency access, or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with applicable policies in the General Plan aimed at reducing VMT and transportation impacts. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no adverse impacts related to transportation.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 81

6.14 Utilities and Service Systems
EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Would adoption of the General Plan update:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less Than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
b. Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
UTS-1 No No No Yes Yes
c. Require or result in the
construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less than
significant
None No No No Yes Yes
d. Have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and
resources such that new or
expanded entitlements needed?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
82 EIR Evaluation Criteria
EIR
Significance
Conclusion
EIR
Mitigation
Measures
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
Is a Subsequent EIR Needed?
Are Only Minor
Technical
Changes or
Additions
Necessary or Did
None of the
Conditions
Described in
§15162 Occur?
(§15164(a))
Project is
within the
Scope of
General Plan
EIR?
Do the Proposed
Changes Involve
a New or
Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Are There New
Circumstances
Involving a New
or Substantial
Increase in the
Severity of
Previously
Identified
Impacts?
Is There New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
e. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
f. Be served by a landfill with
insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid
waste disposal needs?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes
g. Not comply with federal, State, and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Less than
Significant
None No No No Yes Yes

Agenda Item #10.2.

Addendum Evaluation
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 83
2040 General Plan EIR Utilities and Service Systems Findings The 2040 General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to wastewater, water supply, and solid waste would be less than significant provided that proposed projects would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations and the policies and actions within the General Plan addressing wastewater capacity, stormwater runoff, water conservation, waste management, recycling, and composting. The City plans to increase the wastewater treatment plant permitted capacity from 0.5 million gallons per day to 0.65 million gallons per day by 2030, which would have sufficient capacity to accommodate buildout under the General Plan. Any new stormwater facilities would comply with all applicable environmental regulations, including project-level environmental review and NPDES permits regulations. The City’s Water Neutral Policy for Development would ensure future water demand does not exceed current demand by requiring any new water demand be offset by water conservation retrofits or in-lieu payments for the City to conduct retrofits.

Buildout under the General Plan would not require exceed the capacity of the Clover Flat Landfill which has significant remaining capacity. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined there would be no significant impacts to the city’s utilities or service systems.

Addendum Analysis
The Housing Element update is a policy document consistent with the General Plan. The Housing Element update identifies sites, shown in Figure 3, evaluated previously for potential environmental impacts in the General Plan EIR that could be developed to meet the City’s 6 th cycle RHNA
throughout St. Helena. Some of these sites could require land use changes that would bring the zoning into consistency with the Land Use Element, change the existing land use, or allow for increased density. Many of these sites have existing connections to utility and service systems as they are infill sites or already developed. As discussed in Section 5, Addendum Methodology, the City of St. Helena has several options for sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of housing units to meet the RHNA during the 6th cycle (2023-2031). .

All future development accommodated under the Housing Element update would be required to adhere to the General Plan, adopted master plans, and other regulatory requirements concerning water, wastewater, storm drains, solid waste, and other infrastructure; water supply; and wastewater treatment systems.

Consistent with buildout under the General Plan, implementation of the proposed Housing Element update could increase population such that new or expanded wastewater facilities would be required to provide utilities and service systems to new development. In addition, future development for new or expanded facilities would be subject to further environmental analysis, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c) and as required by state law, to evaluate potential impacts.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update revised information on public and critical facilities, discussed safety impacts from climate change, and added implementation measures to create evacuation plans and educate residents and address climate vulnerability. The update includes policies and implementation actions that aim to enhance and protect the City’s utilities and service system, such as improving efficiency of stormwater drainage systems and ensuring adequate water supply. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure designed to mitigate potential risk of climate safety hazards would work to address these goals and would be subject to project-specific development and planning review and comply with applicable policies in the General Plan, NPDES permits regulations, and the City’s Water Neutral Policy for Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
84 Development. Therefore, the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would have no adverse impacts related to utilities and service systems.

Conclusion
The Housing Element update, as well as the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element updates would not result in new or more severe impacts (direct or indirect) than were analyzed in the 2040 General Plan EIR.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Summary of Findings
Utilities and Service Systems
Addendum 85
Summary of Findings
The Housing Element update is part of the City’s General Plan, and like other elements within the General Plan, includes goals and policies that the City should meet when it comes to the planning of housing. The Housing Element is unique from the other elements within the General Plan in that it is required to be periodically updated to align with the State’s allocation of the RHNA. Also, the Housing Element includes Housing Programs that are required to be implemented within the planning period established for the Housing Element. These programs are usually implemented over time as a separate project after the Housing Element is adopted. The Housing Element update does not involve site-specific projects but does include identified sites that could undergo land use changes through Program H-A to facilitate development of RHNA housing units during the 6th cycle.

The sites inventory (provided in the Housing Resources chapter of the Housing Element update) yields housing units that exceed the number needed to meet the RHNA requirements, as demonstrated in Table 3.

The General Plan Program EIR is accompanied the City’s 2040 General Plan update. Future development and zoning changes associated with the Housing Element’s Housing Programs will be subject to applicable development standards and reviews established by City ordinances.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update does not involve site-specific projects but proposes policies and implementation actions that are aimed at enhancing emergency response and evacuation procedures and minimizing impacts to people and structures from natural and manmade disasters. Any potential updates to structures or development of climate resilient infrastructure would be designed to mitigate potential impacts associated with climate safety hazards. Potential updates and development would not generate population growth or additional VMT or result in an increase in demand for services or facilities.

This analysis demonstrates that adoption of the Housing Element and Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element update would not result in impacts beyond those addressed or analyzed in the General Plan EIR, nor does the General Plan update present new information that shows impacts would be more significant than those described in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the General Plan EIR applies to the General Plan update and no additional environmental assessment is required.

This analysis was performed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 and is intended to determine if additional environmental review is required or if the changes proposed by the project are within the scope of the previously certified 2040 General Plan EIR. This analysis determined that the 2040 General Plan EIR is of continuing informational value, the proposed changes in the General Plan update are within the scope of that previously certified EIR, and none of the conditions requiring the preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15162 exists. Therefore, the City of St. Helena, as lead agency, has determined that this Addendum to the EIR is sufficient to meet the requirements of CEQA and no additional environmental review is required. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, this Addendum does not need to be circulated for public review and can be included in or attached to the final EIR. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the Final EIR prior to deciding upon the Project.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
2023 General Plan Update
86 References
Bibliography
St. Helena, City of. 2018. St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2010042001. St. Helena, CA. October, 2018.

St. Helena, City of. 2019. General Plan Update 2040. St. Helena, CA. April, 2019.

List of Preparers
Rincon, Consultants, Inc. prepared this Addendum under contract to the City of St. Helena. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Darcy Kremin, AICP, Director
Ryan Russell, Project Manager
Leeza Segal, Associate Planner
Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
9 Public Health, Safety, and Noise

9.1 Purpose of the Element
The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element presents a framework for minimizing risks posed by environmental and human-caused hazards that may impact St. Helena residents’ health and welfare. The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element aims to protect St. Helena residents, workers, and visitors from negative exposure to flooding, fires, hazardous materials, air pollution, geologic and seismic hazards, disaster response, and climate change hazards.

The Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element includes the following sections. ▪ 9.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise in St. Helena. Summarizes key issues related to the public health and safety of St. Helena residents, workers, and visitors (p. 9-1). ▪ 9.3 Key Findings. Identifies key findings based on an existing conditions analysis (p. 9-14). ▪ 9.4 Goals. Defines overarching goals to guide policies and implementing actions (p. 9-17). ▪ 9.5 Policies and Implementing Actions. Identifies policies and implementing actions to minimize hazards and risks to life and property (p. 9-17).

9.2 Public Health, Safety, and Noise in St. Helena
St. Helena is surrounded by natural beauty, hillsides, vineyards, and waterways. While these natural features are great assets for the community, they can present risks due to flood, fire, geologic, seismic and climate change. In addition, human-caused risks, such as hazardous materials, air pollution, and unhealthy noise levels can also pose risks to community health and safety.

Effective planning to prepare for and mitigate the adverse effects of these natural and humancaused risks can help ensure that St. Helena maintains a high level of safety for its residents, workers, and visitors. Following is a discussion of the steps St. Helena takes to prepare for these risks, the potential impacts the various risks could have on St. Helena and ways for the City to minimize or prepare for these potential impacts.

Public Safety Services
Identification of public safety services in the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element is important because these services are critical to the property and life savings effort required during an emergency and must be identified to comply with Government Code 65302. The Napa County Fire Department and the City of St. Helena Fire Department provide fire and emergency services for St.

Helena. The City is served by the following fire stations that have the capability to respond to medical emergencies, rescues, structural fire, and wildfire: Napa County Station #26, located at 3535 Saint Helena Highway in Calistoga, the Napa County Station #12, located at 7401 Solano Ave in Yountville, the Napa County Volunteer Station #15, located at 1989 Highway 29 in Rutherford, the Napa County Volunteer Station #21, located at 680 Sanitarium Road, and the St. Helena Fire Station, located at 1480 Main St in St. Helena. Additional public safety services are provided by the St. Helena Police Department. The St. Helena Police Department is located at 1480 Main Street in St. Helena.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Emergency Preparedness
The State of California requires all municipal governments to prepare and plan for potential emergencies including natural and human caused events. St. Helena seeks to ensure the safety of its residents, services, infrastructure, businesses, and buildings during an emergency scenario.

Emergency preparedness efforts in St. Helena include:
▪ Implementation of risk reductions measures identified in the Napa County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP).
▪ Implementation of emergency operation protocols as included in Napa County Emergency Operations Plan.
▪ Continued coordination of evacuation management planning through Zonehaven, in conjunction with the Napa County Sheriff Department, Napa County Office of Emergency Services, CAL FIRE, and neighboring jurisdictions.
▪ Education and training of residents on emergency response management and preparedness as part of the Napa Valley Community Emergency Response (CERT) program. ▪ Upgrades to structures and infrastructure to comply with building and fire codes. ▪ Maintaining a cooling center at the St Helena Library (1492 Library Lane) during extreme heat events.

The City is actively engaged in local and regional emergency planning efforts. St. Helena is a participating jurisidction of the Napa County MJHMP, which includes a hazard mitigation assessment and mitigation actions for Napa County and participating jurisdictions. Additionally, the City is involved in the development and regular updates to the Napa County Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan, which describes emergency operation planning processes and protocols for Napa County jurisidctions These efforts combine with an actively engaged and educated public to support emergency preparedness for the City.

Critical Facilities
Critical facilities are structures and institutions necessary for a community to respond to and recover from emergencies. Identification of them is important because critical facilities must continue to operate during and following a disaster to reduce the severity of impacts and accelerate recovery. They are essential to the health and welfare of residents and are relied upon to recover following hazard events. Such facilities have been identified in the Napa County MJHMP and several are located in St. Helena or in close proximity to the City. They include police stations, fire stations, hospitals, elder care facilities, schools, regional emergency services, critical water facilities, and governmental buildings. Additionally, facilities such as natural gas pipelines and the transportation system are identified as critical infrastructure, which enable buildings, residences, and the transport of good and services to remain functional. These critical facilities are identified in Figure 9.1 below.

Emergency Evacuation & Isolated St. Helena Neighborhoods Evacuation routes are used to move residents out of impacted areas before or during a disaster or hazard event. St. Helena’s major evacuation routes include State Route 29 and the Silverado Trail, which lies east of and directly parallel to State Route 29. In addition to identification of these major routes, St. Helena is required by Government Code Section 65302 (g)(5) (as amended by Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
Senate Bill 99) to update the Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element to include information identifying residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation access roads. Identifying residential developments without access to two emergency evacuation access roads allows the City to identify opportunities to improve evacuation capacity and connectivity for vulnerable neighborhoods.

Figure 9.2 identifies residential neighborhoods that have a single access road for entry and exit (i.e., roads that connect to a collector or arterial road by only a single route).

There are currently two neighborhoods in the City that have been identified as having only a single access road. The neighborhood identified off College Avenue is partially located in the 500- Year flood zone, Bell Canyon Dam failure inundation area, and the high and medium liquefaction susceptibility area. The neighborhood identified off Vineyard Avenue is within the medium liquefaction susceptibility area. These neighborhoods are most vulnerable during evacuation scenarios and pose significant logistical challenges. As a result, policy and implementing actions have been developed to minimize evacuation challenges for these specific neighborhoods.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Figure 9.1Critical Facilities in and near St. Helena
Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
Figure 9.2Neighborhoods with Single Access Points
Agenda Item #10.2.

Flooding
The Napa River and some of its tributaries are prone to flooding, which poses a risk for people and structures in adjacent parts of the Napa Valley. The Napa River flows are largely influenced by precipitation. The peak flows generally occur in January, February, and March. Some of the worst flooding in the immediate area of St. Helena has occurred in December and April, especially in and around the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park, which is near the confluence of Sulphur Creek and the Napa River. The area experienced significant flooding in 1986, 1995, 1997, and 2005 with extensive property loss.

Flood hazards also exist in the York Creek and Sulphur Creek Watersheds in St. Helena. During the 2005 New Year’s Eve storm event, flooding from York Creek significantly impacted residential and industrial properties, including buildings located on the properties of Beringer Winery and the Culinary Institute. The Beringer water treatment plant flooded and ponds overflowed into the creek.

In addition, the creek flooded vineyards on both sides of its corridor, downstream of State Route 29 to the Napa River.

Flood hazards in the Sulphur Creek watershed are due primarily to channel bed aggradation in the lower reach where gravel mining was historically conducted. Sulphur Creek continues to supply and deposit substantial amounts of sediment in this reach. Consequently, the increased volume of sediment currently stored in the channel decreases the volume available for floodwater, potentially causing an increased flood hazard locally and within the City of St. Helena. Further study needs to be done of the Sulphur Creek area in order to prevent future flooding and to protect habitat for steelhead and salmon.

The City collaborated with the Napa County Board of Supervisors and the Napa County Flood Control District to study the Napa River’s hydraulics between Deer Park Road and Pope Street. The resulting study identified the need for an extension of the 100-year floodplain beyond the areas previously identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Figure 9.3 identifies areas that fall within the City’s 100-year (one percent) and 500-year (0.2 percent) floodplain and reduced risk areas due to the levee system on the Napa River; as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2018. Figure 9.4 includes areas in and around St. Helena that would be inundated in the case of dam failure. The City has several critical facilities, as seen in Figure 9.1, located within the FEMA flood zone and the dam failure inundation zone. The Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park is located within the reduced flood risk area due to the levee and Silverado Orchard Retirement Apartments are located within 500-year flood zone. Napa Valley College – St. Helena and St. Helena Montessori School are located in the dam failure inundation zone.

Comprehensive Flood Control and River Restoration
In 2011, the City completed a Comprehensive Flood Control and River Restoration Project north of the Pope Street bridge and on the west side of the Napa River. The purpose of this project was to protect residential property in the floodplain from the 100-year storm events and restoring the Napa River and its surrounding habitat. The project is designed to reduce flood risk to protect approximately 470 homes, including the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park and the Hunt’s Grove Apartment Complex, that were located in a FEMA-designated flood zone prior to completion of the project. The project site was about 36 acres. The project planning began in 2000, with actual construction starting in May 2009. Phase I of the project consisted of construction of a levee, along with a storm drain bypass and other related infrastructure improvements. Phase II, the final phase of the project, included construction of a floodwall that is roughly eight feet high where it is Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
anchored to the levee. The floodwall gradually reduces in height as it continues south along the Napa River to the confluence of the river and Sulphur Creek. It then turns to the west and continues along Sulphur Creek, terminating at Paseo Grand Avenue. The wall is about three and a half feet high at its terminus. The total project cost was about $32 million, with the cost of construction at about $9.1 million.

To balance the removal of land from the floodplain, the area known as “lower terrace B” was cut down significantly and widened to accommodate the large flood flows. In Phase II, this terrace was cut down to the level of the Napa River and is designed to carry significant amounts of flood water, should it become necessary.

The second half of this $9.1 million project is the continuation of the flood wall around Vineyard Valley and habitat restoration in the “upper terrace B.” The habitat restoration was a critical element of the overall plan and included the installation 40,000 plantings and anchoring fallen trees into the terrace. This project also included maintenance conducted according to a maintenance plan, irrigation, and development of a pedestrian interpretive trail.

St. Helena has developed an Operations and Maintenance Manual for the Comprehensive Flood Control and River Restoration Project, which describes the extent of the project and outlines operation and maintenance activities that the City and Napa County Flood Control District will work together to manage. The manual describes project features, routine monitoring and maintenance activities, pump station operation, emergency operations, surveillance, personnel training, utility coordination and design.

Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Although St. Helena is located in a seismically active region, there are no known active faults located in the city (see Figure 9.5). Faults are commonly considered to be active or likely to have another earthquake sometime in the future, if they have moved one or more times in the past 10,000 years.

The California Geological Survey, the primary source of geologic information used for decisionmaking by California’s government agencies, designates Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults in the state and provides maps for use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction so as to minimize associated risks. According to the most recent maps the nearest active faults to St. Helena are the West Napa Fault, located 14 miles to the south, and the Rodgers Creek Fault, located 13 miles to the west. Additionally, a number of unnamed, relatively small, older faults are located at the base of the Sonoma and Vaca mountains along the margins of the Napa Valley; however, based on available information, displacement of these faults occurred more than 10,000 years ago and as such these faults are not considered active.

Overall, the fault rupture hazard for the city is considered to be low, and the primary geologic hazards of concern are those that could result from excessive shaking effects stemming from earthquakes elsewhere in the region. For instance, a large earthquake event in the area could result in liquefaction in the city’s low-lying areas (see Figure 9.6), and landslides and debris flow in areas with sloped, hilly terrain (see Figure 9.7). Development in the city’s upland areas has often required the removal of trees and vegetation, leaving some hillsides susceptible to erosion and landslides during heavy rains. Actions available to the City to protect areas of the community at greatest risk and minimize the risks of injury and property damage include restricting development in the hillside areas and requiring prompt re-vegetation on slopes prone to instability. The use of best management practices during construction can also limit erosion and the risk of landslides.

Employing earthquake engineering strategies in the design of buildings and structures, such as Agenda Item #10.2.

installation of earthquake drains or use of low mobility grouting and dynamic compaction during construction, can limit risks associated with liquefaction.

Air Pollution and Hazardous Materials
Mitigating the public health and safety risks caused by air pollution and hazardous materials will inevitably require changing human behavior. Air pollution resulting from auto exhaust, tobacco smoke, and fugitive dust creates unhealthy air conditions for residents and can pose a particular threat to sensitive populations, such as children and older adults. Implementing measures to reduce auto trips, tobacco smoke exposure, and construction-related fugitive dust can help St. Helena reduce residents’ contact with air pollution. Compact development patterns, facilities to encourage walking and biking, and incentives to reduce automobile trips are just a handful of ways that St.

Helena can help improve local air quality.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the public agency responsible for regulating stationary sources of air pollution in Napa County and the San Francisco Bay Area.

BAAQMD monitors air quality in the nine-county Bay Area and reports annually on pollutant concentrations for comparison to State and federal health-based ambient air quality standards. Data indicates that in the Bay Area, as throughout the state, the transportation sector and mobile sources of emissions are the most significant sources of air pollution. Senate Bill (SB) 375, approved by the Governor on September 30, 2008, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—and, consequently, other pollutants—from mobile sources by integrating land use and transportation planning at the regional level. (For a more detailed discussion of SB 375 and related opportunities see the Climate Change Element.)
Hazardous materials used by local businesses are often transported on the City’s roadways and found present in smaller quantities in private homes in the form of solvents, cleaning fluids, and other substances. Implementing policies to improve the safe use, transport, and disposal of these materials can be instrumental in avoiding environmental contamination and human health impacts.

Noise
Noise is a sound which is unhealthy or unwanted. It can be a human-caused public health hazard which includes excessive, intrusive, or objectionable noises that disrupt daily life. Noise has been tied to physiological effects ranging from hearing loss, high blood pressure, and sleep disturbance to communication interference and general interruption and annoyance of normal daily activities.

Definitions of acoustical terms used in this discussion are listed in Table 9.1.

Land uses have different levels of compatibility relative to noise, and the State of California mandates that general plans include noise level compatibility standards for the development of land as a function of a range of noise exposure values (see Table 9.2). Table 9-3 identifies interior noise standards.

The ambient noise environment throughout much of St. Helena is extremely quiet in comparison to typical urbanized settings, especially in the evenings and at nighttime. With the exception of Main Street (State Route 29) and major collector roadways, the noise environment can be characterized as being that of a quiet rural setting. Residential areas are generally shielded from traffic noise on highways, arterials, and collectors and register very low background sound levels.

Sleep disturbance and the annoyance of sound not only depend on the absolute sound level of a noise source but are related to the magnitude of the noise above that of background sound levels.

This means that in particularly quiet rural environments, the control of extraneous, intrusive, and Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
annoying noise sources is important to maintaining the public health and a quality living sound environment expected by the community. Typically, a change in noise levels of less than 3 dBA is not discernable to the general population. Increases in average noise levels from 3 to 5 dBA are clearly discernable to most people. and Iincreases in average noise levels over the background ambient of more than 5 dBA are common considered to constitute an adverse significant environmental impact health and quality of life. in many California communities.

Vehicular traffic on Highway 29 and collector streets is the primary source of noise in the community. Other non-stationary sources which are intermittent and generally inconsequential to the noise environment include flyover commercial aircraft at high altitudes, and small general aviation and helicopter flyovers. The Wine Train travels to St. Helena each day and emits a loud horn at crossings, along with the low frequency rumble of the diesel engines. Typical stationary noise sources in St. Helena include agricultural and industrial activities. Agricultural activities result in noise from wind machines, tractors, and sulphur blowers which are employed in the spring in the early hours of the morning. The St. Helena Fire Department has sirens at two locations which sound on average twenty times annually, with approximately half of them occurring during nighttime hours. Noise contours as of 2018 are seen in Figure 9.8.

Noise concerns in St. Helena are principally linked to land use compatibility. Concerns relate to adverse noise effects from new commercial development on surrounding noise-sensitive uses such as residences and schools, and also to adverse noise effects from agricultural activities within the city limit. Right-to- farm provisions necessitate accommodating agricultural uses while also seeking to minimize conflicts. To address these concerns and to promote a compatible noise environment throughout the city, Table 9.4 establishes limits on intrusive noise and regulates the amount of noise a specific sound source can emit relative to the typically low residential background sound levels. This standard is specific to residential areas within St. Helena. Additionally, by generally promoting good neighbor practices and facilitating open communication between agricultural, commercial, and residential uses the City can help to foster a healthy noise environment. Noise contours projected for 2040 for highway traffic as a result of the General Plan are shown in Figure 9.9. The physical distances of noise contours from the roadway centerline to be used in determining land use compatibility are listed in Table 3.11-11 of the EIR.

Fire
Key human-caused public health and safety hazards affecting St. Helena include structural fires, vegetation fires, and other disasters that require advanced planning. Overall, in the urbanized portion of St. Helena within the city limit, the risk of vegetation fire is moderate to low; however, areas of the city in the hilly terrain along the western perimeter of the city and east of the Napa River are designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) as moderate, high or very high fire hazard severity zones, according to CAL FIRE 2020 data (see Figure

9.10). St. Helena does not have any critical facilities, as seen in Figure 9.1, located within a fire hazard severity zone.

As described in the Public Safety Services section, fire services are provided to residents by Napa County Fire Department and the City of St. Helena Fire Department. Fires occurring in the heavilywooded hillside areas can be difficult for firefighting efforts due to slope, topography, and availability of fuels. Fire burns more intensely up slopes and securing a fire on steep terrain is challenging for firefighting efforts. to address due to tTraffic congestion on City streets, including particularly when emergency vehicles must travel on or across State Route 29, a two-lane highway, can provide limited ingress and egress for emergency vehicles that must gain access to Agenda Item #10.2.

the fire. Furthermore, traffic congestion can pose important major challenges to St. Helena’s collaboration with neighboring municipalities and agencies seeking that seek to establish and implement regionally coordinated disaster planning for police, fire, and emergency medical services.

The City can work with local, regional, and state agencies to address key traffic-related concerns on State Route 29 and County roads to ensure that adequate levels of fire protection are maintained, particularly on hillsides and in fire-prone areas, and to support regional collaboration for disaster preparedness.

In 2021, the Napa Communities Firewise Foundation led the development of the Napa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan in collaboration with Napa County agencies, PG&E, CAL FIRE and local jurisdictions. The Plan seeks to reduce wildfire risk in Napa County, including areas surrounding St. Helena, through a variety of proposed wildfire mitigation projects.

Napa County has experienced many historical fires in the past several decades. Historical fires in or adjacent to St. Helena since 1950 are summarized seen below in Table 3.

Table 3 Historic Fires in or adjacent to St. Helena (1950-2022) Name Year Acres Burned
Roadside #14 1964 231
Atlas Peak 1981 33606
Howell Mountain Fire 1983 2354
Silverado 2003 69
Deer 2008 233
Hillcrest 2016 17
Tubbs 2017 36702
Atlas 2017 51625
Nuns 2017 55798
Glass 2020 67484
LNU Lightning Hennessey 2020 305651
Spring 2021 1
Pope 2022 4
Source: CAL FIRE 2021
Peak water supply and water availability are crucial for fighting wildfires. Peak load water supply refers to the sum total of water required for fire flow, operational daily consumption, and emergency storages. With new developments, the City will need to increase its peak load water supply reserves. Policies PS4.G and PS4.H seek to address water supply demand concerns.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
Figure 9.10 Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Agenda Item #10.2.

Climate Change Hazards
The St. Helena Climate Vulnerability Assessment, found in Appendix B, includes an evaluation of how climate change may impact vulnerable community members as well as critical services, facilities and infrastructure in the City. Key findings from the assessment are summarized below.

Climate change is a global phenomenon that can impact local health, natural resources, infrastructure, emergency response, and many other aspects of society through changes in climate conditions. In St. Helena, climate conditions and associated natural hazards are expected to change in the following ways:
▪ Increasing temperatures: Average maximum temperatures in St. Helena are expected to rise between 3.3°F and 4.4°F by 2050, and between 4.2°F and 7.2°F by 2100. ▪ Extreme heat: Extreme heat days occur when the maximum temperature is above 100.4°F.

The annual number of extreme heat days is projected to increase by as much as 31 days per year by 2100.
▪ Increasing intensity of precipitation events and longer dry periods. It is projected that by the end of the century the largest precipitation events in the Bay Area region will increase in volume (inches of rain per day) between 6% and 37%.
▪ Wildfire: There will be increased wildfire probability due to variable and decreasing precipitation and increasing temperatures.

Climate change will disproportionately impact certain populations in St. Helena. The following vulnerable populations have been identified in St. Helena:
▪ Young Children. St. Helena has one of the highest concentrations of children in Napa County (St. Helena General Plan 2019). Children are particularly at risk to climate hazards because they are dependent on others for care, are vulnerable to injury or sickness, and may not understand or are not capable of taking the measures needed to protect against or evacuate from climate hazards.
▪ Older Adults. Silverado Orchards Retirement Community and Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park are two particularly vulnerable facilities in the City, as they are home to a substantial population of elderly individuals.
▪ Outdoor Workers. Extreme heat and smoke events pose disproportionate health risks to the city’s outdoor workers who are employed in viticulture, agriculture, construction, and other outdoor occupations
▪ Individuals that are Linguistically Isolated. Individuals that are linguistically isolated have no to limited English proficiency. Linguistically isolated households may not understand important safety, public health, or evacuation orders and communications when conducted exclusively in English during a hazard event, which may compromise the ability of residents to remain safe and healthy. They may not have access to resources available to help recover from climate related impacts if resources are only available in English. ▪ Visitors. St. Helena is surrounded by an expanse of vineyards and agricultural lands. The City is a popular tourist destination in Napa County. Visitors are at risk during climate hazard events as they may not receive adequate warning and may not have knowledge regarding access to emergency services.

All residents of St. Helena rely on various infrastructure and services such as water systems, electricity, natural gas, and roads. These systems and assets are vulnerable to the impacts of Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
climate change, which puts the wellbeing of residents at risk. Those with pre-existing and chronic health conditions that rely on services and systems, are particularly vulnerable in situations where hazard events impact access to electricity, food, water supplies, healthcare, sanitary resources, transportation, and communication platforms. Impacts to St. Helena from climate change are wide ranging and expected to include the following:
▪ Extreme heat can cause heat-related illnesses such as heat stress, heat stroke, and dehydration and may exacerbation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.

Those who do not have access to cooling, who have high outdoor exposure, and those who have health conditions or physiological conditions are particularly at risk. Extreme heat may trigger a power safety shutoff to decrease wildfire risk and/or manage high demand. ▪ Drought can impact the reliability of affordable water services for city residents which may cause individuals to become dehydrated and/or experience costs burdens associated with increased water rates. Prolonged droughts may limit the water supply for fire suppression efforts. Drought can also negatively impact wildlife dependent on local water resources. It can lead to declining quality and yield of vineyards located in St. Helena. ▪ Wildfires can cause individuals to be injured from smoke inhalation or burns. People may also have their belongings or homes destroyed or damaged during a wildfire event. Residential and commercial buildings, critical facilities, and critical infrastructure can be damaged from a wildfire. Wildfires may move through open spaces, threatening local wildlife. In order to mitigate further risk, a power safety shutoff may be initiated during a wildfire which would impact electricity services in the city.
▪ Floods can cause individuals to be injured from high velocity or high-volume floodwaters.

People may have their belongings or homes destroyed or damaged from floodwater inundation. Flooding can cause structural damage to residential and commercial buildings, critical facilities, and critical infrastructure. High volumes of floodwater may cause stormwater systems to get overwhelmed and impaired.

Implementation of policies and programs included in this Public Health, Safety, and Noise Element that improve the community’s adaptive capacity, including addressing some of the underlying contributing factors, will reduce the negative impacts that climate change could have on vulnerable populations, critical services, facilities, and infrastructure.

Concepts, Trends and Ideas
Hazard Mitigation Planning
Hazard mitigation is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as “sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and their property from hazards.” The goal of hazard mitigation is to ensure long-term resilience against natural and human- caused hazards.

Mitigation Plans form the foundation for a community’s long-term strategy to reduce losses from disaster and break the cycle of catastrophic event, disaster damage, and reconstruction.

As a condition for receiving certain types of non- emergency disaster assistance, State, Tribal, and local governments are required to develop a hazard mitigation plan. The Napa County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan was written in cooperation with the cities of St. Helena, Calistoga, American Canyon, Yountville, and local special districts, and was developed in Agenda Item #10.2.

accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and followed FEMA’s 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The Napa County MJHMP identified and profiled hazards, assessed facilities and populations at risk, and sets forth goals, mitigation strategies and mitigation action items for flooding, earthquakes, wildfire, severe weather, drought, climate change, slope failure, dam failure, agricultural disaster, and pandemic disease. Working together, local communities and jurisdictions in Napa County can reduce the long-term risks associated with natural and human-caused hazards. Consistent with that effort, the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element is St. Helena’s primary policy tool for ensuring local action and St. Helena’s involvement in implementing regional hazard mitigation strategies. For more information about the Napa County MJHMP, visit https://mitigatehazards.com/napa-county-mjhmp/documents/.

9.3 Key Findings
There are several challenges and opportunities facing St. Helena related to Public Health, Safety, and Noise. The following key findings are based upon comprehensive existing conditions analysis and community input.

Flooding
▪ Flooding in Napa County generally occurs within the low-lying Napa Valley floor. Between 1961 and 1997, flooding resulted in approximately $540 million in property damages. St. Helena experienced major flood events in 1986, 1995, and 2005 that caused an estimated combined total of $95.6 million in damages in the city. Most flooding occurred in the vicinity of Vineyard Valley from Fulton Lane to Pope Street.
▪ The flood history of York Creek suggests that the creek bed is not of adequate size to convey larger storm events. During the 2005 New Year’s Eve storm event, flooding from York Creek significantly impacted residential and industrial properties. The Beringer water treatment plant flooded and ponds overflowed into the creek. In addition, the creek flooded vineyards on both sides of its corridor, downstream of State Route 29 to the Napa River. ▪ Until 2002, an aggregate mining operation, now discontinued, removed approximately 40,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of material from Sulphur Creek annually. Further study is needed to determine how aggregate buildup at Sulphur Creek may affect flooding issues in the area. ▪ Completed in June 2011, the City of St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Control and Environmental Restoration Project provides a minimum 100-year level of flood protection within the project and surrounding area of St. Helena. Design of the project was done on the basis of a Napa River Flood Model Study from Zinfandel Lane to Lodi Lane completed jointly by the City of St. Helena and the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District with Measure A funding.

The individual elements of the project include floodplain terracing, shoreline restoration, a new levee, floodwall and bank stabilization, and storm- water management features including a detention basin and pumping facility. The project protects hundreds of homes and is projected to save millions of dollars in flood insurance claims.
▪ Portions of St. Helena’s residential, commercial and winery industrial areas are located within or near the 100-year floodplain and/or dam failure inundation zone. Requiring infrastructure and drainage plans to minimize risk in these areas, in compliance with State and federal requirements, at a minimum, can promote the safety of residents and businesses. Moreover, restricting new development within the FEMA- designated floodplain and prohibiting Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
development in the floodway can minimize additional flood hazards and the need for further mitigation measures.

Seismic and Geologic Activity
▪ St. Helena is located in a seismically-active region, with seismic activity primarily related to movements in the San Andreas Fault Zone (SAFZ). Although there are a number of active faults in the region, there are no known active faults in St. Helena. ▪ Local earthquake hazard mapping suggests that a magnitude 7.9 or greater earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, or a 6.5 magnitude event on the West Napa Fault, could result in strong shaking in the city. As a result, St. Helena’s susceptibility to liquefaction ranges from low in the upland areas west of downtown, to very high along the Napa River. United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps indicate that slope stability and landslide issues exist in St. Helena’s upland areas, and a major earthquake event could result in significant debris flow. As noted previously, the recent August 2014 earthquake had a magnitude of 6.0, which resulted in no measurable soil liquefaction within the City of St. Helena.
▪ By limiting the type and scale of new development in hillside areas, or areas subject to liquefaction, the City can limit the potential for property damage and loss of life as a result of major seismic activity. In addition, complying with the Universal Building Code (UBC) and adopting other standards for building safety along with emergency response disaster planning will help minimize the impacts of seismic and geologic disasters.

Air Pollution and Hazardous Materials
▪ The greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the City of St. Helena is the Transportation sector, which comprises 59 percent of total emissions according to a 2018 inventory compiled for the General Plan update. The transportation sector is also the largest generator of air pollution emissions in the County, with mobile sources – automobiles and trucks – providing the greatest level of emissions. A 2007 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) GHG inventory indicated that approximately 56 percent of GHG emissions in Napa County resulted from mobile source emissions. Mobile emissions are a significant source of other pollutants, as well, including carbon monoxide and particulate matter. ▪ The development of a Climate Change Element for the St. Helena General Plan is an important step forward in contributing to the effort to improve regional and local air quality. Napa County’s Communitywide Climate Action Plan and the Climate Change Element provide a strategic policy framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollution derived from its multiple sources.
▪ CalEnviroScreen have shown that people living in agricultural areas of California have higher amounts of pesticides in their bodies than other people, which can result in adverse health outcomes. Based on data compiled by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), census tracts in St. Helena are in the top quartile in terms of pounds of pesticide per square mile in the state for the years 2012-2014. The Napa County Agricultural Commissioner is responsible for ensuring the safe use of pesticides in all settings in the county. The County runs a Pesticide Use Enforcement program to educate pesticide users of their legal responsibilities and conduct inspections and investigations to ensure the safety of workers, the public, and the environment. Compliance and enforcement activities are complemented with extensive training and outreach to help growers and employees ensure safe handling and use of pesticides.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Noise
▪ The primary source of noise in the community stems from motor vehicle traffic and commercial activity, particularly in areas near major roads, such as State Route 29. Mitigating traffic noise can be difficult, particularly the noise generated along State Route 29 throughout the day and night. However, the City can adopt noise standards to address more infrequent noise sources, such as those related to off-hours delivery, and commercial loading and unloading. ▪ While there are few industrial noise sources in St. Helena, passing trains and aircraft generate intrusive noise periodically in the community.
▪ Agricultural operations generate noise on a seasonal basis; however, local right-to-farm policies limit the City’s power to regulate noise impacts. Encouraging the regular communication of planned agricultural activities to surrounding residents can help address potential conflicts relating to noise compatibility. In addition, adopting noise compatibility standards for sensitive land uses can help to minimize the impacts of intrusive noise sources.

Fire and Emergency Response
▪ St. Helena’s paid per call full time fire department, supported by six full time and 19 part time firefighter staff members (hired in Fall 2021) two permanent staff members (hired in Summer 2018), provides fire protection services for wildland and structural fires within the city limits and in unincorporated areas of Napa County. Although service levels within the city are generally adequate, the heavily-wooded and frequently dry hillside areas could create significant challenges for firefighters.
▪ By limiting the type and scale of new development in hillside areas and requiring sufficient road widths and turning radii to accommodate emergency response vehicles, the City can limit the potential for property damage and loss of life due to fires. ▪ Traffic congestion can adversely impact emergency response time in St. Helena, particularly when emergency vehicles must cross State Route 29. The City can work with emergency response providers to create solutions that address traffic-related emergency response challenges.
▪ The City of St. Helena Fire Department and Napa County Fire Department provide fire services to St. Helena.
▪ In Napa County, wildfires have grown in frequency and intensity over the past two decades.

There have been several fires in or adjacent to St. Helena since 1950. ▪ Water availability and peak water supply are extremely important for fighting fires and preparing for disaster events. St. Helena can ensure adequate water availability by pursuing water supplies from additional sources.

Climate Change Hazards
▪ Climate change is projected to increase the frequency and/or intensity of various natural hazards in the coming decades.
▪ St. Helena will experience increasing average maximum temperatures, increasing intensity of precipitation events, and longer dry periods.
▪ St. Helena is vulnerable to growing impacts from extreme heat and wildfire. ▪ As climate change occurs, communities and assets will be affected to varying degrees based on level of sensitivity to a particular hazard.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
▪ The City’s most vulnerable populations include young children, older adults, outdoor workers, individuals that are linguistically isolated, and visitors. ▪ Vulnerable critical services and infrastructure include water systems, natural gas, and roads. ▪ Extreme heat, drought, wildfire, and flooding will have impacts to critical facilities, services, and infrastructure that are vulnerable and located in hazard zones. ▪ Wildlife may suffer from loss of habitat and decreased availability of food and water sources due to increased severity and frequency of extreme heat, drought, wildfire, and floods.

9.4 Goals
The goals of the Public Health, Safety and Noise Element are:

Maintain High Levels of Public Health and Safety
St. Helena is committed to maintaining high standards of public health and safety through anticipation of and preparation for potential natural and human-caused hazards.

Effectively Coordinate Responses to Emergencies and Natural Disasters St. Helena is dedicated to protecting residents, businesses, and the environment through efficient local emergency response efforts, public education, and effective coordination with regional, State, and federal agencies.

9.5 Policies and Implementing Actions
A range of policies and implementing actions are outlined below and organized into the following topic areas:

1. Air Quality;

2. Noise;

3. Seismic and Geologic Hazards;

4. Fire and Hazardous Materials;

5. Flood Hazards;

6. Disaster Planning; and

7. Climate Change Hazards
The following policies and actions mandate, encourage, or allow certain initiatives to be pursued throughout the duration of the General Plan. Together, they serve as strategic directions for City staff and partners, highlighting where time and resources should be focused.

Agenda Item #10.2.

Topic Area
1 Air Quality
Policies
PS1.1 Achieve and maintain clean, healthy air for the residents of St. Helena to preserve environmental quality and community health.

PS1.2 Support regional efforts to achieve and maintain state ambient concentration standards to protect public health, reduce adverse industrial plant effects, and enhance the visual environment.

In particular, provide local support for implementation of policies and measures set forth in the Napa Valley Countywide Transportation Plan. Napa County Congestion Management Program.

PS1.3 Encourage effective regulation of those sources of air pollution, both inside and outside of St.

Helena, which affect air quality, by implementing as many of the recommendations of the Napa Valley Countywide Transportation Plan the Napa County Congestion Management Plan as are is cost-effective, equitable and feasible.

PS1.4 Promote an optimized land use development pattern that minimizes cumulative air quality impacts from proposed developments consistent with statewide air quality standards and local affordable housing and economic development goals.

Implementing Actions
PS1.A Minimize local adverse air quality impacts related to construction by requiring dust abatement procedures for local projects as required by existing laws and regulations.

PS1.B Mandate the use of EPA-approved wood stoves or fireplace inserts, rather than fireplaces, as a means of reducing emissions into the air.

PS1.B Review project proposals for their potential to generate hazardous air pollutants.

PS1.C Develop guidelines for locating new sensitive uses, including residences, schools, and childcare facilities, away from air stationary pollutant sources consistent with existing air quality laws and regulations. The guidelines can include measures to mitigate air emissions from existing stationary sources, as well as to design buildings to prevent exposure.

PS1.D Encourage and support cost-effective regional efforts to use alternative modes of transportation.

PS1.E If sufficient user interest is demonstrated, cConsider a citywide network to help commuters arrange carpools, including online coordination capabilities and designated areas for parking and pick-up.

PS1.F Adopt Subject to modifications that reflect local conditions, costs, and variations, consider adopting the thresholds of significance contained in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Guidelines for Assessing the Impacts of Projects and Plans for determining the significance of project impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act.

PS1.G Continue to implement an ordinance to restrict exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in new and existing multi-unit dwellings, public events, and outdoor areas, such as parks and playgrounds.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
PS1.H Adopt a voluntary, cost-effective, employer-based transportation demand management (TDM) program for St. Helena businesses in compliance with the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP). Components of a TDM program should include measures to reduce the use of singleoccupancy vehicles for work-related commuting, such as carpool/vanpool matching services and employer-sponsored transit passes., to the extent sufficient user interest is demonstrated.

PS1.I The potential for sources of odors that do not comply with national or state standards includes from restaurants, auto body shops, or waste treatment facilities shall be considered when evaluating proposed residential projects and projects with sensitive recipients.

Topic Area
2 Noise
Policies
PS2.1 Preserve the current low levels of noise in St. Helena to maintain the City’s rural atmosphere consistent with accepted national or international standards for noise protection.

PS2.2 Maintain a citywide environment that balances various City objectives while minimizing the impact of highway, railroad, and industrial noise. The City should manage both indoor and outdoor noise levels to protect health and safety. A combination of noise standards and existing noise levels should be used to determine impacts and mitigation measures.

PS2.3 Minimize potential noise impact conflicts between land uses by regulating incompatible land uses that are non-compliant with adopted noise ordinances. Encourage noise-generating uses to reduce their impacts while promoting land use patterns that avoid conflicts. Employ compatibility guidelines, interior noise level criteria, the City’s noise standards, and noise contour maps to determine the compatibility of land uses.

PS2.4 Require a reduction and/or control of the use of machinery, mechanical systems and other noise-making equipment and sources in and near residential areas where the noise impacts are non-compliant with local noise ordinances. would be considered intrusive to adjacent residential property, unless consistent with the right-to-farm.

PS2.5 An increase in average noise levels of 5 dBA or greater is considered to be significant and to constitute a noise impact by the noise source in question for the purpose of environmental analyses.

Implementing Actions
PS2.A Consider the environmental impact of transportation-related noise and other noise sources that are non-compliant with local noise ordinances in the review of any new projects and approval of subdivision plans and requests for changes in the zoning ordinance.

PS2.B Enforce Consider the Land Use Compatibility Standards presented in the State of California’s General Plan guidelines when siting new uses, subject to local variation based on local conditions and needs. These standards identify the acceptability of a project based on levels of noise exposure.

PS2.C Adopt and enforce Title 24 Standards for all types of new residential construction, including single family dwellings, duplexes, apartments, and dormitories.

Agenda Item #10.2.

▪ An interior maximum noise level of LAdn-45 dBA in all habitable rooms for all dwelling units;
▪ A maximum allowable interior noise level for bedrooms of an hourly LAeq-35 dBA; ▪ A maximum noise level of LAdn-60 dBA for residential exterior activity areas; ▪ If interior noise standards are met by requiring windows to be closed, cooling and outside air exchange must also be provided in the building’s design.

PS2.CD Require an acoustical study, prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for:
▪ All proposed projects that are likely to be non-compliant with 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.

PS2.DE Require Consider requiring a noise study when new developments to implement noise mitigation measures when are built in close proximity to noise sources, such as State Route 29 and the railroad tracks. These developments should consider the exterior and interior noise environment.

PS2.EF Require construction operations to use noise suppression devices and techniques and limit noisy construction activities that can be heard at the property line to the least noise-sensitive times, as per the City’s noise ordinance.

PS2.FG Consider including Include appropriate noise attenuation techniques in the design of all new arterial streets. Such techniques could include the use of site planning, building orientation, buffer distances, quiet pavement surfaces, and the use of correctly- engineered acoustical barriers and berms where necessary. Adopt the noise standard for intrusive noise at residences given in Table 9.4.

PS2.F H Amend Consider amending the City’s noise ordinance to regulate intrusive noise sources, such as the use of machinery and equipment, landscaping and property maintenance devices, animals, and idling buses or trucks in or near residential receptors or uses sensitive to noise.

PS2.HI Incorporate right-to-farm legal provisions relative to noise in all newly- created deeds where agricultural activities may pose noise impacts in the future. Require similar language in deeds for properties similarly impacted by the Harold Smith & Son gravel plant operations.

Topic Area
3 Seismic and Geologic Hazards
Policies
PS3.1 Minimize risk of injury, loss of life and property damage from seismically- induced and other known geologic hazards.

PS3.2 Restrictthe intensity of development and the level of landform alteration in the hillside areas in order to minimize where the potential for slope failure is significant based on existing seismic standards.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
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 may be required stating that risks have been mitigated to an acceptable level.

Implementing Actions
PS3.A Require a soils and geologic report to be submitted for new construction priorto the issuance of grading and building permits and the submission of final maps in seismically hazardous areas.

PS3.B Prohibit any development—including any land alteration, grading for roads, and structural development—in areas of seismically hazardous slope instability or other geo- logic concerns until mitigating measures are taken to limit potential damage to levels of acceptable risk.

PS3.C Require prompt re-vegetation of development areas on slopes prone to seismically hazardous instability. Use native and drought-tolerant plant species for landscaping on slopes where excess watering might induce seismically hazardous landslides and/or erosion.

PS3.D The City shall rely upon the most current and comprehensive geological hazard mapping available in the evaluation of potential seismic hazards associated with proposed new development.

PS3.E All development and construction proposals shall be reviewed by the City to ensure conformance to applicable building standards. Reasonable Rrecommendations of the geotechnical analysis shall be implemented.

Topic Area
4 Fire and Hazardous Materials
Policies
PS4.1 Use the Zoning Code to define a reasonable transitional zone around industrial areas to protect the health and safety of residential neighborhoods.

PS4.2 Limit development in areas of High and Very High wildfire hazard as defined and mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE) in order to prevent the loss of lives, injuries, and property damage due to wildfires, unless development is permitted by local approval under the CAL FIRE regulations.

PS4.3 Protect To the extent feasible and cost effective, pProtect residents, employees, and visitors from wildfires.

PS4.4 Protect To the extent feasible and cost effective, protect St. Helena residents from health and safety impacts related to the use, storage, manufacture, and transport of hazardous materials.

PS4.5 Discourage Encourage new uses that do not rely extensively on the use of hazardous materials.

PS4.6 Facilitate communication and education about fire safety, non-point source pollution, household hazardous waste disposal, and recycling opportunities.

Agenda Item #10.2.

PS4.7 Ensure To the extent feasible and cost effective, ensure that all streets and roads are adequate comply with best practices and standards 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.

Implementing Actions
Wildfire
PS4.A Designate areas in St. Helena that are prone to fire hazards and make this information available to the community.

PS4.B Continue to require implementation of best practices in fire resistance for all new and remodeled structures in fire-prone areas, including fire fuel removal, creation of defensible space for firefighters, construction with fire-resistant building materials, and installation of automatic sprinkler systems. Study the need to designate a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area within St.

Helena to provide protection in additional areas.

PS4.C Require all structures in high wildfire hazard areas to maintain a clearance of flammable vegetation away from structures and to use fire-resistant ground covers. The minimum clearance distance should be 100 feet in the Wildland-Urban Interface areas.

PS4.D Require all new development to meet the minimum fire flow rates specified by the City’s Fire Code.

PS4.E Require all new development plans to be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits, grading permits, or final map approval.

PS4.F Develop a program to inform and educate the community about potential risks, resources, and roles and responsibilities for addressing fire safety in St. Helena. Inform residents of homes adjacent to public lands of their responsibility to provide fire breaks and defensible space adjacent to their homes.

PS4.G Investigate additional water supply sources to ensure the provision of adequate water availability to meet future peak fire, emergency, and domestic demands.

PS4.H Permit new development only within areas that have adequate water pressure.

PS4.I Coordinate with the Napa County Communities Firewise Foundation, the St. Helena Fire Safe Council, and neighboring jurisdictions to implement wildfire mitigation projects proposed in the Napa County Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

PS4.J Consider incorporating wildfire risk reduction measures, including load clearing and brush management into plans, operations and maintenance procedures for public access roads, parks, trails, open space, critical infrastructure, and critical roads.

PS4.K Provide educational materials to encourage businesses and residents to adopt drought tolerant and fire-resistant landscaping practices.

PS4.L Develop and disseminate education and outreach materials to landlords, businesses, and residents regarding retrofits and home-hardening measures that align with recommendations from CAL FIRE’s Wildfire Home Retrofit Guide. Identify funding resources to support home retrofit and hardening projects.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
PS4.M Partner with the St. Helena Fire Safe Council, the Napa Communities Firewise Foundation, and CAL FIRE to conduct educational workshops for landowners on defensible space, vegetation management, and home-hardening techniques based upon the most up-to-date science and State management guidelines to reduce wildfire hazards.

PS4.N Update standards in the zoning code to be consistent with the most recent SRA Fire Safe Regulations: title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 (commencing with section 1270) (SRA Fire Safe Regulations) and title 14, CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 3, article 3 (commencing with section 1299.01) (Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations).

PS4.O Minimize risks to existing development in areas at highest risk to wildfire by identifying existing non-conforming development and revise to meet contemporary fire safe standards.

Address road standards and vegetative hazard, and require all development to meet or exceed CCR, division 1.5, chapter 7, subchapter 2, articles 1-5 requirements (SRA Fire Safe Regulations).

PS4.P Coordinate with CAL FIRE and Napa County Fire Department to incorporate best practices around wildfire risk reduction and vegetation management into maintenance planning of parks and open spaces.

PS4.Q Coordinate with CAL FIRE, Napa County Firewise Foundation, and Napa County Fire Department to identify funding sources and develop incentives to assist landowners in dead tree removal.

PS4.R Require fire protection plans for new development in areas of the City that are located adjacent to CAL FIRE hazard severity zones.

Hazardous Materials
PS4. S Review all new development proposals for their potential to introduce the production, use, storage, and/or transport of hazardous materials, and require reasonable controls on such materials.

PS4.T Develop a Hazardous Materials Response Plan that includes guidelines, protocols, and strategies to respond to a local hazardous materials spill.

PS4.U Continue to require compliance with federal, State, and local regulations for the safe production, transport, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination. Require buffers for operations which handle substantial amounts of hazardous materials. When siting new facilities or expanding existing facilities, require buffer zones between hazardous materials facilities and residential uses, parkland, trails, and open space facilities.

PS4.V Develop and launch a citywide education campaign to encourage the use of green products in order to reduce non-point source pollution. Target efforts towards the reduction of household chemical use and hazardous waste disposal.

PS4.W Require environmental assessments during the planning for development in areas previously used for agricultural, commercial, or industrial uses. Remediation of identified contamination that may result in health risks to construction workers and future owners and users shall be required prior to approval of construction, demolition, and grading permits for development.

Agenda Item #10.2.

PS5.X Work with the Napa County Agricultural Commissioner and other responsible agencies to identify and enforce mechanisms to control residual pesticides and pesticide runoff to prevent significant risk to water quality, vegetation, wildlife, and humans.

PS4.Y Develop a program to inform and educate the community about potential risks, resources, and roles and responsibilities for addressing fire safety in St. Helena. Inform residents of homes adjacent to public lands of their responsibility to provide fire breaks adjacent to their homes.

PS4.Z Review all new development proposals for their potential to introduce the production, use, storage and/or transport of hazardous materials, and require reasonable controls on such materials.

PS4.AA Develop a Hazardous Materials Response Plan that includes guidelines, protocols, and strategies to respond to a local hazardous materials spill.

PS4.AB Strengthen regulations for the safe production, transport, handling, use and disposal of hazardous materials that may cause air, water, or soil contamination. Require buffers for operations which handle substantial amounts of hazardous materials. When siting new facilities or expanding existing facilities, require buffer zones between hazardous materials facilities and residential uses, parkland, trails, and open space facilities.

PS4.AC Develop and launch a citywide education campaign to encourage the use of green products in order to reduce non-point source pollution. Target efforts towards the reduction of household chemical use and hazardous waste disposal.

Topic Area
5 Flood Hazards
Policies
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. Consider changes in precipitation associated with climate change in the design of new development to avoid potential flood damages. Continue to require that any new development is constructed to 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.

PS5.2 Ensure that new development or existing lots of record within the 100- year floodplain are properly graded, sited, and constructed to mitigate flood effects and do not cause increases or expansion ofthe flood area thatincrease flood risk.

PS5.3 Within the 100-year floodplain, encourage open space uses, such as parks or natural areas.

PS5.4 Ensure that construction of flood barriers does not adversely affect natural floodplains, stream channels and natural barriers that help accommodate or channel flood waters.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
PS5.5 Prohibit new development within areas designated as Floodway in the current FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). (Also see the Public Facilities and Services Element, Topic Area 3)
PS5.6 Coordinate with the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and other responsible agencies to maintain protocols and funding for the regular inspection and maintenance of flood control facilities in the city, including levees, floodwalls, floodplain terracing, stormwater detention ponds, and pumping facilities.

PS5.7 Require that development within Special Flood Hazard Areas prepare and implement infrastructure and drainage plans compliant with State and federal requirements in order to minimize risk in these areas.

PS5.8 Locate, when feasible and cost-effective, new essential public facilities outside of Special Flood Hazard Areas, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities. (Also see the Public Facilities and Services Element, Topic Area 3)
Implementing Actions
PS5.A Coordinate with the Napa County Flood Control District to ensure that stream channels are routinely cleared of vegetation and debris which could impede stormwater flows, while protecting riparian habitat.

PS5.B Require developers with land adjacent to the Napa River to construct or contribute a fair share toward the construction of necessary flood control improvements.

PS5.C Strengthen and enforce regulations that prohibit the dumping of litter, fill, and waste materials into creeks and waterways. Educate the public about flooding and health hazards associated with these activities.

PS5.D Require that best design practices are implemented for sewer and water lines in areas subject to flooding or are sited to avoid contamination and flooding when pipelines break.

PS5.E Prohibit the introduction of urban development in FEMA-designated Floodway zones.

PS5.F Review Municipal Code Chapter 15.52, Flood Damage Prevention, to ensure that regulations reflect best practices. Periodically update the City’s flood hazard regulations in accordance with FEMA/NFIP regulations.

PS5.G Implement the requirements of FEMA relating to construction in Special Flood Hazards Areas as illustrated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

PS5.H Implement low impact development practices for new development and redevelopment projects to reduce stormwater peak flow rates and volumes from smaller, more frequently occurring storm events.

Topic Area
6 Disaster Planning
Policies
PS6.1 Ensure that City emergency procedures are adequate in the event of potential natural or man-made disasters.

Agenda Item #10.2.

PS6.2 Ensure the swift and safe evacuation of residents, employees, and visitors in the event of a disaster event or other emergency.

PS6.3 Alleviate evacuation challenges associated with single access residential neighborhoods.

Implementing Actions
PS6.A Maintain and periodically update the City’s Emergency Response Plan to align with emergency planning efforts by Napa County Office of Emergency Services, Napa County Sheriff Office, Napa County Fire Department and Cal OES.

PS6.B Conduct periodic emergency response exercises to test the effectiveness of City emergency response procedures. Identify current emergency service and projected emergency service needs, and goals or standards for emergency services for training for City staff and volunteers.

PS6.C Continue to collaborate with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions, including Napa County Office of Emergency Services, Napa County Sheriff Department, Napa County Fire Department, and Cal OES, to develop and implement a regional emergency coordination plan and agreement for police, fire, and emergency medical services.

PS6.D Maintain emergency roadways and improve them as necessary and appropriate to ensure ongoing serviceability.

PS6.E Maintain reliable communication pathways with the public to ensure a safe and streamlined evacuation.

PS6.F Engage with the Napa County Valley Transportation Authority, Caltrans, California Highway Patrol, adjacent cities, and Napa County to identify regional evacuation solutions that address major evacuation routes.

PS6.G Conduct outreach with residents in single access road neighborhoods to enforce home hardening and defensive space standards and conduct emergency preparedness and response trainings.

PS6.H Coordinate with Napa County Sheriff Department, Caltrans, Napa County Emergency Response Team (CERT), St. Helena Fire Safe Council, homeowner associations, and neighborhoods to facilitate the use of Zonehaven for evacuation coordination.

PS6.I Develop and employ evacuation alternatives and/or alternative emergency access routes in neighborhoods that have single ingress/egress.

PS6.J Develop and maintain evacuation options for vulnerable populations such as young children, older adults, outdoor workers, individuals that are linguistically isolated, visitors, and individuals with access and functional needs.

PS6.K Designate and publicize evacuation routes and evacuation shelters through Zonehaven.

PS6.L Designate and publish in Zonehaven safety zones and/or shelter-in-place locations as potential places of refuge when evacuation routes or evacuation shelter are inaccessible.

PS6.M Assist local and small businesses in planning for business continuity and emergency preparedness.

PS6.N Prioritize the City's essential facilities when conducting post-disaster building evaluations.

Agenda Item #10.2.

City of St. Helena
Public Health, Safety, and Noise
Topic Area
7 Climate Change Hazards
Policies
PS7.1 Protect the City’s vulnerable population from the impacts of climate change.

PS7.2 Support greater resilience, redundancy, and reliability of local and regional infrastructure and services.

PS7.3 Protect and restore climate-vulnerable ecosystems, natural resources, and managed resources.

PS7.4 Increase local economic resilience and business continuity.

Implementing Actions
PS7.A Conduct an assessment on the effectiveness of current City cooling center operations to evaluate current amenities and resources available to ensure the needs of vulnerable populations are met during extreme climate events, such as high heat days and bad air quality days. Ensure the City’s cooling center has adequate backup power sources and battery storage to mitigate service disruptions.

PS7.B Update the St. Helena building code to require cost-effective and reasonable weatherization and consideration of extreme heat for new developments.

PS7.C Explore opportunities to provide funding assistance to households and populations that are in greatest need of weatherization to address extreme heat, extreme storm, and air quality concerns.

PS7.D Consider climate change impacts and vulnerabilities during the infrastructure planning process. Identify projects as part of capital improvement programs that consider climate adaptation priorities.

PS7.E Invest in cost-effective, feasible renewable back-up power sources and storage options to increase energy resilience at critical facilities during extreme heat events, wildfires, extreme precipitation events, or other scenarios that may trigger a power safety shutoff or outage.

PS7.F Expand the use of drought-tolerant green infrastructure, including street trees, and landscaped areas where feasible and cost-effective, as part of cooling strategies in public and private spaces.

PS7.G Coordinate with PG&E and Napa County Office of Emergency Services to establish backup power and emergency grid shutdown protocols that protect the City’s vulnerable populations.

PS7.H Evaluate critical facilities to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of retrofitting to increase long-term resilience to climate change hazards including extreme heat, extreme precipitation events, and wildfire.

PS7.I Partner with St. Helena Chamber of Commerce and Visit Napa Valley to pilot and implement a local business resilience initiative to build small business resilience capacity by increasing the awareness of and preparedness for business continuity risks in the face of climate change. Provide resources to help local business manage risk and enhance resilience, and conduct outreach Agenda Item #10.2.

campaigns to engage business, governmental, and community leaders to preparedness for economic resilience.

PS7.J Develop and disseminate guidelines and outreach materials on tree and plants species that are drought-tolerant and wildfire resistant to city residents and businesses.

PS7.K Partner with local researchers (such as, California State University-Sonoma) to make accessible localized viticulture climate adaptation strategies that address impacts of extreme heat, drought, wildfire, and extreme precipitation events to vineyards in and around the city.

PS7.L In recognition of the increase in severity and frequency of floods and wildfires, essential public facilities should be sited in areas that are least prone to hazard impacts, when feasible and cost-effective.

PS7.M Partner with the St. Helena Chamber of Commerce and St. Helena Welcome Center to develop emergency public health and evacuation communication strategies for visitors and tourists.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9 public health, safety, and nois
ST. H E L E N A G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E 2040 | 9- 1 TABLE 9.1: Definition of Acoustical Terms
Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound. Equal to 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of two like quantities.

Sound Pressure Level
(SPL)
10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the square of the sound pressure to the square of the reference sound pressure of 20 μPascals. Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter and expressed in decibels (dB).

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure is expressed in Hertz (Hz). Normal human hearing is approximately between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The SPL in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes low frequency components of sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective response to sound.

Noise Unwanted or unhealthful sound.

Equivalent Noise Level,
LAeq
The average A-weighted sound level during the measurement period. The A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level.

LAmax, LAmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound level during the measurement period with the sound meter using fast-time-weighting.

LA01, LA10, LA50, LA90 The A-weighted sound levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn
The average A-weighted sound level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to levels measured at night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.

Total Sound The composite of sound from all sources near and far.

Ambient Sound The sound level measured in the absence of an intrusive or extraneous noise.

Intrusive Noise
That noise from a source of specific origin which intrudes above or within the existing background sound level. The degree of intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, time of occurrence, and tonal or informational content as in contrast to the prevailing background sound level which exists in the absence of the intrusive noise.

Background Sound
Level
The LA90 of the ambient sound. It represents the ever present lower sound level due to distant sources which are individually indistinguishable, and in the absence of the Intrusive or Extraneous Noise.

Extraneous Noise
Specific or distinguishable intermittent sound from nearby sources such as mechanical devices, leaf blowers, pumps, vehicles, horns, sirens, barking, talking, shouting, birds, wind and other similar individual sources, which don’t normally exist on a continuous or regular basis.

Intermittent Noise
A noncontinuous sound consisting of a number of clearly distinguishable sound events of varying frequency and/or intensity.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9-2 | ST. H E L E N A G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E 2040 TABLE 9.2: Noise Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Land Use Category Completely
Compatible1
Tentatively
Compatible2
Normally
Incompatible3
Completely
Incompatible4
Residential < 55 dBA 55-60 dBA 60-75 dBA > 75 dBA
Commercial/ Office < 65 dBA 65-75 dBA 75-80 dBA > 80 dBA Industrial/ Agricultural < 70 dBA 70-80 dBA 80-85 dBA > 85 dBA School, libraries, churches, hospitals < 65 dBA 65-70 dBA 70-80 dBA > 80 dBA Playground, neighborhood park < 67 dBA 67-70 dBA 70-75 dBA > 75 dBA a Expressed as Ldn or CNEL.

1. Completely Compatible – Specified land use is satisfactory, based on the assumption that any buildings involved are or normal conventional construction.

2. Tentatively Compatible – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems of air conditioning will normally suffice.

3. Normally Incompatible – New construction and development should generally be discourage. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must b made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

4. Clearly Incompatible – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

TABLE 9.3: Maximum Interior Noise Level Criteria of Intermittent Noise for Public Use Facilities Land Use Maximum Intermittent
Noise Level LAmax Basis for Criterion
Concert Hall 25 Intrusion of noise may spoil artistic effect Theater 30 Intrusion of noise may spoil artistic effect School Auditorium 35 Minimize intrusion into artistic performance School Classroom 55 Speech communication-20 ft.-raised voice School Laboratory 60 Speech communication-6 ft.-normal voice Church/Sanctuaries 45 Speech communication-50 ft.-raised voice Library 55 Speech communication-3 ft.-normal voice
Source: Adapted from Table 2 in “Night Insulation Problems in Buildings,” Paul S. Veneklasen & Associates, 1973; Noise Element of the Napa County General Plan, 1982.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9 public health, safety, and nois
ST. H E L E N A G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E 2040 | 9- 3 TABLE 9.4: Standard and Adjustments for Determining Noise Impact of Intrusive Noise for Residential Receptors

STANDARD
The LAeq of an intrusive noise shall not exceed the following values:
• 7 am – 7 pm (daytime) 45 dBA
• 7 pm – 10 pm (evening) 40 dBA
• 10 pm – 7 am (nighttime) 35 dBA
Or shall not exceed LA90 + 5 dBA whichever is greater. The background sound level LA90 must be measured for a minimum of 10 minutes in the absence of the intrusive noise at the appropriate time of noise impact.

The intrusive noise shall be measures in absence of extraneous noise.

Acoustical terms defined in Table 9.1 shall be considered as part of this standard.

The maximum noise level LAmax of any intrusive noise shall not exceed the LAeq limits by more than 10 dBA.

The limits for intrusive noise are to be corrected as indicated below.

These noise limits apply to the nearest residential property line or at the nearest affected location on the receiver’s property.

CORRECTIONS FOR INTRUSIVE NOISE
Type of Correction Circumstances of Correction Correction a
Summer or year round operation 0 dBA
Seasonal
December through March only + 5 dBA
Tone or Impulse No tonal or impulse character 0 dBA
Tonal characterb present in noise - 5 dBA
Characteristics
Impulsivec, repetitious or modulatingd signal - 5 dBAe
Notes:
a Correction to be applied to the Standard’s limits for intrusive noise. b Tonality exists when the 1/3 octave noise level of the tone is 5 dB greater than the average level of the two adjacent 1/3 octave frequency bands. c Transient sound having a peak level of short duration typically less than 100 msec. d Either in amplitude, frequency or duration including compressor “hammering” noise. e In addition to correction for tonality.

Agenda Item #10.2.

9-4 | ST. H E L E N A G E N E R A L P L A N U P D A T E 2040 Agenda Item #10.2.

Report to the City Council
Regular City Council - 09 May 2023
Agenda Section: OLD BUSINESS
Subject: Water Penalty Appeal - Duane and Susan Hoff Continued from January 24, 2023
CEQA
Determination:

Not a CEQA project
Prepared By: April Mitts, Assistant City Manager
Reviewed By: Anil Comelo, City Manager
Approved By: Anil Comelo, City Manager

BACKGROUND
Duane and Susan Hoff filed a request for fee waiver for penalties incurred on their water account in June, July, and August 2021 totaling $251,379.28. The penalties imposed were not the result of a leak; therefore, the request for fee waiver does not fall under the authority of the Water Advisory Board (WAB) and the amount exceeds the authority granted to the City Manager; therefore, the appeal was presented to the City Council for consideration on January 24, 2023. The staff report and supporting documents are provided as Attachment 1 for reference.

The customer submitted the following statement in their original appeal:
“Our penalty waiver request was submitted as a result of the penalty forgiveness program that was approved by the city on 7/27/21, which stipulates that a customer can have penalties forgiven if they do not exceed their allocation in August, September, October, and November of 2021. Once the program was approved, notices (dated 8/11/21) were mailed and received on 8/23/21. Upon receipt, we drastically reduced our water usage and strictly adhered to our allocations for September - November with no overages during those periods.

Given that notice of the forgiveness program was not received until 8/23/21, we were given no opportunity to adjust water usage in August for full compliance with Agenda Item #11.1.

the program guidelines. As a result, we are requesting that the water penalties be fully waived for our adherence to the forgiveness program during September – November (and subsequent months)”
DLynn Proctor represented the Hoff's at the January 24, 2023 Council Meeting when the appeal was brought to the City Council for consideration.

DISCUSSION
On January 24, 2023 the penalty appeal for the Hoff's was brought to the City Council for consideration. DLynn Proctor represented the Hoff's at this meeting.

Mr. Proctor presented information to the Council explaining that the letter by the City went to the incorrect address and that the office moved. The billing address in the City's financial system was 3033 Excelsior Avenue Suite 525 and the correct billing address is 6600 France Avenue South, Suite 550. Mr. Proctor then stated that once the information was received at the correct address, the Hoff’s drastically reduced their use and had been in compliance with the water allocations since September 2021. This can be seen in the reduction of use and no additional penalties being incurred.

At the meeting of 1/24/23 Council asked additional questions of Mr. Proctor for clarification. The broad topics of the inquiry included:

1. Billing/Mailing Address

2. Timely payments on account despite wrong address

3. Communications to customer during Phase I and Phase II emergency

4. Water Use

5. Water Allocation based on Account Classification
During Council deliberations it was determined that a much broader factual investigation should take place and this item and to continue the appeal to give staff time to gather additional information to present to the Council.

On January 26, 2023, City staff notified Bryan Rohde, who filed the appeal on behalf of the Hoff’s and has been the main contact to provide an update on the appeal hearing (Attachment 2).

Following the appeal hearing, staff has gathered the following information on the account.

Billing/Mailing Address

1. Staff verified the mailing address in the City's financial system during the Council meeting on January 24, 2023. Staff informed Council during the meeting that evening that the mailing address in the City's finanical system for the Hoff's was still 3033 Excelsior Avenue.

Agenda Item #11.1.

2. The mailing address on the Hoff's account was updated to 6600 France Avenue on February 13, 2023, as noted in the City’s financial system audit trail (Attachment 3).

3. It should be noted that at the January 24, 2023 Council meeting, Mr. Proctor stated, “once they or someone on their executive assistant team corrected the address we immediately rectified and did the things we were told” by the City of St. Helena.

Payments on the Account

1. The Hoff’s account was on auto pay through August 2021. The last auto payment was processed on August 29, 2021, and was for May and June 2021 use. This auto payment did not include the penalties.

2. Since autopay was suspended (by the account holder), there have been nine payments made and of those payments all of the bills were sent to the 3033 Excelsior address as noted in Attachment 4 and in Table 1 below. One payment, of the nine, was paid late.

Table 1 - Billing and Payment History
Billing Period Bill Date Bill Address Payment
Date
January/February 2023 3/15/23 6600 France Avenue
November/December 2022 1/17/23 3033 Excelsior 3/13/23
September/October 2022 11/16/22 3033 Excelsior 12/20/22 July/August 2022 9/15/22 3033 Excelsior 10/3/22
May/June 2022 7/19/22 3033 Excelsior 8/20/22
March/April 2022 5/15/22 3033 Excelsior 6/10/22
January/February 2022 3/16/22 3033 Excelsior 4/13/22
November/December 2021 1/20/22 3033 Excelsior 2/9/22
September/October 2021 11/19/21 3033 Excelsior 3/8/22
July/August 2021 9/24/21 3033 Excelsior 10/25/21
Communications to Customer

1. While not exhaustive, as noted by staff on January 24th, a sample list of communications to the customer was provided in the original staff report (Attachment 1- Attachments 2 – 8).

Water Use

1. At the Council meeting on January 24, 2023, when asked, Mr. Proctor stated that the property is 52-acres and on half the property there is a wine making facility, tasting room, and very small kitchen and on the other half of the property is one of the Hoff’s residences.

2. Since September 2021, the Hoff’s have continued to have minimal use on this property. When asked at the Council meeting, Mr. Proctor stated they cut water Agenda Item #11.1.

use on the estate side, which was cutting use on the residential side, gardens orchards, etc.

3. The Hoff’s started water service on August 14, 2004. Water use has historically been low until November 2016 where a dramatic increase in use can be seen (Attachment 5).

Water Allocation in Phase II Emergency

1. Staff researched City records and has concluded that the residential water allocation on this account is correct; therefore no additional allocation will be granted.

2. The customer has a residential allocation with a large lot exception which grants an additional 8,000 gallons of water per month (based on a 30-day month).

3. The property (2600 Spring Mountain Road) is not located within City limits, the City received a will serve letter from the County of Napa to provide additional water to this service address. On July 11, 1996 the City produced a letter to the County stating that the only City water use allowed on the property is for residential purposes only (Attachment 6).

4. Staff could not locate any documents indicating any other allowable water use for this property, other than residential.

On March 16, 2023, staff notified Mr. Rohde, via email, the appeal would be brought back to City Council on March 28, 2023 and Mr. Rohde requested the appeal be heard on May 9, 2023 to accommodate the Hoff's schedule.

Additional Information
On April 5, 2023, staff spoke to Mr. Rohde regarding the process for bringing the appeal back to City Council. At this time, staff was notified by Mr. Rohde that the Hoff's applied for an additional allocation of 200 gallons per day based off of previous use (this was in addition to the large lot allocation of 250 gallons per day). In the application (Attachment 8) it is noted, "Property at address 2600 Spring Mountain has a tasting room on the property. Therefore, we are requesting 200 gallons per day for the purpose of the tasting room." Staff confirmed, this request was received and granted by the City for an additional allocation, which equated to approximately and additional 8 HCF per month. It appears the additional allocation was likely granted in error since staff did not confirm the approved water use on the property for each application received. Because of the amount of time that has passed since the additional allocation was granted and since the penalties were assessed, staff is not recommending decreasing the allocation which would result in approximtely $6,000 more in penalties being assessed.

On April 28, 2023, the Hoff's provided a letter to the City Council to include in the appeal report. This letter is provided as Attachment 9.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Hoff's currently owe a total of $251,379.28 for penalties received during June, July, and August 2021. The total amount to be collected will be dependent on City Council Direction.

Agenda Item #11.1.