St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023

of Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California (or any other statute or common law principles of similar effect), which Section provides as follows:

A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS

WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT

TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF

EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM

OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.

In this connection, each party acknowledges and agrees that it understands that factual matters relating directly to the properties now unknown to him or it may have given or may hereafter give rise to claimsthat are presently unknown, unanticipated and unsuspected, and such party further acknowledges and agrees that the releases herein have been negotiated and agreed upon in light of that realization and that it nevertheless intends to release, discharge and acquit the other party from any such unknown claims.

Hunter’s Initials: City’s Initials:

8.5 Delivery of Title Policy. At Hunter’s request, the Title Company shall deliver to Hunter an owner’s policy of title insurance issued by the Title Company as of the Closing Date, insuring Hunter as owner of fee simple title to the 3.58 Acres. At the City’s request, the Title Company shall deliver to the City an owner‘s policy of title insurance issued by the Title Company as of the Closing Date, insuring the City as owner of fee simple title to the Hunter Property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Title Company’s delivery or willingnessto deliver the foregoing title policies shall not be a condition precedent to either party’s obligation to close hereunder. Each party shall pay the premium for their respective title policies.

ARTICLE 9: NOTICES

9.1 Notices. All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in -writingand shall be served on the parties at the addresses set forth below. Any such noticesshall be either(a) sent by overnight delivery using a nationally recognized overnight courier, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered one business day after deposit with such courier, (b) sent by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon transmission of such notice, or (0) Sent by personal delivery, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon receipt. A party’s address may be changed by written notice to the other party; provided, however,that no notice of a change of address shall be effective until actual receipt of such notice. Copies of notices are for informational purposes only, and a failure to give or receive copies of any notice shall not be deemed a failure to give notice.

Dennis R. Hunter P. O. Box 9069 Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Agreement of Purchase and Sale By and 9 Between the City ofSt. Helena and DennisHunter Agenda Item #6.8.

Telephone: (707)579-1007
Facsimile: (707) 5276151
With a copy to:

Clement,Fitzpatrick & Kenworthy
3333 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 200
Santa Rosa, California95403
Attn: Clayton E. Clement
Telephone: (707)523~l181
Facsimile: (707) 5464360
(13) 3
City of St. Helena
1480 Main Street
St. Helena, CA 94574
St. Helena, CA
Attn:City Manager
Telephone: (707) 967~2792
Facsimile: (707) 963-7748
With a copy to:

Miller Starr Regalia
Attn: Ethan Friedman
1331 North CaliforniaBoulevard, Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 935-9400
Facsimile: (925)933-4126
(c) If to Title Company or Escrow Agent:

North Bay Title Company
431 E Street
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Attn: Sandy Veveiros
Telephone: (707)526-2000
Facsimile: (707) 526~4782

10.1 Parties Bound. This Agreement shall bind and shall inure to the bene?t of the City, Hunter and their respective successors and assigns. Notwithstandingthe foregoing, neither Agreement of Purchase and Sale By and 10 Between the City ofSt. Helena and DennisHunter
Agenda Item #6.8.

party may assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other, and any such prohibited assignment shall be void.

10.2 Headings. The article and paragraph headings of this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way limit or enlarge the scope or meaning of the language hereof.

10.3 Invalidity and Waiver. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid or inoperative, then so far as is reasonable and possible the remainder of this Agreement shall be deemed valid and operative, and, to the greatest extent legally possible, effect shall be given to the intent manifested by the portion held invalid or inoperative. The failure by either party to enforce against the other any term or provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such party’s right to enforce against the other party the same or any other such term or provision in the future.

10.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall, in all respects, be governed, construed, applied, and enforced in accordance with the law of the State of California.

10.5 Survival. The provisions of this Agreement that contemplate performance after the Closing and the obligations of the parties not fully performed at the Closing shall survive the Closing and shall notbe deemed to be merged into or waived by the instrumentsof Closing.

10.6 No Third Pagy Bene?ciary. This Agreement is not intendedto give or confer any benefits, rights, privileges, claims, actions, or remedies to any person or entity as a third party bene?ciary, decree, or otherwise.

10.7 Entirety and Amendments. This Agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein,embodiesthe entire agreement between the parties and supersede all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter hereof. This Agreement may be amended or supplemented only by an instrumentin writing executed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.

10.8 Time. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

10.9 Attorneys’ Fees. Should either party employ attorneys to enforce any of the provisionshereof, the party against whom any final judgment is entered agrees to pay the prevailing party all reasonable costs, charges, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expended or incurred in connectiontherewith.

10.10 Construction. The parties acknowledge that the parties and their counsel have reviewed and revised this Agreement and agree that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or any exhibits or amendments hereto. any period of time described herein, the day of the act or event a?er which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be includedand the last day of the period so computed is to be included at, unless such last day is a Saturday, Sunday or legiil holiday for national banks in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale By and 11 Between theCity of'SI. Helena and Dennis Hunter
Agenda Item #6.8.

location where the properties are located, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The last day of any period of time describedherein shall be deemed to end at 5:00 pm. Paci?c time.

10.12 Further Assurances. In addition to the acts and deeds recited herein and contemplatedto be performed, executed and/or delivered by either party at Closing, each party agrees to perform, execute and deliver, but without any obligation to incur any additional liability or expense, on or after the Closing any further deliveries and assurances as may be reasonably necessary to consummate the transactions contemplatedhereby or to further perfect the conveyance, transfer and assignment of the properties hereunder. l0.l3 Execution in Countemarts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemedto be an original, and all of such counterparts shall constitute one Agreement. To facilitate execution of this Agreement, the parties may execute and exchange by email or facsimile counterparts of the signature pages.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.

Sag % 5 CITY or ST. HELENA
DennisR. Hunter
By: Ain/we
Name: Bert ohansson
Title: City Manager
A roved as to form:

Am .
/2 /xiv ,wz..x;./t./
alukevich,City Attorney
Agreement ofPurchase and Sale By and Between the City ofSt. Helena and Dennis Hunter HELE'\4S969\734l 10.8 Agenda Item #6.8.

EXHIBITA
Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit A
HunterProperty
Agreement of Purchaseand Sale By and Betweenthe City of St. Helenaand DennisHunter Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa HUNTER
101-1
Exhibit"A”
That certain real property situate in the Cityof St Helena, County of Napa, State of California being a portion of the lands described in the Grant Deed to Dennis R. Hunter recorded December 7. 2001.at Document No. 2001-0043130 OfficialRecords Napa County, said portion being more particularlydescribed as follows:

BEGINNINGat the southwestern corner ofsaid lands; thence along the general northwestern line of said lands N29°14’27"E, 944.57 feet; thence leaving last said line S60“!-i6‘20“E. 7983 feet; thence S47°O3'45”W, 97.46 feet; thence S29°14‘27"W, 851.75 feet to the southwestern line of said parcel; thence along iast said line N60°50’08"W, 50.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 48,611 sq. ft. more or less.

All bearings, distances and coordinates described herein are based upon (NAD~83) California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 2 (US. feet). Epoch 1991.35. Multiply distances described herein by 0.9999624? to obtain ground distances.

This real property description has been prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the rofessional Land S -_=..:.

Q:\2OD4\0411076-PBQDSi Helena\DESCRlPTlONS ANDPLATS\101—1-rev.doc Agenda Item #6.8.

—-PlAT9\1 01
Ldnda of
City of
Si. Hehand
9004\?4-11n7?1\nF-‘QCRIRTIUN
Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa HUNTER
1012
Exhibit“A”
That certain real property situate in the City of St Helena, County of Napa, State of California being a portion of the lands described in the Grant Deed to Dennis R. Hunter recorded December 7, 2001, at Document No. 2001—O043130Of?oialRecords Napa County, said portion being more particularly described as follows:

COlillltilENCEtNGat the southwesterncorner ofsaid lands; thence along the general northwestern line of said lands N29°14’27"E, 944.57 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along last said line N29°14‘27"E, 8.06 feet; thence continuing along last said line N29°46’48”E, 835.20 feet to the northern line of said lands; thence along last said line S7‘l°07’20”E, 223.50 feet; thence leaving last said line S50°49’49"W, 264.81 feet; thence S32°22’33"W, 177.79 feet; thence S60°54’21"E, 10.02 feet; thence S32°22'33"W, 450.36 feet; thence N60°46’20”W_ 22.90 feet; thence S47°03’45"W, 10.50 feet; thence N60°46’20"W, 79.83 to the True Point of Beginning.

Containing 112,310 square feet, more or less.

All bearings, distances and coordinates described herein are based upon (NAD-83) California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 2 (US. feet), Epoch 1991.35. Multiply distances described herein by 0.9999624? to obtain ground distances.

This real property description has been prepared by me or under my directionin conformanc with th
' ofessional Land Su - - Act.
.23922
:£—§§Pm£;!"‘
Q:\2004\O41 1076-PBQDSt Helena\DE8CRlPTl0NS ANDPLATS\101-2v.doc Agenda Item #6.8.

.......\ ....
w
..
...—....\ .....-...-.....~.,,,.
.
\.

M
.
\\
...
xm
m
Agenda Item #6.8.

, 1 Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit B

1.20 Acres & 2.39 Acres
Agreementof Purchaseand Sale By and Betweenthe City of St. Helenaand DennisHunter Agenda Item #6.8.

.\.:x:.m\.;¢w..\:.m\n Hrrvfe-1 Prszntbx I.a;u\.v»7V‘§dnv.-an n...-.,\.u-.:.-wane:-umeuv;.., k\ :1 ma . um. ___,____,_._.s_..,. . _..-_._ A
zmvwas _ ___
‘ '
‘.
,r
I
l
zo. 20»
cxqx
Agenda Item #6.8.

EXH|BiT C
Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit C

3.58 Acres
Agreement of Purchaseand Sale By and Between the City of St. Helenaand DennisHunter Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa City of St. Helena
102-2
Exhibit“A"
A portion of that certain real property situate inthe Cityof St Helena, County of Napa, State of Californiabeing a portion of ParcelOne described in the Grant Deed to the City of St Helena recorded March 15, 2005 at DocumentNo. 2005-0009620OfficialRecords Napa County, saidportion being more particularlydescribed as follows:

BEGINNINGat the southern most cornerof the above referenced Parcel One; thence along the general southwestern lineof said ParcelOne N60”46'20"W,234.68 feet; thence continuing along last said line S29°‘l3'40”W, 35.00 feet; thence continuing along last said line N71"O7'20"W,343.36feet; thence leaving last said line N41°18'58"E, 254.98 feet; thence N49°42‘50”E, 48.52 feet; thence N60"38‘24”E, 44.19 feet; thence S°29°32’38"E, 64.19 feet; thence SB4°21’35”E, 142.68feet; thence S78°16’37"E, 64.79 feet; thence S‘/'0°20’25”E, 86.57feet; thence S47"50'36"E,68.79 feet; thence sB2"05’04”E,77.73 feet to a point on the southeastern lineof said Parcel One; thence along last said lineS28°56’09"W, 279.89 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Containing 3.582 acres, more or less.

This real property description has been prepared by me or under my directionin conformancewiththe ProfessionalLandSu
- u...Act.
1 Q:\2(lO4\D411076-FBQDSt Halen3\DESCRlPTlONS ANDPLATS\Mlller-City of St. Helenadoc Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit D
LotLine Adjustment
Agreement of Purchaseand Sale By and Between the City of SI.Helenaand DennisHunter Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa City of St. Helena
Exhibit “A”
Portionsof that certain real property situate in the City of St Helena, County of Napa, State ofCaliforniabeing a portion of Parcel One described inthe Grant Deed to the City of St Helena recorded March 15, 2005 at Document No. 2005-0009620OfficialRecords Napa County and a portion of the lands describedin the Grant Deed to Dennis R. Hunter recorded December 7, 2001, at DocumentNo. 2001-0043130OfficialRecords Napa County, said portions being more particularlydescribed as follows:

COMMENCINGat the southern most corner of the above referencedParcel One; thence ' along the southeastern line of said Parcel One N28°56'O9"E, 279.88 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence leaving last said line N62°05’04”W. 77.73 feet; thence N47°50’36" W, 68.79 feet; thence N70°20’25"W, 86.57 feet; thence N78°16'37"W, 64.79 feet; thence N84°21‘ 35”W, 142.68feet; thence N29°32'38"W, 64.19feet; thence S60°38'24'W, 44.19 feet; thence S49°42’50"W_ 48.52 feet; thence S41°18'58”W, 254.98 feet to the northern line ofthe above reference Lands of Dennis R. Hunter;thence along said northern line N71°07'20”W, 2.96 feet; thence leaving last said line S50°49'49”W, 264.81 feet; thence 832°22’33"W, 177.79 feet; thence S60°54’21 "E, 10.02 feet; thence S32°22’33"W, 450.36 feet; thence N60°46'20”W, 22.90 feet; thence S47 03’45"W, 107.96 feet; thence S29°14’27"W, 851.74 feet to the southwestern lineof the above referenced lands to Dennis R. Hunter;thence along the southwestern,northwestern and northeastern lines of said lands to DennisR. Hunter N60°50’08"W, 50.00 feet; thence N29°14’27" E, 952.64 feet; thence N29°46’48"E, 835.20 feet; thence S71“07’20"E,70.63 feet to the southwest corner of said Parcel One to City of St Helena;thence along the northwesternline of said Pa reel One N29°55’13"E, 1116.75feet moreor less to the center of the Napa River;thence along general northeastern lineofsaid Parcel One followingthe centerline of the Napa Riverand the meanderings thereofthe followingtwo courses S40"16'20"E, 501.27 feet; thence S84°46’20”E, 260.48 feet;thence along the southeastern line ofsaid Parcel One S28“56’09"W,642.51 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

Containing 15.691 acres, moreor less.

This real property description has been prepared by me or under mydirection in conformance with a
- ProfessionalLand 8 - .:..e Act. 4/ .

RegiteredProf
Q:\2004\0411076-PBQDSt Helena\DESCRiPTlONS ANDPLATS\Cityparcel post lot lineadj.doc Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa Dennis R. Hunter
Exhibit"A"
Portionsof that certain real property situate inthe City of St Helena, County of Napa, State of Californiabeing a portion of Parcel One described in the Grant Deed to the City of St Helena recorded March 15, 2005 at DocumentNo.2005-0009620OfficialRecords Napa County and a portion of the lands described in the Grant Deed to DennisR. Hunter recorded December 7, 2001.at DocumentNo.2001-0043130OfficialRecordsNapa County, said portions being more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCINGat the southwestern cornerof the above reference landsto DennisR. Hunter;thence aiong the southwestern lineof said lands S60°50’08”E_ 50.00feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence leaving last said line N29°'l4’27”E, 851.74 feet; thence N47"03’45"E,107.96feet; thence S60"46’20"E,22.90 feet; thence N32°22’33"E, 450.36 feet; thence N60"54’21"W,10.02 feet; thence N32°22’33"E, 177.79 feet; thence N50°49’49"E, 264.81feet to the general southwestern line of the above referenced Parcel One to the City of St Helena;thence along said general southwestern line S71°07'20"E, 2.96 feet; thence leaving last said line N4i°18’58”E, 254.98 feet; thence N49°42'50"E, 48.52 feet; thence N60°38'24”E, 44.19 feet; thence S29°32’38"E, 64.19 feet; thence S84°21’35"E, 142.68 feet; thence S78°16’37”E, 64.79 feet; thence S70°20’25"E, 86.57 feet; thence S47°50’36"E, 68.79 feet; thence S62°05’04”E, 77.73 feet to the southeastern line of said Parcel One to the City of St. Helena;thence along last said line S28°56'O9"W.279.88feet to the northeasterncornerofsaid landsto Dennis R. Hunter;thence along the general southeastern and southwesternlines of said lands to Dennis R. HunterN60°46'20"W, 234.63feet; thence S29°13'40"W, 1258.77 feet; thence N60°51’11"W, 449.33 feet; thence S29°36’59"W, 665.66feet; thence N60°50’08"W, 64.96 feet to the True Point of Beginning.

Containing 16.903 acres, more or less.

This real property description has been prepared by me or under mydirectionin conformance withthe ProfessionalLand Su
Date d Zz?ag
1 Q:\2004\0411076,-PBQDSt Helena\DESCRlPTlONS ANDPLATS\Hunter parcel post lotlineadj.doc Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit E
ConstructionEasement
Agreement of Purchase and Sale By and 17
Between the City of St. Helena and Dennis Hunter
l<IELE\4S9(19\734H0.5
Agenda Item #6.8.

Recording requested by,
and when recorded return to:

Miller Starr Regalia
Attn: EthanFriedman
1331 North CaliforniaBoulevard, Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONEASEMENT
THISTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTIONBASEMENT(the “EasementAgreement”) dated as of , 2008 is entered into by and between the City of St. Helena (the “Grantee”), and Dennis R. Hunter (“Grantor”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by thisreference, in the City of St. Helena,Napa County, California(the “Easement Property”).

WHEREAS, Grantee desires to perform certain work (the “Work”) on the Basement Property in connectionwith the St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Control Protection Project (the “Project”).

A WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant certain easements to Granteefor the purposes of performingthe Work on the Basement Property, on the terms and conditionsset forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, in considerationof the sum of One Dollar ($1 .00) and othergood and valuable consideration,paid by Grantee,the receiptand sufficiency ofwhichis herebyacknowledged by Grantor, Grantor hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to Grantee,itssuccessorsand assigns, full and free right and authority for a non~exclusive easement for the performance ofthe Work on the Easement Property.

It is mutually covenanted and agreed by and between the partieshereto as follows:

1. Construction Easement. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee, its expressly agree that the Construction Easementshall be temporary in nature. The Easementshall terminateon December 31, 2012.

Agenda Item #6.8.

2. Ingress and Egress. Subject to the terms and provisionsset forth herein,Granteeshall have the right of ingress and egress in, to, over, through and across the BasementProperty for any purpose necessary or desirable for the full enjoyment of the rights granted to Grantee underthis Easement Agreement.

3. Covenants of Grantor.
(a) Grantor shall not interfere with the use of or obstruct the operation of or access to the Basement Property. Any structure or building locatedon the BasementProperty,or any grass, sod, shrubs,woody plants, other crops, trees or nursery stock locatedon the Easement Property which interfereswith the use of or obstructsthe operationof or access to the BasementPropertymay be removed by Grantee without liability for damages arisingtherefrom. (b) Grantor covenants and agrees to remain fully liable and shall pay before delinquency all real estate taxes and assessments on the BasementProperty.

4. Covenants of Grantee. Grantee represents, covenants, and warrants in favor of Grantor and its successors and assigns, as follows:
(a) Neither Grantee nor any licensee, agent, employee or independentcontractor of Grantee (collectively, the “Grantee Parties") shall do or fail to do anything which could cause any charge, lien or encumbrance, including but not limited to any laborer's,rnechanids, vendor's, supplier's or materialman'slien, to attach to or otherwise encumber any part or all of the Basement Property and Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, shall immediately pay, discharge or otherwise cause to be removed any and all such charges, liens, and encumbrances. (b) Grantee agrees to indemnify,defend andhold harmlessthe EasementProperty and Grantor, and any successors and assigns ofGrantor, from any costs, expenses, damages, claims or demands incurred or asserted against Grautor to the extent arising out of the activities or omissions of Grantee and/or the GranteeParties in the performance of the Work and/or use of the Easement Property, except those due to (i) hazardousmaterialsor conditionsthat are not (X)caused or (y) placed on the Basement Property or the adjacent lands of Grantor by Grantee or the Grantee Parties, (ii) latent defects on the EasementProperty not related to Grantee’sor the Grantee Parties‘ activitiesthereon, or (iii) the actions or omissionsof Grantor, its directors,officers,members,agents or employees.

5. Binding Effect. The ConstructionBasement and the provisions of this Easement Agreement shall be covenants
successors and assigns and all future owners and lessees of any part or allof the BasementProperty.

Agenda Item #6.8.

6. Governing Law. This Easement Agreement shall be governed and controlled as to validity, construction,interpretation,effect, enforcement and in all otherrespects by the statutes and the decisionsof the courts of the State of California.

7. Amendment. ThisEasement Agreement may not be amended or modi?ed except in a writing executed by both Grantor and Grantee.

8. Severability. The provisionsofthis Easement Agreement are separate andseverable.

If any provisionof this Easement Agreement is held to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal or in conflict with any law, that provision shall be severed from this Easement Agreement and the remainder of this Easement Agreement shall not be impaired or otherwise affected by such severance, shall be construed, interpretedand enforced as if it did not contain such provision and shall remain in full force and effect.

9. Attomeys' Fees. If any actionor proceeding isinstitutedto (i) enforce or interpret any provision of this Easement Agreement or (ii) as a result of the breach by a party to any of the terms hereof, then the prevailing party therein shall be entitledto recover its attorneys’ fees and costs from the losing party.

10. Further Assurances. Each of the parties shall execute and deliver any and all additional papers, documents, and other assurances, and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessary in connection withthe performance of their obligations hereunderand to cany out the intent of this Easement Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this EasementAgreement the day and year first written above.

GRANTOR: GRANTEE:

CITY OF ST. HELENA
DennisR. Hunter
By:

Name: BertJohansson
Title: CityManager
Approved asto form:

Amy L. Valukevich,City Attorney
Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa HUNTER
101-4,101-5, 101-6
Exhibit “A"
Parcel 101-4
A variable width Temporary ConstructionEasement over upon and across that certain real property situate in the City of St Helena, County of Napa, State of California being a portion of the lands described in the Grant Deed to Dennis R. Hunter recorded December 7, 2001, at Document No. 2001-0043130 OfficialRecords Napa County, said Temporary Easement being more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCINGat the northwestern comer of said lands; thence along the northeastern line of said lands S71"07’20"E, 223.50 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along last said line S71°O7’20"E, 17.68 feet; thence leaving last said line S50"49'49"W, 271.73 feet; thenceS29"15’50‘W, 184.20feet; thence S32“22’33“W, 425.36 feet; thence N60°46’20"W, 15.02 feet; thence N82"22’33"E,435.34 feet; thence N60"54'21"W, 10.02 feet; thence N32°22’33"E, 177.79 feet; thence N50"49'49“E,264.81 feet to the True Point of Beginning
Containing 14,019 square feet, more or less.

Parcel 101-5
A 10 foot wide Temporary Construction Easement over upon and across that certain real property situate in the City of St Helena, County of Napa, State of Californiabeing a portion of the lands described in the Grant Deed to Dennis R. Hunterrecorded December 7, 2001, at DocumentNo. 2001-0043130 Of?cial Records Napa County, said Temporary Easement being more particularly described as follows:

COMMENCINGat the northeastern corner of said lands; thence along the general southeastern line of said lands S29°'l3'40”W, 910.60’ feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along last said line S29°13'40"W. 10.00feet; thence leaving last said line N60“46’20"W,446.80 feet; thence N32°22’33”E, 10.02 feet; thence 860°46'20" E, 446.25 feet to the True point of Beginning. ’
Containing 4,465 square feet. more or less.

Parcel 101-6
A 10 foot wide Temporary ConstructionEasement over upon and across that certain real December 7, 2001, at Document No. 2001-0043130 Official Records Napa County, said Temporary Easement being more particularly described as follows: Q:\2004\0411076-PBQDSt He|ena\DESCRlPTlONS ANDPLATS\TCE101-4, 5 AND6.d0c Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa HUNTER
101-4, 101-5,'i0'1~6
COMMENCINGat the northeastern corner of said lands; thence along the general southeastern line of said lands S29°13'40"W, 935.60‘ feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along last said line S29°13’40"W. 10.00 feet; thence leaving last said line N60"46‘20"W. 488.76 feet; thence N47"03‘45"E,10.50 feet; thence S80°46"20” E, 485.55 feet to the True point of Beginning.

Containing 4,872 square feet, more or less.

All bearings. distances and coordinates described herein are based upon (N/-\D—83) California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 2 (U.S. feet). Epoch 1991.35. Multiply distances described herein by 0.9999624? to obtain ground distances.

This real property description has been prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act.

44.. .44.. Registered Profesi
Q:\2004\O4‘l1076-PBQDSt Helena\DESCRlPTlONSANDPLATS\TCE101-4, 5 AND6.doc Agenda Item #6.8.

9nnA\n411n7R1\hF<Z(TRlRTInN~PlATQ\1?1
Agenda Item #6.8.

STATEOFCAKEORNDR
S&
\./\/&/

COUNTYOF
On , 2008 before me, , Notary Public, personally appeared , who
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.

Notary Public
Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit F
UtilityEasement
Agreement of Purchase and Sale By and Between the City of St. Helenaand Dennis 1-Iumer HELE\45969\734110.5 Agenda Item #6.8.

Recording requested by,
and when recorded return to:

Miller Starr Regalia
Attn: Ethan Friedman
1331 North CaliforniaBoulevard, Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596

UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT (the “Easement Agreement”) dated as of , 2008 is entered into by and between the City of St. Helena (the “Grantee”), and Dennis R. Hunter (“Grantor”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporatedherein by this reference, in the City of St. Helena, Napa County, California(the “Easement Property”).

WHEREAS,Grantee desires to install and maintain certainutilityfacilities(the “Work”) on the Easement Property in connection with the St. Helena ComprehensiveFlood Control Protection Project (the “Project”).

WHEREAS, Grantee and Grantor have entered into a Agreement of Purchase and Sale of even date herewith pursuant to which Grantee will acquire from Grantor certain real property (“Grantee’s Property”) in the vicinity of the Easement Property for purposes of the Project.

WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant. certain easements to Grantee for the purposes of performingthe Work on the BasementProperty, on the terms and conditionsset forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, in considerationof the sum of One Dollar ($1 .00) and other good and valuable consideration,paid by Grantee,the receiptand su?iciency ofwhichis hereby acknowledged by Grantor, Grantor hereby grants, bargains,sells and conveys to Grantee,its successorsand assigns, full andfree right and authority for a non—exc1usiveeasement forthe performance of the Work on the Basement Property.

1. Utility Easement. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee, its successors, assigns, and agents a non~exclusive,perpetual easement (the “Utility Easement”) over, under, across, above and through the Easement Property for the purpose of installing, constructing, operating,using, maintaining, repairing,and replacing utilityfacilities,linesor connectionsand any Agenda Item #6.8.

uses incidentalthereto. The Utility Easement is appurtenant to and for the bene?t of the Grantee’s Property and constitutes a servitudeon the Basement Property. '

2. lngress and Egress. Subject to the terms and provisions set forth herein, Grantee shall have the right of ingress and egress in, to, over, through and across the Easement Property for any purpose necessary or desirable for the full enjoyment of the rights granted to Grantee under this Easement Agreement.

3. Covenants of Grantor.
(a) Grantor shall not interfere with the use of or obstruct the operation of or access to the Basement Property. Any structure or buildinglocated on the Basement Property, or any grass, sod, shrubs, woody plants, other crops, trees or nursery stocklocated on the Easement Property which interfereswith the use of or obstructs the operationof or access to theBasementPropertymay be removed by Grantee without liability for damages arising therefrom. (b) Grantor covenants and agrees to remain fully liable and shall pay before delinquency all real estate taxes and assessments on the Basement Property.

4. Covenants of Grantee. Grantee represents, covenants, and warrants in favor of Grantor and its successors and assigns, as follows:
(a) Neither Grantee nor any licensee, agent, employee or independentcontractor of Grantee (collectively, the "Grantee Parties") shall do or fail to do anything which could cause any charge, lien or encumbrance, including but not limited to any laborers,mechanic's, vendor's, supplier's or materialrnarrslien, to attach to or otherwise encumber any part or all of the Basement Property and Grantee, at its sole cost and expense, shall immediately pay, discharge or otherwise cause to be removed any and all such charges, liens, and encumbrances. (b) Grantee agreesto indemnify, defend and hold harmlessthe BasementProperty and Grantor, and any successors and assigns of Grantor, from any costs, expenses, damages, claims or demands incurred or asserted against Grantor to the extent arising out of the activities or omissions of Grantee and/or the Grantee Partiesin the performance of the Work and/or use of the Basement Property, except those due to (i) hazardous materials or conditionsthat are not (X)caused or (y) placedon the Basement Property or the adjacentlands of Grantor by Grantee or the Grantee Parties, (ii) latent defects on the Basement Property not related to Grantee’sor the Grantee Parties‘ activitiesthereon, or (iii) the actionsor omissionsof Grantor, its directors,officers,members,agents

5. Binding The UtilityBasement and the provisions of thisEasementAgreement shall be covenants upon and shall run with the BasementProperty. ThisEasementAgreementshall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Grantor and Grantee, theirrespective successors and assigns and all ?xtureowners and lessees of any part or all of the BasementProperty.

Agenda Item #6.8.

6. Governing Law. This Easement Agreement shall be governed and controlled as to validity, construction,interpretation,effect, enforcement and in all other respects by the statutes and the decisionsof the courts of the State of California.

7. Amendment. ThisEasement Agreementmay not be amended or modi?ed except in a writing executed by both Grantor and Grantee.

8. Severability. The provisions of this EasementAgreement are separate and severable.

If any provision of this Easement Agreement is held to be invalid, unenforceable, illegal or in conflict with any law, that provision shall be severed from this Easement Agreement and the remainder of this Easement Agreement shall not be impaired or otherwise affected by such severance, shall be construed, interpretedand enforced as if it did not contain such provision and shall remain in full force and effect.

9. Attorneys‘ Fees. If any actionor proceeding isinstitutedto (i) enforce or interpretany provisionof this Easement Agreement or (ii) as a result of the breach by a party to any of the terms hereof, then the prevailing party thereinshallbe entitledto recover its attorneys‘ fees and costs from the losing party.

10. Further Assurances. Each of the parties shall execute and deliver any and all additional papers, documents, and other assurances, and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessary in connection with the performance oftheir obligations hereunder and to carry out the intent of this Easement Agreement.
~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this EasementAgreement the day and year first written above.

GRANTOR: GRANTEE:

CITY OF ST. HELENA
Dennis R. Hunter
By:

Name: BertJohansson
Title: CityManager
Approved as to form:

Amy L. Valukevich,City Attorney
Agenda Item #6.8.

City of St Helena
County of Napa HUNTER
101-3
Exhibit"A"
A UtilityEasement over upon and across that certain real property situate in the City of St Helena, County of Napa, State of Californiabeing a portion of the lands described in the Grant Deed to Dennis R. Hunter recorded December 7, 2001.at Document No. 20010043130 OfficialRecords Napa County, said Easement being more particularly described as foliowsz COMMENCINGat the northeastern comer of said lands; thence along the general southeastern line ofsaid lands S29°13’40’W, 920.60 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing along last said line S29°13'40"W, 15.00 feet; thence leaving last said line N60°48'20"W, 462.65 feet; thence N32°22’33“ E, 15.02 feet; thence S60°46’20”E, 461 .82 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Containing 6,934 square feet, more or less.

All bearings, distances and coordinates described herein are based upon (NAD-83) California State Plane Coordinate System, Zone 2 (US. feet), Epoch 1991.35. Multiply distances described herein by 0.9999624? to obtain ground distances.

This real property description has been prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Su -;--:._
Registered Profese//tonal Engineer
Date 9752224»;
Q2\20D4\041‘lO76-PBQD St Helena\DESCRlPTlONS ANDPLATS\101-3.doc Agenda Item #6.8.

L0l\-S1.\2"lc¥-NOLLB|&;IC)S3C}\L9l.OH17O\170OZ,
rw==IsHwe
+0 M13
Agenda Item #6.8.

STATEOFCALFORNDX _)
\./
SS.

COUNTY OF )
On , 2008 before me, , Notary
Public, personally appeared
, who
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrumentI certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and Correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.

Notary Public
Agenda Item #6.8.

,,_........”
Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit C
Soilstockpile GradingPlan
Agreement of Purchase and Sale By and Between (he City of St. Helena and Dennis Hunter HELE\é5969\734l l0.5 Agenda Item #6.8.

.n;,,¢
‘... . ...u m. -xs:« ,.
\q,¢g.q\:¢;;q;\|.;n\c1m\71 ?uyv mu w..m >..,.u\-..\r.,~m\u.,... mm.\u.= :5 cut) -.... a t. v u M A
J
v »\
K
in
m
.‘
/
W2./,1: 1)
.
,y,,,,/
4 /.
x
zo.
..
max onx
Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit H
Water LineRelocation
Agreement of Purchaseand Sale By and Between the City of St. Helena and DennisHunter HELE\4S969\734l 10.5 Agenda Item #6.8.

\_,_.
.\u:m<&\uoox\vm\um\s\ »... 11...: mwo. :....m-ww..\~-~.« u....«.\-m:..=.v.u.~.....m... -m:.wu-. -Lg pi. Ian:~ -.w.~
3/\V HBVLS
m
K
>zo
mm
’n
,
/1
3/
1 L
:.

20. 20.
x 9. x
Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit I
Approved Title Exceptions(3.58 Acres)
Agreement of Purchaseand Sale By and Between the City of St. Helena and Dennis Hunter HELE\45969\734l10.5 Agenda Item #6.8.

First AmecanTitle
CompanyofNapa
ORDERNO:T0011053-

PRELIMINARYREPORT

FIRST AMERICANTITLEINSURANCECOMPANY
FirstAmericanTitle CompanyofNapa
1700Second Street, Suite 120,P. O. Box 388
Napa, CA 94559
Phone: (707)2544500 Fax: (707)226-9346
Prop érty Address: Direct Title Inquiriesto: 009-030-005 MitchellGlotzer St. Helena,California E-mail:[email protected] Assessor’s Parcel Number: Phone: (707)254 4500 009-030-005 Seller‘/Owner:

City of St. Helena
considered. It is important to notelthat this preliminary report is not a Writt condition of title and may not list all liens,defects,and encumbrancgsaffectingtitle to the land.

Dated as ofluly 17, 2008 at 7:30 A. M. By: Authorized Signatory

first American Title
CompanyofNapa
ORDERNO: T0011053~
The form of policy of title insurancecontemplatedby thisreport is:
' ALTAOwner'sPolicy (6/17/06) with RegionalExceptions(StandardCoverage) Title to said estate or interestat the datehereofis vested in:

CITY OF ST. HELENA, A MUNICIPALCORPORATION
The estate or interestin the land hereinafterdescribedor referredto coveredby thisreport is:

A FEE
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in additionto the printed exceptions and exclusionscontainedin said policy form would be as follows:

1. General and special taxes and assessments for the ?scal year 2008-09,a lien not yet due or payable.

2. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter3.5 commencingwithSection75 ofthe California Revenueand Taxation Code.

3. Any easement for water course over that portion of said land lyingwithinNapaRiver, rights, interestsand easements in favor of thepublic whichexist, or are claimedto ex said land covered by water. together with any
ist, over any portion of

4. The terms and provisions containedin the documententitled"Deed"recordedDecember12, 1901as Book71 of Deeds at page 278 of OfficialRecords. page169 of OfficialRecords.

6. The terms and provisions containedin the documententitled"Grantof StormDrainEasement"recordedMay 28, 1993 as SeriesNumber 1993016818of OfficialRecords. - - Page 2
Agenda Item #6.8.

Northerncomer thereof;thenceSouth 28° West along theNorthwest P.‘1'1'st American Title
Company ofNapa
ORDERNO: T001105?»-

LEGALDESCRIPTION
The land referredto m tlusreport is situatedm theCztyof St Helena,County of Napa, State of Cahforma,and 1s describedas follows:

East265.6 feetto the intersection thereof withthe Southeasternline of the landsformerlyof D. 0. Hunt;thence South28° West alongsaid Southeastern line 924.5 feet to the most Easterncomer of the 1-2/3 acre tract of the Town of St. Helenaabove referredto; thenceNorth62° West alongthe Northeasternline of said 1-2/3 acre tract 2346 feetto themost em line thereof,35 feetto the point of commencement.

APN 009-030-O05
facilitiesfor the transmissionof public uhhty services,as granted ' Robert Hartley, et ux, recorded January15 1946in Book236 at describedasfollows:
abovedescribed;thence South28° 41'33" West along said Northwesternline46.4 feet;thenceNorth68° 46‘15"West71.37feet, moreor less, to the Southeasternline of the 15.5 acre tmct of landconveyed to Percy V North 60° 45‘West 537.3feetto the point of commencement. , SaidNapaCountyRecords,and in Book Agenda Item #6.8.

First AmectmTitle
CompanyofNapa
ORDERN0: T0011053-
iron pipe monument; thenceNorth28° 48'East 16.5feet;thence North60° 45‘Wesi: 463.7 feet;thenceSouth 28° 45‘West 16.5feet; and thence South 60° 45‘ East 25.0 feet to the pointof commencement.

WARNING
The Map attachedheretomay or may not be a survey of the landdepicted thereon.You shouldnot rely upon it for any purpose otherthan orientationto the general locationof the parcel or parcels depicted. First American expressly disclaimsany liabilityfor alleged loss or damagewhichmay result fromrelianceupon suchmap.

Agenda Item #6.8.

First AmicanTitle
CompanyofNapu
ORDERNO:T00110S3-
Information Notes:
- a. General and special taxes and assessments for the ?scal year 2007-08. First Installment : $0.00 Second Installment : $0.00
Tax Rate Area : 3000
A. P. No. : 009-030-005

13. The Assessor’sParcelNumber(s),if any, containedin the legal descriptionherein,are for quick identi?cation purposes only, and are not a part of the actual legal descriptions. d. The CountyRecordermay charge an additional$20.00recordi Change of OwnershipReport" Form,for each Deedto be rec completingand signingthis form. ng fee,if not provided witha “Preliminary orded.The purchaser isresponsible for Lenders Supplemental Report:
g, According to the public records,there hasbeenno conveyance of the landWithina period of two years prior to the date of thisreport, except as follows:

NONE
esn
em
2cc: COOMBS& DUNLAPLLP, 1211DivisionSt,Napa,CA94559
~ Ar_nyValukevich

ioanaa No: T0011053- Form No. 1068-1(Rev. 06/17/06)
The following matters are express]
expenses whicharise by reason of:

1. 3.

EXHIBITA LIST OF PRINTEDEXCEPTIONSANDEXCLUSIONS(By Policy Type)

1. CALIFORNIA LANDTITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARDcovmmcnpoucy — x990 y excludedfrom the coverageof this policyand theCompany willnot pay loss or damage,costs, attorneys‘ fees or (a) Any law, ordinanceor governmental regulation (includingbut restricting, regulating, prohibitingor relating (i) the occupant: ,use, or enjoymentof the land; (ii) the character,dimensionsor location of any improvement new or hereaftererected on the land; (iii) '
' land or any parcel of which the land is or wasit part; or (iv) environmental (:1) whether or not recorded in the public records at Dateof Policy,but created, suliered, assumed or agreed to by the insuredclaimant; (b) 110‘MOW"10“*9 C0mP’m)’» Mt recorded in the public records at Date ofPolicy, but knownto the insured claimantand not disclosedin writingto the Company by the insured claimantprior to the date the insuredclaimantbecamean insured under this policy; (2) resulting in no loss or damage to the insuredclaimant; (d) attaching or created subsequentto Date of Policy;or (e) resulting in lossor damage whichwould not have beensustainedifthé Insuredclaimanthad paid value for the insuredmortgage or for the estate or interest insuredby this policy.

Unenforcenbilityof the lien of the insuredmortgage becauseof the inabilityor failureof the insuredat Date of Policy, {allure of any subsequent owner ofthe indebtedness, to comply with the a situated. 9 0”m¢|’e5f insured by this policy or the transactioncreating the rationof federalbankruptcy,state insolvencyor similarcreditm-5'rights laws, Proceedings by a public agencywhich may result in taxes or assessments, or noticesof such proceedings,whetheror not shown by the records ofsuch agencyor by the public records.

Any facts, rights, interests,or claimswhichare not shown by Easements,liensor cncnmbrances.or claimsthereof‘,whichare not shownby the public records. Page 1 Agenda Item #6.8.

4. Discrepancies, conflictsin boundary lines,shortage in area, encroachments,or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose,and which are not shownby the public records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claim; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuancethereof- or title towater. whether or not the matters excep , (c) water rights, claims ted under (9.),(b) or (c) are shownby the public records.

2. CLTA HOMEOWNi<.‘.R'S POLICYOF TITLE INSURANCE(10/22/03) ALTA I-lOMEOVVNER'S POLICYOF TITLE INSURANCE

EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptionsin ScheduleB, You are not insuredagainst loss, costs, attorneys‘ fees,and expenses resulting from:

I. Governmentalpolice power, and the existence or violationof any law or governmentregulation. This includesordinances, laws and regulations concerning:
building
zoning
Land use
8b
c. d. improvements on the Land
a Land division
f environmentalprotection
This Exclusion does not apply to violationsor the enforcementofthese matters if notice of the violationor enforcementappears in the Public Records at the PolicyDate.

This Exclusion does not limit the coveragedescribedin CoveredRisk14.15,16,17 or 24.

2. The failure ofYour existing structures, or any part ufthem, to be const does not apply to violationsofbuildingcodes ifnotlce ofthe violationa 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless:
a. a notice ofexercising the right appears in the PublicRecords at the PolicyDate; or b. the taking happened before the Policy Date and is binding on You ll'You bought the Land withoutKnowingofthe taking. 4 Risks‘ a that are created, allowed,or agreed to by You,whether or not they appear in the PublicRecord b. that are Known to You at the PolicyDate,but not to Us,unlessthey appear in the PublicRecordsat the PolicyDate; c that result in no loss to You; or d

6. Lack ofa right:
a. to any Land outside the area speci?cally describedand r cferred to in paragraph 3 ofScheduleA; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage describedin CoveredRisk 11or 18.

LIMITATIONSON COVEREDRISKS
Your insure nce for the followingCoveredRisksis limitedon the 0wner’sCoverageStatement as follows:

For Covered Risk 14.15, 16 and 18, Your DeductibleAmountand Our MaximumDollarLimit ofLlebilityshownin scheduleA,

Agenda Item #6.8.

I A
The deductible amounts and maximum dollarlimitsshown on ScheduleA sureas follows:

Your DeductibleAmount Our MaximumDollarLimitot‘Liabiligy Covered Risk-.14: 1% of PolicyAmountor 5 2,500 8 10,000 (Subdivision LawViolation) (whichever is less) ’ Covered Risk 15: 1% of PolicyAmountor 5 5,000 5 25,000 (Building Permit) (whichever is less) Covered Risk 16: 1% of PolicyAmount or 5 5,000 5 25,000 (Zoning) (whichever is less) Covered Risk I8: 1% of Policy Amount or 3 2,500 8 5,000 (Encroachment ol?oundsry Wells or Fences) (whichever is less)

3. AMERICANLANDTITLE ASSOCIATION
RESIDENTIALTITLEINSURANCEPOLICY (6—i-87)

EXCLUSIONS
in addition to the Exceptionsin ScheduleB, you are not insuredagainst loss,costs, attorneys’ fees,and expenses resulting from:

I. Governmentalpolice power, and the existent:e or violationof any law or government regulation. This include; buildingand zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning:
land use I
0 improvements on the land
- land division
I environmentalprotection
This exclusiondoes not apply to violationsor the enforcementof these matters whichappear inthe public records at PolicyDate.

This exclusion does not limitthe zoning coveragedescribedin items 12 and 13 ofCoveredTitle Risks.

2. The right to take the land by condemningit, unless:
- a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records - on the PolicyDate
the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you ifyou bought the land withoutknowingofthe taking

3. Title Risks:
thnt are created, allowed, or agreed to by you
that are knownto you, but not to u
C
-= s, on the PolicyDate —~ unlessthey appeared in the public records c that result in no loss to you
I that iirst affect your title errorthe Policy Date - this does not limitthe labor and material liencoverageInItem 3 of CoveredTitleRisks 4. Failure to pay valuefor your title.

5. Lack oi‘: right:
c to any land outside the area s OR
o in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land pecilicnily describedand referred to in item 3 oi‘Schedule A This exclusion does not limit the access coveragein Item 5 of CoveredTitle Risks.

4. AMERICA_NLANDTITLEASSOCIATIONLOAN POLICY(IIH7-92) WITHALTA ENDORSEMENT-FORM]COVERAGE

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
governmental regulation (includingbut not limitedto buildingand zonin restricting,regulating,prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on t (b) Any governmental police power not excludedb Agenda Item #6.8.

This policy doesnot insure against lossor damage(and the Companywill not pay costs,

1. u
Defects, liens,encumbrances,adverse claimsor other matters:
(a) created, su?ered, assumed or agreed to by the insuredclaimant; (b) not knownto the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy,isut knownto the insuredclaimantand not disclosedin writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured ciaiment becamean insuredunder this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(except to the extent that this mortgage over any statutory lien for services,labor or material or to the extentl improvements under construction or completed at Detect‘ Policy); or invalidity or unenforceubilityof the lien ofthe insured mortgage, or claim thereof,which arises out ofthe transactionevidencedby the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumercredit protection or truth in lending law.

Any claim.whicharises out of the transaction creating the interestof the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reasononhe upera?on of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors‘ rights laws, that is based on:
(I) the transaction creating the interestof the insuredmortgagee being deemed a fraudulentconveyanceor fraudulentgmnsfer; or (ii} the snbordinattonofthe interest of the insured mortgagee as a result of the application of the doctrineor equitable subordination (iii) the transaction creating

EXCEFHONSFROMCOVERAGE
m01‘|'|elv'S'feesor expenses) whicharise by reasonof:

Taxes or assessments which are not shownas existingliens by the records of any taxingauthority that leviestaxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

Any facts,rights, interests,or claims which are not shownby the ‘ inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof Easements,claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shownby the public records.

Discrepancies,conflicts in boundarylines,shortagein area, encroachments,or any otherfacts which a correct survey would disclose,and which are not shown by the public records.

Any lien,or right to a lien,for services, labor or material therctoforeor hereafterfurnished,imposedby law and not shown by the public records. . Page 4
Agenda Item #6.8.

5. 2006ALTA LOANPOLICY (06-17-D6)
EXCLUS!0NSFROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay lossor damage, costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance,permit, or governmental regulation (includingthose relating to buildingand zoning) restricting,regulating. prohibiting,or relating to (i) the occupancy,useor enjoyment oi‘the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions,or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivisionof land; or (iv) environmentalprotection;
or the eitect of any violationof these laws,ordinances,or governmental regulations. ThisExclusion1(a) does not modifyor limitthe coverage provided under CoveredRisk 5.‘ (b) Any governmental police power, This Exclusion1(b) does not modify or limitthe coverageprovided under Covered Risk 6.‘ Rights of eminentdomain. This Exclusiondoes not modify or limit the coverageprovided under CoveredRisk’!or 8. 3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims,or other matters (3) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; . . (b) not Knownto the Company,not recordedin the Public Recordsat Date ol'Palicy,‘ in writing to the Companyby the InsuredClaimantprior to the date the Insured (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the InsuredClaimant; (d) attaching or ‘createdsubsequent to Date ol’Policy(however, this does not modify or limitthe coverageprovided under Covered Risk1I, 13, or 14); or _
part ofthe lienofthe Insured Mortgagethat arises out of the trans): ction evidencedby the or any consumercredit protection or truth-in—lendlnglaw.

6. Any claim,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors’rights laws,that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage,is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(1))of this policy.

Wand created or attaching betweenDateof Policyand
the date of recording of the Insured Mortgagein the PublicRecords.ThisExclusiondoesnot modify or limitthe coverageprovided under Covered Risk I 10:).

3. Easements,claims of easement or encumbrancesthat are not shown by the PublicRecords.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance,violation,
‘ conflicts in boundary lines,shortage in area, or 5. Unpatented mining claims;reservations or exception in patents or in acts authorizingthe lssuancethereof; claims or title to water. a water rights, 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services,labor or material theretoforeor hereafterfurnished,imposedby law and not shown by the PublicRecords. Page 5 Agenda Item #6.8.

The following matters are express!
expenses which arise by reason oi’:
i.

This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Companywill not pay costs, attorneys‘

2. 6. AMERICANLANDTITLEASSOCIATIONOWNER'SPOLICY(10-17-92)

EXCLUSIONSFROM COVERAGE
y excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Companywill not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys’ feesor (a) Any law,ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to buildingand zoning laws, ordinances,or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy,use, or enjoymentof the land; (ii) the character, dimensionsor location of any improvement now or hereaftererected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a changein the dimensionsor area of the land or any parcel ofwhich the land is or was:1 part; (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extentthat a notice public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding
from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy whichwould be bindingon the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.

Defects, liens,encumbrances,adverse claimsor other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insuredclaimant; (b) not knownto the Company, not recorded in the public recordsatyDateof Policy, > but knownto the insured claimant and not disclosedin writing to the Company by the insured claimantprior to the datethe insuredclaimant becamean insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no lossor damage to theinsured claimant; (ii) attaching or created subsequent to Date of §‘olicy; or (e) resulting in loss or dame
by this policy.

Any claim, which arises out oi‘the transaction vesting in the insuredthe estate or inter-est insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy. state insolvency,or similar creditors‘rights laws, that is basedon:
(2) the transaction creating the estate or interestinsuredby this policy being deemeda fraudulentconveyanceor fraudulent transfer; or

EXCEPTIONSFROM COVERAGE
feesor expenses) whicharise by reasonof:

Taxes or assessments which are not shownas existing liens by the records of any taxingauthority that leviestaxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

Any facts, rights, interests, or claimswhich are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.

Easements, claims of easement or encumbranceswhich are not shownby the public records, correct which are not shown by the public records. Unpatented mining claims,reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizingthe issuancethereof, water rights, claims or title to water. Any lien, or right to a lien,for services,labor or material tberetoforeor hereafterfurnished,imposedby law and not shown by the public records. Page 6 Agenda Item #6.8.

7. 2006 ALTA OWNER’SPOLICY (06-17-06) EXCLUSIONSFROM COVERAGE* The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverageof thispolicy, and the Companywillnot pay lossor damage,costs, attorneys’ fees, or expenses that arise by reasonof:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance,permit, or prohibiting, or relatingto (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character.dimensions,or locationoi‘any improvement erected on the Land: (ill) the subdivisionof land; or (iv) environmentaiprotecrlon;
governmental regulation ?ncluding those relating to buildingand zoning) restricting, regulating, 30 Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusiondoes not modify or limitthe coverage provided under CoveredRisk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances,adverse claims,or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the InsuredClaimant; (b) not Knownto the Company,not recorded in the Public Recordsat Date ot‘Polic d Claimant becamean Insuredunder this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subse and I0); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not havebeensustainedifthe InsuredClaimant had paid value for the Title.

4. Any claim, by reason of the operation offeder
Title as shownin ScheduleA, is
(3) a fraudulent conveyanceor fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in CoveredRisk 9 of this policy. at bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors’ rights laws,that the transaction vestingthe existing liens by the records of any taxing an
‘Records.
: 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claimsthat are not shown by the PublicRecords but tha t could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements,claims of easement or encumbrancesthat are not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment,encumbrance,violation,
' conflictsin boundarylines,shortage in area, or any other facts that would be disclosedby an accurate and complete land survey of the Land, and that are notshownin the PublicRecords. claims or title to water.

6. Any lien, or right to a Page 7
Agenda Item #6.8.

The following matters are expressl
expenses whicharise by reason of:

I,
to

7. 9.

8. ALTA EX.PAN'DEDCOVERAGERESIDENTIALLOANPOLICY(10/13/01)

EXCLUSIONSFROM COVERAGE
y excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Companywillnot pay lossor damage,costs,attorneys feesor (a) Any law, ordinanceor governmental regulation (including but not limitedto building and zoning laws,ordinances,or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy,use, or enjoyment of theLand; (ii) the character,dimensionsor location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the Land; (iii) a separation in ownership or g changein the dimensionsor areas or was a part; or (iv) environmentalprotection, ordinancesor governmental regulations, except to the extent that s notice of the enforcementt (b) Any governmental police power not excludedby
from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Knowledge.

Defects.liens,encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a)
’ created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the InsuredClaimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recordedin the Public Recordsat Dateof Policy,but Knownto the InsuredClaimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimantprior to the date the Insured Claimant becamean Insured under this policy; (2) resulting In no loss or damage to the InsuredClnlrnenl; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(this paragraph does not limit the coverageprovided under Covered Risks8, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.25 and 26); or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have hem sustained ifthe insured Claimanthad paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

Unenforceahility ofthe lien ofthe InsuredMortgage because of the inabilityor failure of the Insured failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness,to comply with applicable doing businesslaws o Invalidity or unenforceabilltcyof the lien of the InsuredMortgage, or claimthereof, whicharl Insured Mortgageand Is based upon usury, except as provided in CoveredRisk 27 at Date of Policy,or the inabilityor
t the state inwhich the Land issituated.
sesout of the transaction evidencedby the
3 0!" any consumer credit protection or truth in lendinglaw.

Real property taxes or assessments of any governmental nnthority which becomea lien on the Land subsequent to Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under CoveredRisks7, 8(a) and 26.

Any claim ofinvalidity, unenforceebility or lack of priority of the lieu of the Insured Mortgageas to advancesor modi?cationsmade after the Insured has Knowledgethat the Vestee shown in ScheduleA is no longer the owner of the estate or interestcovered by this policy.This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided InCoveredRisk 8. and all interest chargedthereon,
' tence olwhich are Known to the Insuredat;
greater as a result of the modi?cationthan it would have beenbefore the modili provided in Covered Risk 8.

daoarmo: ‘K3011053-
The First American Corporation
F irsz‘American TtitleCompany ofNapa Eirst American Title C°mP°”Y °fN“P" Privacy Policy
We Are Committed to SafeguardingCustomer Information
In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, information. We agree that you have a right to knowhow We will utilizethe pets Therefore, together with our parent company, The First ' ' govern the use and handlingof your personal information.

Types of Information
Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing,the types of nonpublic personal informationthatwemay collect include:
- Informationwe receive fromyou on applications,formsand in othercommunicationsto us, whetherin writing, in person, by telephone or any other means; Informationabout your transactionswith us, our affiliatedcompanies,or others;and Informationwe receive froma consumerreportingagency.

Use of Information
We request informationfrom you for our own legitimatebusinesspurposes and not for the bene?tof anynonaf?liatedparty. purpose, such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also ' information listed above to one or more of our a?iliated companies. Such affiliated companies include?nancialservice providers,such as title insurers,property and casualtyinsurers,and trust and investmentadvisorycompanies,or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies.

Former Customers . Even if you are no longer our customer, our PrivacyPolicy willcontinueto apply to you.

Con?dentiality and Security
We will use our best ’ © 2001 The FirstAmericanCorporation v All RightsReserved
Agenda Item #6.8.

“MK 1! 0 EIHIU PTN. RANCHO CARNE HUMAN/-1
FULTON
ommnft
M00103 P=w=uz:=oownan no-bmnavv muJ03 p3\unss‘f 5; Ilynqun an ' nomodmdwawssvsw 10.4P nu ma don 51111um» Aumnr a! Nun Cwntv mhaons1954 HETRACEDI978 OrdcrNo: TO0H053— Agenda Item #6.8.

Exhibit J
ApprovedTitle Exceptions(Hunter Property)
Agreement of Purchase and Sale By and Between the City of St. Helena and Dennis Hunter HELE\45969\734I 10.5 Agenda Item #6.8.

.‘ First AmeircmTitle
Company ofNapa
omenNo: 'roo11o52-

PRELIMINARYREPORT

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
First American Title Company ofNapa
1700 Second Street, Suite 120/P.O. Box 388
Napa, CA 94559
' Phone: (707) 254-4500 Fax (707) 226-9346
Property Address: Direct Title Inquiries to:

None Assigned Mitchell Glotzer
St. Helena, California _ E-mail: [email protected] Assessor’s Parcel Number: Phone: (707) 254 4500
009-030-020
Seller/Owner:

Dennis R. Hunter
In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance,thisCompanyhereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued,as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance,describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafterset forth, insuring against losswhichmay be sustainedby reason of any defect, lien or encumbrancenot shownor referred to as an exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed schedules,conditionsand stipulations of said policyforms.

The printed exceptions and exclusionsfrom the coverage of said policy or policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. ‘Copies of the policy forms shouldbe read. They are available from the of?ce whichissued this report.

Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is‘not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects,and encumbrances affectingtitle to the1and_ This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitatingthe or requested. Dated as ofJuly 21, 2003 at 7:30 A. M. By: Authorized Signatory Page 1 Agenda Item #6.8.

First AmeicanHtle
Company ofNapa
ORDERNO: T0011052-
The form of policy of title insurancecontemplated by thisreport is:
' ALTA Owner's Policy (6/17/06) with Regional Exceptions(Standard Coverage) Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:

DENNIS R. HUNTER,

AN D MAN
The estate or interest in the land hereinafterdescribedor referredto coveredby thisreport is:

A FEE
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions containedin said policy form would be as follows:
4 1. General and special taxes and assessments forthe fiscalyear 2008-09,a liennot yet due or payable.

The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessedpursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

3. An easement for underground water pipelines and incidentalpurposesin the documentrecorded December5, 1972 as Book 895 at page 383 of OfficialRecords. '
The terms and provisions contained in thedocumententitled "HuntAvenue StormDrainReimbursement Agreement"recorded November29, 1995as Series Number 1995026769of OfficialRecords.

5. The terms and provisions containedin the documententitled"Certi?cateof Cornpletion"recorded July26, 2002 as SeriesNumber 2002~0029720of OfficialRecords.

6. The lackof a right of access to and from the land.

7. Rights of parties in possession.
~ END OF EXCEPTIONS- Page 2
Agenda Item #6.8.

First Amican time
Company ofNapa
ORDERNO: T0011052—

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The land referred to in this report is situated in the City of St. Helena, CountyofNapa, State of California,and is described as follows:

COMMENCING at a point on the northwesternlineof the land formerly of D. 0. Hunt where the same is intersectedby the northeastern line of the 5 acre tract of land describedin the Deed to StephenJackse recorded March 17, 1919in Book 125 of Deeds at page 227,saidNapa CountyRecords;and runningthence alongsaid northwestern line of Hunt, North 28‘ 30' East 813.03feet to the southwesternline of the 17.22acre tract of land described in the Deed to ThomasQ.Swort?guer of record inBook 117 of Deeds at page 257,saidNapa County Records;thence along said line of Swort?guer South 72‘ 21‘East 570.6feet to the northwesternline of the 1-2/3 acre tract of land describedin the Deed to the Town of St. Helena, a municipal corporation, of record in Book 66 of Deeds at page 401, said Napa County Records;running along said northwesternline of the production thereof South 28‘ West 1226.78feet to the southwesternline of the 3.95 acre tract of land describedin TheDeed to Stephen Jaclcseof record in Book 129 of Deedsat page 478, said NapaCounty Records;thence along said southwestern lineNorth 62‘West 449.0 feet to the southeasternline of the aforesaid5 acre tract; thence along said southeastern line of said 5 acre tract South 28‘ 30'West 665.86 feet;thence North62‘West 114.5feet to the northwestern line of said 5 acres; thence alonghis mentionedline North 28‘ 30' East976.33feet to the point of commencement.
’ APN 009-030-020

WARNING
The Map attached hereto may or may not he a survey of the land depictedthereon. You shouldnot rely uponit for any purpose otherthan orientationto the generallocation of the parcel or parcels depicted. First American expressly disclaimsany liability for alleged lossor damagewhich may result fromrelianceupon suchmap.

Eirst American Title
Company a_fNapa
ORDERNO: T001105}-
Information Notes: a. General and specialtaxes and assessments for the ?scal year 2007-08.

First Installment : $8,876.85 PAID
SecondInstallment : $8,876.85 PAID
Tax Rate Area : 3000
A. P. No. 2 0O9~030-O20
b. The Assessor’s Parcel Number(s), if any, contained in the legaldescriptionherein, are forouickidenti?cation purposes only, and are not a part of the actual legal descriptions. c. Any statement regarding the acreage of the herein describedland containedwithinthe legal descriptionin this report is derived fromthe public record and is forrecordeddeedpurposes only. The Policy of Title Insurance contemplated by thisreport provides no insurancewith respect to acreage andno acreage statement will appear within the legal description ofsuchpolicy.
cl. The County Recorder may charge an additional$20.00 recordingfee, if not provided with a “Preliminary Change of Ownership Report" Form, for each Deed to be recorded. The purchaser isresponsible for completing and signing this form.
e. Before an escrow can close, or funds placed in a SavingsAccount,the Sellermust furnish a Taxpayer Identi?cation Number to us so that we can file an IRS Form 1099S or its equivalent,with the Internal Revenue Service. This procedure isrequiredby Section6045 ofthe InternalRevenueCode, f. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitrationclause.Whenthe Amount of Insurance is lessthan the certaindollaramount set forth in any applicablearbitrationclause,all arbitrablematters shall be arhitratedat the option of either the Company or the Insuredas the exclusiveremedy of theparties. If you desire to review the terms of the policy, including any arbitrationclausethat may be included,contact the office that issued this Commitment or Report to obtaina sample of the policyjacket forthe policythat isto be issuedin . connection with your nansaction.

Lenders Supplemental Report:
g. According to the public records,therehas beenno conveyance of the land withina period of two years prior to the date of this report, except as follows:

NONE
CSH
exn bv/ am 2cc: COOMBS & DUNLAPLLP, 1211DivisionSt, Napa, CA 94559 — Amy Valukevich Page 4
Agenda Item #6.8.

r ORDERNo: T0lil1052-
Form No. 1068-! (Rev. 06/17/06)

EXHIBIT A
LIST OF PRINTEDEXCEPTIONSAND EXCLUSIONS(By Policy Type)

1. CALIFORNIALAND 'I‘lTLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARDCOVERAGE POLICY — 1990

EXCLUSIONSFROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Companywill not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys‘ fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances,or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land‘,(ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensionsor area of the land or any parcel ofwhich the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect ofany violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice ofthe enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrancc resulting from a violation or alleged violationaffecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or noticeof a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the landhas been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.

Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy whichwould be binding on the rights ora purchaser for value without knowledge.

3. Defects, liens.cncu mbranccs, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreedto by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but knownto the insured claimant and not disclosedin writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for thc estate or interest insured by this policy.

4. Unenforceahllity of the lienofthc insured mortgage because of the lnabiii failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness,
situated.
ty or failure of the insured at Date afPolicy, or the inability or to comply with the applicable doing business lawsof the state in which the land is

5. Invalidity or uncnforccahility of the lieu of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out oftho transaction evidenced by the , insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lendinglaw.

6. Any claim, which arises out ufthe transaction vating in the insured the estate of interestinsured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvencyor similarcreditors‘ rights laws.

EXCEPTIONSFROM COVERAGE — SCHEDULE B, PART!
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys‘ fees or expenses) whicharise by reason of:

1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existingliens by the records of any taxing authority that leviestaxes or assessments on real property or by the public records. - Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or noticesofsuch proceedings,whether or not shown by the cgcords of such agency or by the public records. which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records. Page I Agenda Item #6.8.

Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines,shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts whicha correct survey would disclose.and which are not shown by the public records.
(:1) Unpotented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patent: or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (la)or (c) are shown by the public records.

2. CLTA HOMEOWNERJSPOLICYOF TITLE INSURANCE(10/22/03)

ALTA HOMEOWNEFJSPOLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE

EXCLUSIONS
in addition to the Exceptions in ScheduleB, You are not insuredagainst loss, costs, attorneys‘ fees,and expenses resulting from:
i, Governmental police power, and the existence or violation oi‘any law or regulations concerning:
government regulation. This includes ordinances, laws and . building
zoning
Land use
improvements on the Land
Land division
environmental protection
-"'£"°'PP"’
This Exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement ofthese matters ii‘noticeof the violationor enforcement appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14, 15, 16, 17 or 24.

2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not apply to violations of building codes ifnotice ofthe violation appears in the PublicRecordsat the PolicyDate.

3. The right to take the Land by condemning it, unless:
a. a notice of exercising the right appears in the Public Records at the Policy Date; or b. the taking happened before the PolicyDale and is binding on You ii'You bought the Land withoutKnowing ofthc taking.

4. Risks:
:1. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they appear in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unlessthey appear in the PublicRecordsat the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or d. that first occur after the Policy Date—this does not limit the coverage describedin CoveredRisk'7,8.d, 22, 23, 24 or 25.

5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.

6. Lack ofa right:
a. to any Land outside the area speci?cally describedand referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in CoveredRisk 11 or 18.

LIMITATIONSON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limitedon the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows:

For Covered Risk 14, 15, 16 and 18, Yourbcductible Amountand Our Maximum DollarLimit oi‘Llobiiityshown in schedule A.

Agenda Item #6.8.

The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limitsshown on Schedule A are as follows:

Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liablllg Covered Risk 14: 1% of Policy Amount or 3 2,500 - 5 10,000 (Subdivision Law Violation) (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 15: 1% ofPolicy Amount or S5,000 5 25.000
(Building Permit) (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 16: 1% of Policy Amountor 5 5,000 5 25,000 (Zoning) (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount or S 2,500 S 5,000 (Encroachment of Boundary Walls or Fences) (whichever is less)

3. AMERICANLANDTITLE ASSOCIATION
RESIDENTIALTITLE INSURANCEPOLICY(6-1-87)

EXCLUSIONS
in addition to the Exceptions in ScheduleB, you are not insuredagainst loss, costs, attorneys‘ fees, and expenses resulting from:

1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. ‘ This includesbuilding and zoning ordinances
and also laws and regulations concerning:
o land use . improvements on the land
0 land division
I environmental protection
This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date.

This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in Items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks.

2. The right to take the land by condemning it, unless: . a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records . on the Policy Date the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you ifyou boughtthc land withoutknowing ofthe taking

3. Title Risks:
that are created, allowed, or agreed to by you
that are known to you, but not to us, on the Policy Datewunless they appeared in the public records that result in no loss to you
nose
that first effect your title after the Policy Date - this does not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks

4. Failure to pay value for your title.

5. Lack of 8 right:
as to any land outside the area speci?cally described and referred to in Item3 of Schedule A OR a in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch your land This exclusiondoes not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risiu.

4. AMERICAN LANDTITLE ASSOCIATIONLOANPOLICY (10-17-92) WITH ALTA ENDORSEMENT-FORMI COVERAGE

EXCLUSIONSFROM COVERAGE
following matters expressly
1, (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limitedto buiidin restricting, regulating. prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, location of any improvement nowor hereafter erected on the land; olthe land or any parcel ofwhich the land is or was a part; ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the exten encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation g and zoninglaws, ordinances, or regulations) use, or enjoyment of the land;(ii) the character, dimensionsor (ill) a separation in ownershipor a change in the dimensionsor area or (iv) environmentalprotection, orthe effect of any violationof thesclews, t that a notice of the enforcement thereofora notice of a defect,lien or affecting the land has been recordedin the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excludedby (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice ole defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violationor alleged violation affecting the land has beenrecorded in the public records at Dateof Policy. Page 3 Agenda Item #6.8.

Rights of eminentdomain unless noticeof the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policywhich wouldbe binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.

3. Defects, liens.encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, so lfered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosedin writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior-to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(exceptto the extent that thispolicy insures the priority of the lieu of the insured mortgage over any statutory lien forservices,labor or material or to the extent insurance is afforded herein as to assessments for street improvements under constructionor completed at Date of Policy); or e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insuredmortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with applicable doing businesslaws of the state in which the land is situated.

5. invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumercredit protection or truth in lending law.

6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials (or theclaim of priority of any statutory lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising from an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commenced subsequent to Date of Policy and is not ?nanced in wholeor in part by proceeds of the indebtednesssecured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policythe insured has advanced or is obligated to advance.

7. Any claim,which arises out of the transaction creating the interest of the mortgagee insured by this policy, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors‘rights laws, that is based on:
(i) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mortgagee being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudu lent transfer; or (ii) the subordination of the interest ofthe insured mortgagee as a result of the application oithe doctrine or equitable subordination; or (iii) the transaction creating the interest of the insured mort gages being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure:
(a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or
(b) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor.

The above palicyforms may be issued to affordeither Standard Coverage or ExtendedCoverage. In additionto Hit?aboveExclusionsframCoverage, the Excepriolys?oln Coverage in a Standard Coveragepolicy willalso includethe following GeneralExceptions:

EXCEPTIONSFROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys‘ fees or expenses) which arise by reasonof:

1. Taxes or assessments which are not shownas existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.

3. Easements, claimsof easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the publicrecords.

4. Discrepancies, contlicts in boundary lines,shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records. water claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services,labor or material theretoiore or hereafter furnished,imposedby law and not shown by the public records. Page 4 Agenda Item #6.8.

S. 2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (D6-17-—(l6)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverageof this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage. costs, attorneys‘ fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating tobuilding and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision ofland; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances.or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk5.
’
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusiondoes not modify or limit the coverage providedunder Covered Risk? or 8.

3. Defects.liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (:1) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (is) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy,but Known to the insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured Claimantprior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk11, 13, or 14); or
(c) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforcenbility of the lien of the insured Mortgage because oftlie inability or failure ofanInsured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien ofthe Insured Mortgage that arises out ofthe transaction evidenced by the insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.

6. Any claim.by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.

Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Dateof Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the PublicRecords. This Exclusion doesnot modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).

The above policyformsmay be issued to affordeitherStandard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the aboveExclusionsfromCoverage, the ExceptionsfromCoverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include lhe?zlloivlug GeneralExceptiaiis:

1. The lien of real estate taxes or assessments imposed on the Title by a governmental authority that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that leviestaxes or assessments on real property or in the Public Records.
'

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the PublicRecords but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances that are not shownby the Public Records.

Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation,variation or adverse circumstance affectingthe Title including discrepancies,

5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exception in patents or‘ in acts authorizingthe issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. ~ Any lien, or right to a
lien,
for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. Page 5 Agenda Item #6.8.

6. AMERICAN LANDTITLE ASSOCIATIONOWNER‘S POLICY (10-17-92)

EXCLUSIONSFROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys‘ feesor expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (11)the character, dimensionsor location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area ofthe land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection. or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcementthereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public recordsat Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, exce lien or encumbrance resulting from a violationor all
Policy.
pt to the extent that a notice ofthe exercise thereof or a notice of a defect. eged violationaffecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Dateof

2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the publicrecords at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taldng which has occurred prior to Date of Policywhich would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge. 3, Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insuredclaimant; (b) not knownto the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosedin writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimantbecame an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate orinteresl insured by this policy.

4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason ofthe operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors‘ rights laws, that is based on:
(i) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or (ii) the transaction creating the estate or interest insuredby this policy beingdeemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential transfer results from the failure:
(a) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or
(b) ofsuch rccordation to impart notice to a purchaser for value or a judgment or lien creditor.

The above palicyforms may be issued to a?ordeither Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions fromCoverage, the ExceptionsfromCoverage In 11Standard CoveragePolicywillalso includethe?zllawing GeneralExceptions:

EXCEPTIONSFROMCOVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys‘ fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

2. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existingliens by the records of any taxing authority that leviestaxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims whichare not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof.

3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 3 correct survey would disclose,and which are not shown by the public records. ’ 5, Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof, water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished,imposedby law and not shown by the public records. Page 6 Agenda Item #6.8.

7. mos ALTA ownervsPOLICY (as-17.—ua)
EXCLUSIONSFROM covcnacs
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage oi’this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys‘ fees, or expenses that arise by reason oi‘:

1. (2)
(11)
Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(I) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment oithe Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision ofland; or
(iv) envimnmentalprotection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk5.

Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights ofeminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under CoveredRisk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens.encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (11)
(b)
(C)
(d)
(9)
created, sulfered.assumed.or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Knownto the InsuredClaimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained ii‘the insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.

Any claim, by reason of the operation oi‘federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction vestingthe Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(X)
(b)
a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or a preferential transfer for any reasonnot stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.

Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date oi’recording ofthe deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.

The abavepnlicyfarlus may be issued to affordeither Standard Coverageor Extended Coverage.‘ In addition to the aboveExclusionsfromCoverage, the Exception:fromCoverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include thefollawlrxg General Exceptions:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policydoes not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys‘ fees or expenses) which arise by reason at’:

1. The lien of real estate taxes or assessments imposed on the Title by a governmental authority that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or in the Public Records.
‘
Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession of the Land.

Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances that are not shown by the Public Records.

Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation,variation or adverse circumstance affectingthe Title including discrepancies, conflictsin boundary lines,shortage in area, or any other facts that would be disclosedby an accurate and complete land survey of the Land, and that are not shown in the Public Records.

Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exception in patents or in acts authorizingthe issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. ‘

Agenda Item #6.8.

8. ALTA EXPANDEDCOVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (10/13ll]i)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage ofthis policy and the Companywill not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances,or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) theoccupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the Land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or areas of theLand or any parcel of which the Land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that 9 notice of the enforcement thereof or a noticeof a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violationaffecting the Land has been recorded in the PublicRecords at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12, 13;ill, and 16 of this policy. (to) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thercofor a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the Land has been recorded in the Pubiicilecords at Date of Policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 12, 13,id, and 16 of this policy.

Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereofhas been recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights ofa purchaser {or value without Knowledge.

Defects, llens,encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Recordsat Date of Pulley, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in noloss or damage to the insured Claimant; (ii) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (this paragraph does not limit the coverage provided under CoveredRisks 8, 16, 18,19, 20, 21,21, 23, 24, 25 and 26); or » (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

Unenforceahility of the lien ofthe insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness,to comply with applicable doing business laws of the state in which the Land is situated. invalidity or unenforceabiiity of the lien of the Insured Mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidencedby the insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, except as provided in Covered Risk 27,or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.

Real property taxes or assessments of any governmental authority which become a lienon the Land subsequent to Date of Policy. This
exclusiondoes not limit the coverage provided under Covered Risks 7, 8(a) and 26.

Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lieu of the insured Mortgage as to advancesor modifications made after the insured has Knowledge that the vestee shownin Schedule A is no longer the owner ofthe estate or interestcovered by this policy. This exclusion does not limit the coverage provided in CoveredRisk 8.

Lack of priority of the lien of the insured Mortgage as to each and every advance made after Date ofPollcy, and all interest charged thereon, over liens, encumbrances and other matters affecting the title, the existence of which are Known to the insured at:
(a) The time of the advance; or
(b) The time a modi?cation is made to the terms of the Insured Mortgage which changes the rate ofinterest charged, if the rate of interest is greater as a result of the modi?cation than it would have been before the modification. This exclu _d d
I C d R_ k 8
sion does not limit the coverage
[DFOVIE m OVBFE IS .

The failure of the residential structure, or any portion thereofto have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This exclusiondoes not apply to violations of building codesif notice ofthe violationappears in the Public Records at Date of Policy.

DannaNo: T001]0S2-
The First American Corporation
_. _ First American Title Company of Napa
First American Zlitle
C°”‘P‘"‘3’ °fN"P“ Privacy «Policy
We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information
In order to better serve your needs now and in the future, we may ask you to provide us with certain information. We understandthat you may be concerned about what we will do with such information — particularly any personalor ?nancial information. We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilizethe personal information you provide to us. Therefore, together with our parent company, The First American Corporation, we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personalinformation. ' Applicability
This Privacy Policy governs our use of the informationwhich you provide to us. it does not govern the manner in whichwe may use information we have obtained from any other source, such as informationobtained from a public record or from another person or entity. First American has also adopted broader guidelinesthat govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair InformationValues,a copy of which can be found on our websiteat www.firstam.com.

Types of Information
Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing, the types of nonpublicpersonal information that we may collect include:
'
Information we receive from you on applications,forms and in other communicationsto us, whether in writing, in person, by telephone or any other means;
- Informationabout your transactionswith us, our affiliated companies,or others; and in Information we receive from a consumerreporting agency.

Use of Information - We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the bene?t of any nonaf?liated party.

Therefore, we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except: (1) as necessaryfor us to providethe product or service you have requested of us; or (2) as permitted by law. We may, however, store such information inde?nitely, including the period after which any customer relationship has ceased. Such informationmay be used for any internal purpose,such as quality control efforts or customer analysis. We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal informationlisted above to one or more of our affiliated companies. Such af?liated companies include financialservice providers,such as title insurers, property and casualty insurers, and trust and investmentadvisory companies,or companies involved in real estate services, such as appraisal companies, home warranty companies, and escrow companies.

Furthermore, we may also provide all the information we collect, as describedabove, to companiesthat perform marketing serviceson our behalf, on behalf of our affiliatedcompanies, or to other financial institutionswith whom we or our a?iliated companieshave joint marketing agreements.

Former Customers
Even if you are no longer our customer, our PrivacyPolicy will continue to apply to you.

Confidentiality and Security
to to who need to know that information to provide products or services to you. We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employeesand agentsto ensure that your informationwill be handled responsibly and in accordancewith this Privacy Policy and First American’sFair In?ormation Values. We currently maintainphysical,electronic,and procedural safeguards that comply withfederal regulations to guard your nonpublicpersonal information. © 2001TheFirstAmericanCorporation v All RightsReserved
Agenda Item #6.8.

IV‘) 3
0 °’-‘ 0. .,I ~
~ ,g
$.05 =' 3 2
‘-
DDK
IE
E!
'U8
cm 388
émn E
E? E ._ -
OWIGE I?-31-M mun‘
' u030-I9
». mm-.5: lo 55 Lu
10:51.01 mu:

PTN. RANCHO CARNE HUMANA 3002
(HUDSON /v
‘ 1 / W033 nn
- .
-'1 H3lHM3é)VWVO 80 S901 '"°‘*’°H I O393T1V80;h\ln!8Vl"tANVSWM3$1€1 PBIMVIMJN00 “ll 10 -(991119-‘H Mssazme !~i‘d312i3WVism ‘G313-Id3Cl s1a:>uv.s:10 13am amso Nouvam ‘IVd3H‘:\5)amonNouvmamomm aamoasoeuna M\'V2:lO$1| NOd? mas
ION muons
no). 'ND§?J3H aaxaxaaaam am
‘ :§OA3I\HnS\i2E1GNAVW80.RW‘ldVWSlHl W11°: WUMFV3: lmsqbn on ‘ 1390
sasodandmauxssaxsy :03 pm we
so» daresxtu=31ON DEPICTEDTHEREON.YOUSHOULDNOTRELYUPONIT ARCELORP EXPRESSLYDISCLAIMSANY LIABILITYFOR ALLEGEDLOSSoR DAMAGEwmcn MAY RESULT :*«R<3‘t\]4‘$zf13-;I:'.S1A)r»}13cf:’£C“i}‘1:Sc1))1§: ?r?TM\AN1£ERICAN OrderNo: T00] 1052. WARNING: THEMAP ATTACHED HERETO MAY 0R MAY NOT BE.A SURVEYOF FOR ANY PURPOSEOTHER THANORXENTATIONTO THEGENERALLOCATXONOFTHEP Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTERSUBDIVISION

HYDROLOGYANALYSIS

EXHIBITC
FIGURENO. 6 — OVERALLSITE MAP SUB BASIN DELINEATION MAP MEAD & HUNT— INTERIOR DRAINAGEANALYSISFINALREPORT
Agenda Item #6.8.

’“\"“‘°\“’°°‘\""‘\°’“'°\R “‘l|¢\6¢WkIlII\1nno—m-canal-saannng an :17 2911 _ ,1“-7,,‘

SUBMI TTED
TiAPF‘-' lUVIU
'$11: 3‘
'4. NO. ma
-——q—:_1— R<_i3Ec
ItAI\I Ix-. PROTECTION noon ,_..., 5I9u~o5uo1 ..I,STLHEL -5'-. ':..-I No. FIGURE -.-.vI\*4LA_6SHE MAP OVERALL lath")?! ('1an-‘nu :4.\VIl.q:1u. N-v MAP DEUNEATION SUB~B/LSIH 1'-..|;\‘S|u|"|-an .ln:~.|lllJv?l\'!k‘. M-H-0!

Agenda Item #6.8.

Interior
Drainage
Analysis
Miller Property/Hunter
Property/Hunt Avenue
Final Report
._~‘.Ll§ . City of St. Helena
Comprehensive Flood
Protection Project
Report prepared by
Offices Nationwide
www.meadhunt.com
February 2012
Agenda Item #6.8.

Existing Conditions SWMMModel Output
10 year Storm Event
Agenda Item #6.8.

######################################
# Rainfall input summary from Runoff #
######################################
Total rainfall for gage # 1 is 6.2357 inches
##############################
# Data Group Fl #
# Evaporation Rate (in/month)#
##############################
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
#############################
# Data Group F1 #
# Evaporation Rate (in/day) #
#############################
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000
###################################################

2.. u‘
'~ - e r.-;«
‘ w
— -
-" ~,«- 1
# Physical Hydrology Data #
###################################################
...L . r
Deprs Deprs Prcnt
A —sion —sion Zero
Subcatchment Channel Width Area
‘EEK Slope "n" "n" Storge Strge Deten
TQ Name or inlet (ft) (ac) A ft/ft Imprv Perv Imprv Perv —tion Nl 11.100 70.00 0.000 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00 2 N2#l N2 6000.0 22.900 70.00 0.000 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00 3 N2#2 N2 431.00 9.9000 30.00 0.001 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00 Agenda Item #6.8.

1 N7#1 N7 600.00 15.000
"1 0.024 0.014 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.00
5 N7#2 N7 3703.0 8.5000

0.00 0.000 0.014 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.00
6 N4#l N4 2100.0 4.8000

42.40 0.000 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00
################################################################# ######################################
# Table R2. SUBCATCHMENT DATA
#
# Infiltration or Time of Concentration Data
#
#
#
# Infiltration Type Infl #1(#5) Infl #2(#6)
Infl #3(#7) Infl #4(#8) #
# SCS —> Comp CN Time Conc
Shape Factor Depth or Fraction #
# SBUH —> Comp CN Time Conc
N/A N/A #
# Green Ampt —> Suction Hydr Cond
Initial MD N/A #
# Horton —> Max Rate Min Rate Decay
Rate (1/sec) Max. Infilt. Volume #
# Proportional ~> Constant N/A
N/A N/A #
# Initial/Cont Loss —> Initial Continuing N/A N/A #
# Initial/Proportional —> Initial Constant
N/A N/A #
# Laurenson Parameters —> B Value Pervious "n"
Impervious Cont Exponent #
# Rational Formula —> To Method Flow Path Length Flow
Path Slope Roughness or Retardance #
# (#1 — #4 is Impervious Data / #5
— #8 is Pervious Data) #
# Rational Formula Tc Method: 1 = Constant
#
# 2 = Friend's
Equation #
# 3 = Kinematic
Wave #
# 4 = Alameda
5 = Izzard's Formula # # 6
= Kerby's Equation # # 7= Kirpich's Equation #
Agenda Item #6.8.

Proposed Conditions SWMMModel Output
100 year Storm Event
Agenda Item #6.8.

######################################
# Rainfall input summary from Runoff #
######################################
Total rainfall for gage # 1 is 8.9995 inches
##############################
# Data Group Fl #
# Evaporation Rate (in/month)#
##############################
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
#############################
# Data Group Fl #
# Evaporation Rate (in/day) #
#############################
JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

0.000 0.000
#### #####..
lo:
:1::###################################
# Physical Hydrology Data # ################################################### Deprs Deprs Prcnt
IIE¥1? —sion —sion Zero
Subcatchment Channel Width Area
(in Slope "n" "n" Storge Strge Deten
‘l???i Name or inlet (ft) (ac) ?x ft/ft Imprv Perv Imprv Perv —tion 1 Nl#l Nl 4835.0 ll.lO0 70.00 0.000 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00 2 N2#l N2 6000.0 22.900 70.00 0.000 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00 3 N2#2 N2 431.00 9.9000 Agenda Item #6.8.

30.00 0.001 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00
‘an N7#l N7
“E50010 0.014 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.00
5 N9#1 N9

70.00 0.010 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00
6 N9#2 N9

0.00 0.006 0.014 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.00
7 N4#1 N4

42.40 0.000 0.014 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.00
15000. 15.000
14750. 8.5000
545.00 1.2500
2100.0 4.8000
################################################################# ######################################
# Table R2. SUBCATCHMENT DATA
#
# Infiltration or Time of Concentration Data
#
#
#
# Infiltration Type Infl #l(#5) Infl #2(#6)
Infl #3(#7)
Infl #4(#8) #
# SCS —> Comp CN Time Conc
Shape Factor Depth or Fraction #
# SBUH -> Comp CN Time Conc N/A N/A #
# Green Ampt —> Suction Hydr Cond
Initial MD N/A #
# Horton —> Max Rate Min Rate Decay Rate (1/sec) Max. Infilt. Volume # # Proportional —> Constant N/A
N/A N/A #
# Initial/Cont Loss —> Initial Continuing N/A N/A #
# Initial/Proportional —> Initial Constant N/A N/A #
# Laurenson Parameters —> B Value Pervious "n"
Impervious Cont Exponent #
# Rational Formula —> To Method Flow Path Length Flow
Path Slope Roughness or Retardance #
# (#1 — #4 is Impervious Data / #5 - #8 is Pervious Data) # # Rational Formula Tc Method: 1 = Constant #
#
2 = Friend's Equation #
# 4
= Alameda Method # # 5= Izzard's Formula # # 6= Kerby's Agenda Item #6.8.

Noise Appendix – Field Data Sheets
Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT1 24-Hour Noise Levels
CNEL Calculation
Leq Time Adjustment

36.3 Midnight 10 46.3 46.3
37 1 10 47 47

38.8 2 10 48.8 48.8

36.4 3 10 46.4 46.4

38.7 4 10 48.7 48.7

42.8 5 10 52.8 52.8

43.5 6 10 53.5 53.5

45.6 7am 45.6 45.6
45 8 45 45

42.4 9 42.4 42.4

40.7 10 40.7 40.7

42.4 11 42.4 42.4

51.7 noon 51.7 51.7

41.5 1 41.5 41.5

43.1 2 43.1 43.1

40.9 3 40.9 40.9

42.6 4 42.6 42.6

40.3 5 40.3 40.3

45.9 6 45.9 45.9

39.3 7 5 44.3 39.3

39.5 8 5 44.5 39.5

38.7 9 5 43.7 38.7
43 10 10 53 53

36.6 11 10 46.6 46.6

47.7 47.5

CNEL LDN

Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT2 24-Hour Noise Levels
CNEL Calculation
Leq Time Adjustment
39 Midnight 10 49 49

39.4 1 10 49.4 49.4

39.9 2 10 49.9 49.9
40 3 10 50 50

43.7 4 10 53.7 53.7

46.1 5 10 56.1 56.1

46.9 6 10 56.9 56.9

47.2 7am 47.2 47.2

43.3 8 43.3 43.3

41.7 9 41.7 41.7

41.7 10 41.7 41.7

42.7 11 42.7 42.7

40.7 noon 40.7 40.7

41.8 1 41.8 41.8

40.1 2 40.1 40.1

40.2 3 40.2 40.2

40.5 4 40.5 40.5

39.9 5 39.9 39.9

42.7 6 42.7 42.7

41.8 7 5 46.8 41.8

42.5 8 5 47.5 42.5

47.4 9 5 52.4 47.4
41 10 10 51 51

39.4 11 10 49.4 49.4

49.6 49.2

CNEL LDN

Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT3 24-Hour Noise Levels
CNEL Calculation
Leq Time Adjustment

38.9 Midnight 10 48.9 48.9

40.3 1 10 50.3 50.3

39.9 2 10 49.9 49.9

39.6 3 10 49.6 49.6

41.2 4 10 51.2 51.2

42.8 5 10 52.8 52.8

45.6 6 10 55.6 55.6

45.9 7am 45.9 45.9

43.6 8 43.6 43.6

42.6 9 42.6 42.6

40.3 10 40.3 40.3

43.1 11 43.1 43.1

60.9 noon 60.9 60.9

46.5 1 46.5 46.5

44.1 2 44.1 44.1
46 3 46 46

46.7 4 46.7 46.7

48.2 5 48.2 48.2

46.6 6 46.6 46.6

51.2 7 5 56.2 51.2

51.3 8 5 56.3 51.3

46.2 9 5 51.2 46.2

43.7 10 10 53.7 53.7

40.2 11 10 50.2 50.2

52.2 51.4

CNEL LDN

Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT1 24-Hour Measurement
with Hourly Statistics
Rec 1 to 24 Slow Response
Date hh:mm:ss LeqPeriod Leq
10/16/2018 11:58 1.0 hour 51.7
10/16/2018 12:58 1.0 hour 41.5
10/16/2018 13:58 1.0 hour 43.1
10/16/2018 14:58 1.0 hour 40.9
10/16/2018 15:58 1.0 hour 42.6
10/16/2018 16:58 1.0 hour 40.3
10/16/2018 17:58 1.0 hour 45.9
10/16/2018 18:58 1.0 hour 39.3
10/16/2018 19:58 1.0 hour 39.5
10/16/2018 20:58 1.0 hour 38.7
10/16/2018 21:58 1.0 hour 43
10/16/2018 22:58 1.0 hour 36.6
10/16/2018 23:58 1.0 hour 36.3
10/17/2018 0:58 1.0 hour 37
10/17/2018 1:58 1.0 hour 38.8
10/17/2018 2:58 1.0 hour 36.4
10/17/2018 3:58 1.0 hour 38.7
10/17/2018 4:58 1.0 hour 42.8
10/17/2018 5:58 1.0 hour 43.5
10/17/2018 6:58 1.0 hour 45.6
10/17/2018 7:58 1.0 hour 45
10/17/2018 8:58 1.0 hour 42.4
10/17/2018 9:58 1.0 hour 40.7
10/17/2018 10:58 1.0 hour 42.4
Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT2 24-Hour Measurement
with Hourly Statistics
Rec 1 to 24 Slow Response dBA weighting
Date hh:mm:ss LeqPeriod Leq
10/16/2018 11:26 1.0 hour 42.7
10/16/2018 12:26 1.0 hour 40.7
10/16/2018 13:26 1.0 hour 41.8
10/16/2018 14:26 1.0 hour 40.1
10/16/2018 15:26 1.0 hour 40.2
10/16/2018 16:26 1.0 hour 40.5
10/16/2018 17:26 1.0 hour 39.9
10/16/2018 18:26 1.0 hour 42.7
10/16/2018 19:26 1.0 hour 41.8
10/16/2018 20:26 1.0 hour 42.5
10/16/2018 21:26 1.0 hour 47.4
10/16/2018 22:26 1.0 hour 41
10/16/2018 23:26 1.0 hour 39.4
10/17/2018 0:26 1.0 hour 39
10/17/2018 1:26 1.0 hour 39.4
10/17/2018 2:26 1.0 hour 39.9
10/17/2018 3:26 1.0 hour 40
10/17/2018 4:26 1.0 hour 43.7
10/17/2018 5:26 1.0 hour 46.1
10/17/2018 6:26 1.0 hour 46.9
10/17/2018 7:26 1.0 hour 47.2
10/17/2018 8:26 1.0 hour 43.3
10/17/2018 9:26 1.0 hour 41.7
10/17/2018 10:26 1.0 hour 41.7
Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT3 24-Hour Measurement
with Hourly Statistics
Rec 1 to 24 Slow Response dBA weighting
Date hh:mm:ss LeqPeriod Leq
10/16/2018 11:44 1.0 hour 60.9
10/16/2018 12:44 1.0 hour 46.5
10/16/2018 13:44 1.0 hour 44.1
10/16/2018 14:44 1.0 hour 46
10/16/2018 15:44 1.0 hour 46.7
10/16/2018 16:44 1.0 hour 48.2
10/16/2018 17:44 1.0 hour 46.6
10/16/2018 18:44 1.0 hour 51.2
10/16/2018 19:44 1.0 hour 51.3
10/16/2018 20:44 1.0 hour 46.2
10/16/2018 21:44 1.0 hour 43.7
10/16/2018 22:44 1.0 hour 40.2
10/16/2018 23:44 1.0 hour 38.9
10/17/2018 0:44 1.0 hour 40.3
10/17/2018 1:44 1.0 hour 39.9
10/17/2018 2:44 1.0 hour 39.6
10/17/2018 3:44 1.0 hour 41.2
10/17/2018 4:44 1.0 hour 42.8
10/17/2018 5:44 1.0 hour 45.6
10/17/2018 6:44 1.0 hour 45.9
10/17/2018 7:44 1.0 hour 43.6
10/17/2018 8:44 1.0 hour 42.6
10/17/2018 9:44 1.0 hour 40.3
10/17/2018 10:44 1.0 hour 43.1
Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT1 24-Hour Noise Data
Rec 1 to 28 Slow Response dBA weighting 0.5 dB resolution stats Date hh:mm:ss LeqPeriod Leq Lmax Lmin L1% L5% L10% L50% L90% 10/16/2018 11:58 1.0 hour 51.7 81.9 36.5 55 46 42 38 36.5 10/16/2018 12:58 1.0 hour 41.5 61 35.5 50.5 45 43 38.5 36.5 10/16/2018 13:58 1.0 hour 43.1 65.2 36.7 53 47.5 44 38.5 36.5 10/16/2018 14:58 1.0 hour 40.9 66.3 36.7 50 44 41.5 38.5 36.5 10/16/2018 15:58 1.0 hour 42.6 57.6 36.7 51 46.5 44.5 39.5 36.5 10/16/2018 16:58 1.0 hour 40.3 54.7 36.7 48 43.5 42 38.5 36.5 10/16/2018 17:58 1.0 hour 45.9 65.2 36.7 58.5 52 45.5 39.5 38.5 10/16/2018 18:58 1.0 hour 39.3 53 35.3 47.5 42.5 40.5 38.5 36.5 10/16/2018 19:58 1.0 hour 39.5 53.9 33.8 46 42.5 41 38.5 36.5 10/16/2018 20:58 1.0 hour 38.7 56.1 33.8 45.5 41.5 40 36.5 36.5 10/16/2018 21:58 1.0 hour 43 65.9 33.8 51.5 44 41 36.5 35 10/16/2018 22:58 1.0 hour 36.6 45.5 33.8 42 39 38 36.5 35 10/16/2018 23:58 1.0 hour 36.3 46.1 33.8 42 38.5 37.5 36 35 10/17/2018 0:58 1.0 hour 37 52.7 33.8 41.5 39.5 38.5 36.5 35 10/17/2018 1:58 1.0 hour 38.8 54.3 33.8 48 44 40.5 36.5 35 10/17/2018 2:58 1.0 hour 36.4 46.8 33.8 43 38.5 36.5 36 35 10/17/2018 3:58 1.0 hour 38.7 47.8 33.8 43.5 41.5 40.5 38 35 10/17/2018 4:58 1.0 hour 42.8 57.4 36.7 48 45 44 42.5 38.5 10/17/2018 5:58 1.0 hour 43.5 53.4 38.5 47.5 45.5 45 43 41 10/17/2018 6:58 1.0 hour 45.6 67.3 40.6 50.5 47 46 44 42 10/17/2018 7:58 1.0 hour 45 63.2 39.7 52.5 47.5 46.5 43.5 41 10/17/2018 8:58 1.0 hour 42.4 50.2 38.9 46 44 43.5 42 40.5 10/17/2018 9:58 1.0 hour 40.7 54.2 36.7 48.5 43 42 39.5 37 10/17/2018 10:58 1.0 hour 42.4 59.4 36.7 52 47 45 39 38 10/17/2018 11:58 1.0 hour 42 64.4 36.7 54 45.5 42.5 38.5 36.5 10/17/2018 12:58 1.0 hour 43.6 65.2 36.3 55 48.5 45.5 38.5 36.5 10/17/2018 13:58 1.0 hour 41 60.6 36.2 50 45.5 43 38 36.5 10/17/2018 14:58 25.1 min 49 76.9 36.7 50.5 45.5 42.5 38.5 36.5 Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT2 24-Hour Data
Rec 1 to 29 Slow Response dBA weighting 0.5 dB resolution stats Date hh:mm:ss LeqPeriod Leq Lmax Lmin L1% L5% L10% L50% L90% 10/16/2018 11:26 1.0 hour 42.7 69.7 37.3 50 42 40 39 39 10/16/2018 12:26 1.0 hour 40.7 54.3 37.3 47.5 43 42 40 39 10/16/2018 13:26 1.0 hour 41.8 56.2 37.3 49.5 45 43.5 40 39 10/16/2018 14:26 1.0 hour 40.1 53.7 37.2 46 42 41 39 38.5 10/16/2018 15:26 1.0 hour 40.2 50.7 37.3 45 42.5 42 39 37.5 10/16/2018 16:26 1.0 hour 40.5 62.6 37.3 49.5 42.5 40.5 39 37 10/16/2018 17:26 1.0 hour 39.9 64.5 37.2 45.5 41.5 40 38.5 37 10/16/2018 18:26 1.0 hour 42.7 53 37.3 47.5 45 44.5 42 40 10/16/2018 19:26 1.0 hour 41.8 51.3 37.2 47.5 45 44 41 38.5 10/16/2018 20:26 1.0 hour 42.5 54.8 37.3 48 45.5 44.5 41.5 39 10/16/2018 21:26 1.0 hour 47.4 72 37.3 50 45.5 44.5 41 39 10/16/2018 22:26 1.0 hour 41 52.8 37 47.5 44.5 43 39.5 37 10/16/2018 23:26 1.0 hour 39.4 50.8 34.3 45 42.5 41.5 38.5 37 10/17/2018 0:26 1.0 hour 39 47.1 34.3 43.5 42 41 38 35.5 10/17/2018 1:26 1.0 hour 39.4 48.4 34.3 45 42.5 41.5 38.5 37 10/17/2018 2:26 1.0 hour 39.9 49.4 34.3 46.5 44 42.5 38.5 37 10/17/2018 3:26 1.0 hour 40 55.6 37.1 46 43 42 39 37
10/17/2018 4:26 1.0 hour 43.7 56.7 37.3 51 47 46 42 40
10/17/2018 5:26 1.0 hour 46.1 52.8 40.2 50 49 48 45.5 42.5 10/17/2018 6:26 1.0 hour 46.9 55.6 42.5 50 48.5 48 46.5 45 10/17/2018 7:26 1.0 hour 47.2 60.9 44.3 51.5 49 48 46.5 45 10/17/2018 8:26 1.0 hour 43.3 58.9 40.3 49 45.5 44.5 42 41 10/17/2018 9:26 1.0 hour 41.7 58.8 39.1 49 43.5 42 40 40 10/17/2018 10:26 1.0 hour 41.7 59.8 39 49 44.5 42 40 39 10/17/2018 11:26 1.0 hour 40.8 51.2 38.8 47 43.5 42 40 39 10/17/2018 12:26 1.0 hour 43.9 60.6 38.6 54 47 44.5 41 39.5 10/17/2018 13:26 1.0 hour 41.6 58 37.3 49 44.5 42.5 40 39 10/17/2018 14:26 1.0 hour 41.2 51.2 37.3 46.5 43.5 42.5 40.5 39 10/17/2018 15:26 5.6 min 45.1 62.1 38.8 58.5 45.8 42.7 41 40 Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision Location LT3 24-Hour Noise Data
Rec 1 to 24 Slow Response dBA weighting 0.5 dB resolution stats Date hh:mm:ss LeqPeriod Leq Lmax Lmin L1% L5% L10% L50% L90% 10/16/2018 11:44 1.0 hour 60.9 91.9 35.7 59 51.5 49.5 42.5 38.5 10/16/2018 12:44 1.0 hour 46.5 64.4 38.3 57.5 50 47.5 43 40.5 10/16/2018 13:44 1.0 hour 44.1 64.8 38.5 51 47 45.5 42.5 40 10/16/2018 14:44 1.0 hour 46 61.6 38.6 53.5 49.5 48 44.5 42.5 10/16/2018 15:44 1.0 hour 46.7 63.6 38.6 57 51 48 44 41.5 10/16/2018 16:44 1.0 hour 48.2 69.5 38.5 60 54.5 48 42.5 40.5 10/16/2018 17:44 1.0 hour 46.6 63.7 38.4 57.5 50 48 43.5 40.5 10/16/2018 18:44 1.0 hour 51.2 72.5 39.8 59.5 55 54.5 47.5 42.5 10/16/2018 19:44 1.0 hour 51.3 56.1 38.6 55 54 53 50.5 50 10/16/2018 20:44 1.0 hour 46.2 60.6 35.7 52.5 51 50.5 42.5 39 10/16/2018 21:44 1.0 hour 43.7 64 35.7 52 45 44 40.5 38.5 10/16/2018 22:44 1.0 hour 40.2 50.8 35.7 47 44 42.5 38.5 35.5 10/16/2018 23:44 1.0 hour 38.9 49.1 35.7 44 42 41 38.5 35.5 10/17/2018 0:44 1.0 hour 40.3 58 35.7 47 43 42 38.5 35.5 10/17/2018 1:44 1.0 hour 39.9 51.1 35.7 46.5 43.5 42 38.5 35.5 10/17/2018 2:44 1.0 hour 39.6 55.8 35.7 46.5 43 41 38.5 36 10/17/2018 3:44 1.0 hour 41.2 59 35.7 48.5 44.5 43.5 39.5 38.5 10/17/2018 4:44 1.0 hour 42.8 51.7 38.3 48 46 45 41.5 38.5 10/17/2018 5:44 1.0 hour 45.6 50.6 40.3 48.5 47.5 47 45 43 10/17/2018 6:44 1.0 hour 45.9 65.2 36.7 58.5 52 45.5 39.5 38.5 10/17/2018 7:44 1.0 hour 43.6 65.2 36.3 55 48.5 45.5 38.5 36.5 10/17/2018 8:44 1.0 hour 42.6 57.6 36.7 51 46.5 44.5 39.5 36.5 10/17/2018 9:44 1.0 hour 40.3 54.7 36.7 48 43.5 42 38.5 36.5 10/17/2018 10:44 1.0 hour 43.1 65.2 36.7 53 47.5 44 38.5 36.5 Agenda Item #6.8.

Noise Appendix – RCNM Inputs/Outputs
Agenda Item #6.8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/30/2019
Case Description: Hunter Sub. - Site Preparation
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent Resid. Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 20 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 20 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 89.6 85.6
Dozer 89.6 85.6
Dozer 89.6 85.6
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Total 89.6 92.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent MHP Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 65 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 65 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 79.4 75.4
Dozer 79.4 75.4
Dozer 79.4 75.4
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Total 79.4 82
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Acoustic Center Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 97 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 97 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 75.9 71.9
Dozer 75.9 71.9
Dozer 75.9 71.9
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Total 75.9 78.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/30/2019
Case Description: Hunter Sub. - Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent Resid. Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 20 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 20 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Grader No 40 85 20 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 20 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 20 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 89.6 85.6
Excavator 88.7 84.7
Excavator 88.7 84.7
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Grader 93 89
Scraper 91.5 87.6
Scraper 91.5 87.6
Total 93 95
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent MHP Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 65 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 65 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Grader No 40 85 65 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 65 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 65 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 79.4 75.4
Excavator 78.4 74.5
Excavator 78.4 74.5
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Grader 82.7 78.7
Scraper 81.3 77.3
Scraper 81.3 77.3
Total 82.7 84.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Acoustic Center Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 81.7 97 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 97 0
Excavator No 40 80.7 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Grader No 40 85 97 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 97 0
Scraper No 40 83.6 97 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Dozer 75.9 71.9
Excavator 75 71
Excavator 75 71
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Grader 79.2 75.3
Scraper 77.8 73.8
Scraper 77.8 73.8
Total 79.2 81.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/30/2019
Case Description: Hunter Sub. - Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent Resid. Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 20 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 20 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 20 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 20 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 20 0
Generator No 50 80.6 20 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 88.5 80.6
Welder / Torch 82 78
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Backhoe 85.5 81.5
Gradall 91.4 87.4
Gradall 91.4 87.4
Gradall 91.4 87.4
Generator 88.6 85.6
Total 91.4 94.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent MHP Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 65 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 65 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 65 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 65 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 65 0
Generator No 50 80.6 65 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 78.3 70.3
Welder / Torch 71.7 67.7
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Backhoe 75.3 71.3
Gradall 81.1 77.1
Gradall 81.1 77.1
Gradall 81.1 77.1
Generator 78.4 75.3
Total 81.1 83.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Acoustic Center Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 97 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Backhoe No 40 77.6 97 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 97 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 97 0
Gradall No 40 83.4 97 0
Generator No 50 80.6 97 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 74.8 66.8
Welder / Torch 68.2 64.3
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Backhoe 71.8 67.8
Gradall 77.6 73.7
Gradall 77.6 73.7
Gradall 77.6 73.7
Generator 74.9 71.9
Total 77.6 80.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/30/2019
Case Description: Hunter Sub. - Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent Resid. Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 20 0
Paver No 50 77.2 20 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 20 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 20 0
Roller No 20 80 20 0
Roller No 20 80 20 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 85.2 82.2
Paver 85.2 82.2
Dump Truck 84.4 80.4
Dump Truck 84.4 80.4
Roller 88 81
Roller 88 81
Total 88 89
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent MHP Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 65 0
Paver No 50 77.2 65 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 65 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 65 0
Agenda Item #6.8.

Roller No 20 80 65 0
Roller No 20 80 65 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 74.9 71.9
Paver 74.9 71.9
Dump Truck 74.2 70.2
Dump Truck 74.2 70.2
Roller 77.7 70.7
Roller 77.7 70.7
Total 77.7 78.8
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Acoustic Center Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Paver No 50 77.2 97 0
Paver No 50 77.2 97 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 97 0
Dump Truck No 40 76.5 97 0
Roller No 20 80 97 0
Roller No 20 80 97 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Paver 71.5 68.5
Paver 71.5 68.5
Dump Truck 70.7 66.7
Dump Truck 70.7 66.7
Roller 74.2 67.3
Roller 74.2 67.3
Total 74.2 75.3
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 3/30/2019
Case Description: Hunter Sub. - Architectural Coatings
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent Resid. Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 20 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 85.6 81.6
Total 85.6 81.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Adjacent MHP Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 65 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 75.4 71.4
Total 75.4 71.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Acoustic Center Residential 55 50 45
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 97 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 71.9 67.9
Total 71.9 67.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Noise Appendix – Traffic Noise Worksheets
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street North/West of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,360 PK HR VOL 736
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 62.6 60.7 58.9 52.9 62.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.3 52.9 46.5 43.5 53.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.1 61.8 52.8 52.6 61.8
VEHICULAR NOISE 66.2 64.6 60.0 56.0 65.2
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street North/West of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,500 PK HR VOL 750
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 62.7 60.8 59.0 53.0 62.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.3 53.0 46.6 43.6 53.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.2 61.9 52.9 52.7 61.9
VEHICULAR NOISE 66.2 64.7 60.1 56.1 65.3
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street North/West of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Year 2040 No Proejct BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,960 PK HR VOL 796
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 63.0 61.0 59.2 53.2 62.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.6 53.2 46.9 43.8 53.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.4 62.1 53.2 52.9 62.1
VEHICULAR NOISE 66.5 64.9 60.4 56.4 65.6
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street North/West of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Year 2040 No Proejct BY: J. Leech
ADT 8,100 PK HR VOL 810
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 63.0 61.1 59.3 53.3 62.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.7 53.3 46.9 43.9 53.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.5 62.2 53.3 53.0 62.2
VEHICULAR NOISE 66.6 65.0 60.5 56.4 65.6
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street South/East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 6,960 PK HR VOL 696
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 62.4 60.5 58.6 52.7 61.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.0 52.6 46.3 43.2 52.7
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.8 61.5 52.6 52.4 61.6
VEHICULAR NOISE 65.9 64.3 59.8 55.8 65.0
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street South/East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,210 PK HR VOL 721
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 62.5 60.6 58.8 52.8 62.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.2 52.8 46.4 43.4 52.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.0 61.7 52.7 52.5 61.7
VEHICULAR NOISE 66.1 64.5 60.0 55.9 65.1
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street South/East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Year 2040 No Proejct BY: J. Leech
ADT 8,200 PK HR VOL 820
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 63.1 61.2 59.4 53.4 62.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.7 53.3 47.0 43.9 53.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.5 62.3 53.3 53.1 62.3
VEHICULAR NOISE 66.6 65.1 60.5 56.5 65.7
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Main Street South/East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019 Scenario: Year 2040 No Proejct BY: J. Leech
ADT 8,450 PK HR VOL 845
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 45.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 63.2 61.3 59.5 53.5 62.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 54.9 53.5 47.1 44.1 53.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.7 62.4 53.4 53.2 62.4
VEHICULAR NOISE 66.8 65.2 60.6 56.6 65.8
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Adams North of Railroad DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,340 PK HR VOL 734
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 60.7 58.8 57.0 51.0 60.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.6 51.3 44.9 41.9 51.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.1 60.8 51.8 51.6 60.8
VEHICULAR NOISE 64.7 63.2 58.4 54.6 63.8
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Adams North of Railroad DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,440 PK HR VOL 744
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 60.8 58.9 57.1 51.1 60.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.7 51.3 45.0 41.9 51.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.1 60.9 51.9 51.7 60.9
VEHICULAR NOISE 64.8 63.3 58.4 54.6 63.8
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Adams North of Railroad DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,810 PK HR VOL 781
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 61.0 59.1 57.3 51.3 60.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.9 51.5 45.2 42.1 51.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.4 61.1 52.1 51.9 61.1
VEHICULAR NOISE 65.0 63.5 58.6 54.8 64.1
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Adams North of Railroad DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 7,910 PK HR VOL 791
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 61.1 59.1 57.3 51.3 60.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.0 51.6 45.2 42.2 51.7
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.4 61.1 52.2 51.9 61.1
VEHICULAR NOISE 65.1 63.5 58.7 54.9 64.1
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Railroad (Adams to Hunt) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 9,360 PK HR VOL 936
SPEED 28
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 60.9 59.0 57.2 51.2 60.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.0 51.6 45.2 42.2 51.7
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.7 61.4 52.5 52.2 61.4
VEHICULAR NOISE 65.2 63.7 58.7 55.0 64.2
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Railroad (Adams to Hunt) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 9,720 PK HR VOL 972
SPEED 28
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 61.1 59.2 57.4 51.4 60.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.1 51.8 45.4 42.4 51.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.9 61.6 52.6 52.4 61.6
VEHICULAR NOISE 65.4 63.8 58.8 55.2 64.4
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Railroad (Adams to Hunt) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 BY: J. Leech
ADT 9,790 PK HR VOL 979
SPEED 28
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 61.1 59.2 57.4 51.4 60.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.2 51.8 45.4 42.4 51.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 62.9 61.6 52.7 52.4 61.6
VEHICULAR NOISE 65.4 63.9 58.9 55.2 64.4
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Railroad (Adams to Hunt) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 10,150 PK HR VOL 1,015
SPEED 28
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 61.3 59.4 57.6 51.6 60.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 53.3 52.0 45.6 42.6 52.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 63.1 61.8 52.8 52.6 61.8
VEHICULAR NOISE 65.5 64.0 59.0 55.3 64.6
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Library East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 1,350 PK HR VOL 135
SPEED 25
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 12 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 49.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -10
RT ANGLE 10
DF ANGLE 20
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9800
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0100
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 46.9 44.9 43.1 37.2 46.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 39.0 37.7 31.3 28.3 37.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 46.2 44.9 36.0 35.7 44.9
VEHICULAR NOISE 49.9 48.3 44.1 39.8 49.1
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Library East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 1,570 PK HR VOL 157
SPEED 25
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 12 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 49.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -10
RT ANGLE 10
DF ANGLE 20
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9800
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0100
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 47.5 45.6 43.8 37.8 47.0
MEDIUM TRUCKS 39.7 38.3 32.0 28.9 38.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 46.9 45.6 36.6 36.4 45.6
VEHICULAR NOISE 50.6 49.0 44.8 40.5 49.7
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Library East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 No Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 1,410 PK HR VOL 141
SPEED 25
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 12 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 49.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -10
RT ANGLE 10
DF ANGLE 20
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9800
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0100
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 47.1 45.1 43.3 37.3 46.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 39.2 37.9 31.5 28.5 38.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 46.4 45.1 36.2 35.9 45.1
VEHICULAR NOISE 50.1 48.5 44.3 40.0 49.2
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Library East of Adams DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 No Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 1,630 PK HR VOL 163
SPEED 25
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 12 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 49.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 49.7
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -10
RT ANGLE 10
DF ANGLE 20
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9800
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0100
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 47.7 45.8 44.0 38.0 47.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 39.9 38.5 32.1 29.1 38.6
HEAVY TRUCKS 47.0 45.7 36.8 36.6 45.8
VEHICULAR NOISE 50.8 49.2 45.0 40.7 49.9
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Starr (Hunt to Pope) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 2,050 PK HR VOL 205
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 57.1 55.1 53.3 47.3 56.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 48.7 47.3 41.0 37.9 47.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 57.5 56.2 47.3 47.0 56.2
VEHICULAR NOISE 60.6 59.0 54.5 50.5 59.7
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Starr (Hunt to Pope) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 2,300 PK HR VOL 230
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 57.6 55.6 53.8 47.8 57.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 49.2 47.8 41.5 38.4 47.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 58.0 56.7 47.8 47.5 56.7
VEHICULAR NOISE 61.1 59.5 55.0 51.0 60.2
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Starr (Hunt to Pope) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 BY: J. Leech
ADT 2,950 PK HR VOL 295
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 58.6 56.7 54.9 48.9 58.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.3 48.9 42.5 39.5 49.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 59.1 57.8 48.9 48.6 57.8
VEHICULAR NOISE 62.2 60.6 56.1 52.0 61.3
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Starr (Hunt to Pope) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 3,200 PK HR VOL 320
SPEED 35
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 59.0 57.1 55.3 49.3 58.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.6 49.3 42.9 39.9 49.4
HEAVY TRUCKS 59.5 58.2 49.2 49.0 58.2
VEHICULAR NOISE 62.5 61.0 56.4 52.4 61.6
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Hunt (North of Railroad) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 2,450 PK HR VOL 245
SPEED 32
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 56.7 54.8 53.0 47.0 56.2
MEDIUM TRUCKS 48.5 47.2 40.8 37.8 47.3
HEAVY TRUCKS 57.7 56.4 47.5 47.3 56.4
VEHICULAR NOISE 60.6 59.0 54.3 50.4 59.6
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Hunt (North of Railroad) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 2,700 PK HR VOL 270
SPEED 32
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 57.2 55.2 53.4 47.5 56.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 49.0 47.6 41.2 38.2 47.7
HEAVY TRUCKS 58.2 56.9 47.9 47.7 56.9
VEHICULAR NOISE 61.0 59.4 54.7 50.8 60.0
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Hunt (North of Railroad) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 BY: J. Leech
ADT 3,550 PK HR VOL 355
SPEED 32
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 58.4 56.4 54.6 48.6 57.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.2 48.8 42.4 39.4 48.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 59.3 58.0 49.1 48.9 58.1
VEHICULAR NOISE 62.2 60.6 55.9 52.0 61.2
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Hunt (North of Railroad) DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 3,800 PK HR VOL 380
SPEED 32
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 58.7 56.7 54.9 48.9 58.1
MEDIUM TRUCKS 50.5 49.1 42.7 39.7 49.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 59.6 58.3 49.4 49.2 58.4
VEHICULAR NOISE 62.5 60.9 56.2 52.3 61.5
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Paseo Grande East of Hunt DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 5,210 PK HR VOL 521
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 59.2 57.3 55.5 49.5 58.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 51.2 49.8 43.4 40.4 49.9
HEAVY TRUCKS 60.6 59.3 50.4 50.1 59.3
VEHICULAR NOISE 63.3 61.7 56.9 53.1 62.3
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Paseo Grande East of Hunt DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 5,420 PK HR VOL 542
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 59.4 57.5 55.7 49.7 58.9
MEDIUM TRUCKS 51.3 49.9 43.6 40.5 50.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 60.8 59.5 50.5 50.3 59.5
VEHICULAR NOISE 63.4 61.9 57.0 53.3 62.5
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Paseo Grande East of Hunt DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 BY: J. Leech
ADT 6,520 PK HR VOL 652
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 60.2 58.3 56.5 50.5 59.7
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.1 50.8 44.4 41.3 50.8
HEAVY TRUCKS 61.6 60.3 51.3 51.1 60.3
VEHICULAR NOISE 64.2 62.7 57.8 54.1 63.3
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Paseo Grande East of Hunt DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Year 2040 + Project BY: J. Leech
ADT 6,730 PK HR VOL 673
SPEED 30
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -45
RT ANGLE 45
DF ANGLE 90
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.127 0.096 0.9700
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.874 0.051 0.075 0.0100
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.891 0.028 0.081 0.0200
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 60.3 58.4 56.6 50.6 59.8
MEDIUM TRUCKS 52.3 50.9 44.5 41.5 51.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 61.7 60.4 51.5 51.2 60.4
VEHICULAR NOISE 64.4 62.8 58.0 54.2 63.4
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Silverado South of Mountain DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 11,120 PK HR VOL 1,112
SPEED 42
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -60
RT ANGLE 60
DF ANGLE 120
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.134 0.096 0.9400
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.872 0.053 0.075 0.0250
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.889 0.030 0.081 0.0350
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 66.9 65.0 63.4 57.2 66.4
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.3 60.9 54.8 51.5 61.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 68.9 67.6 58.9 58.4 67.6
VEHICULAR NOISE 71.5 70.0 65.1 61.3 70.6
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Silverado South of Mountain DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 11,560 PK HR VOL 1,156
SPEED 42
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -60
RT ANGLE 60
DF ANGLE 120
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.134 0.096 0.9400
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.872 0.053 0.075 0.0250
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.889 0.030 0.081 0.0350
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 67.1 65.1 63.6 57.3 66.6
MEDIUM TRUCKS 62.5 61.1 55.0 51.7 61.2
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.0 67.7 59.0 58.5 67.7
VEHICULAR NOISE 71.7 70.2 65.3 61.5 70.7
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Silverado South of Mountain DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 13,720 PK HR VOL 1,372
SPEED 42
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -60
RT ANGLE 60
DF ANGLE 120
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.134 0.096 0.9400
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.872 0.053 0.075 0.0250
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.889 0.030 0.081 0.0350
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 67.8 65.9 64.3 58.1 67.3
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.2 61.8 55.7 52.4 62.0
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.8 68.5 59.8 59.3 68.5
VEHICULAR NOISE 72.5 70.9 66.0 62.2 71.5
Agenda Item #6.8.

FHWA - HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL
(modified for CNEL)
PROJECT: Hunter Subdivision EIR JN: 10839
ROADWAY: Silverado South of Mountain DATE: 4/5/2019
Scenario: Existing BY: J. Leech
ADT 14,160 PK HR VOL 1,416
SPEED 42
PK HR % 10
DIST CTL 50
DIST N/F 76 (M=76,P=52,S=36,C=12) AUTO SLE DISTANCE 32.9 DIST WALL 0 MED TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
DIST W/OB 50 HVY TRUCK SLE DIST 32.6
HTH WALL 0.0 ********
HTH OBS 5.0
AMBIENT 40.0
ROADWAY VIEW:

LF ANGLE -60
RT ANGLE 60
DF ANGLE 120
SITE CONDITIONS: (15=HARD SITE, 10=SOFT SITE)
AUTOM 15.0
MED TR 15.0
HVY TR 15.0
BARRIER 0 (0=WALL,1=BERM)
ELEVATIONS:

PAD 0.0 AUTOMOBILES = 0.00
ROAD 0.0 MEDIUM TRUCKS= 2.30
HEAVY TRUCKS = 8.01
GRADE: 0.0 % GRADE ADJUSTM= 0.0 (TO HEAVY TRUCKS)
VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION:

DAY EVE NIGHT DAILY
AUTOMOBILES 0.770 0.134 0.096 0.9400
MEDIUM TRUCKS 0.872 0.053 0.075 0.0250
HEAVY TRUCKS 0.889 0.030 0.081 0.0350
NOISE IMPACTS WITHOUT TOPO OR BARRIER SHIELDING:

LEQ PK HR LEQ DAY LEQ EVE LEQ NIGHT CNEL
AUTOMOBILES 68.0 66.0 64.4 58.2 67.5
MEDIUM TRUCKS 63.4 62.0 55.8 52.6 62.1
HEAVY TRUCKS 69.9 68.6 59.9 59.4 68.6
VEHICULAR NOISE 72.6 71.1 66.2 62.4 71.6
Agenda Item #6.8.

1515 Fourth Street, Napa, CA 94559 www.rsacivil.com (707) 252-3301 v. (707) 252-4966 f.

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT
Technical Memorandum
Results of Preliminary Water Calculations
For:

Hunter Subdivision
St. Helena, CA
APN: 009-030-057
Project No. 4110047.0
September 10, 2020
Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background ................................................................................................................ 1 II. Existing Theoretical Domestic Water Demand ......................................................... 1 III. Proposed Theoretical Domestic Water Demand...................................................... 1 IV. Landscape Water Demand ........................................................................................ 2 V. Proposed Mitigation.................................................................................................. 2 VI. In-Lieu Retrofit Fees................................................................................................... 2 VII. Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 5

ATTACHMENTS

1. Water Neutrality Calculations

2. Conceptual Landscape Water Use Calculations – Spatial Design Group

3. Municipal Water Saving Measures
Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT

I. BACKGROUND
In order to comply with the City of St. Helena's Water Neutral Policy, RSA+ is submitting to you this water analysis for the proposed Hunter Subdivision. This analysis documents the theoretical proposed water consumption for the new development and the options for water off-set mitigation.

II. EXISTING THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
There is no current connection to the City of St. Helena domestic water system. Therefore, the existing demand is zero gallons per day.

III. PROPOSED THEORETICAL DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
It is our understanding based on communications with the City of St. Helena that the assumed water demand has been established to its satisfaction. The basis is repeated here for continuity.

The proposed development consists of 51 lots with detached 4-bedroom single-family residences, and an additional 25 two-bedroom multi-family residential units will be included in the development. The proposed water demand is calculated based upon water usage from water fixtures and appliances based on the number of occupants as laid out by The City of St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development. A list of the water performance requirements for fixtures and appliances follows.

A. Showerheads 8 min/shower/day/occupant
B. Lavatory faucets 0.25 min/3 times/day/occupant
C. Kitchen faucets 4 min/day/occupant
D. Toilets 3 flushes/day/occupant
E. Clothes Washer 0.37 load/day/occupant
F. Dish Washer 0.1 load/day/occupant
Water usage from water fixtures and appliances that meet the minimum requirements of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and the City of St. Helena Water Neutral Policy.

A. Showerheads 2.0 gallons per minute
B. Lavatory faucets 1.5 gallons per minute
C. Kitchen faucets 1.8 gallons per minute
D. Toilets 1.3 gallons per flush
E. Clothes Washer 19.7 gallons per load
F. Dish Washer 6.3 gallons per load
Following the guidelines of the City of St. Helena policy, the analysis is to be completed based on two occupants per bedroom. Based on the City of St. Helena Water Neutral Policy for Development we have calculated the theoretical domestic water demand to be 17,752 gallons Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT

per day (19.88 acre-feet per year) for the total development. These calculations can be found attached.

IV. LANDSCAPE WATER DEMAND
Landscape irrigation will be provided by an existing well located at the site, thus landscape usage will not be included in this water neutrality study, as provided for in Municipal Code Section

13.12.010. Preliminary landscape water usage calculations prepared by Spatial Design Group indicated that irrigation will require 17.16 acre-feet. See Conceptual Landscape Water Use Calculations by Spatial Design Group in Attachment 2.

V. PROPOSED MITIGATION
A variety of specific water offset mitigations were listed in our 2017 Report in summary form.

Attached here is the detailed Report with the supporting documentation cited. These may be items that are pursued.

City of St. Helena Staff has asked us to review alternatives similar to those in American Canyon.

Some of these options are converting parks to recycled water and expanding recycled water to other areas are discussed in American Canyon, however we don’t believe that these options are as readily available in the City of St. Helena.

We discussed alternative options with City of St. Helena Public Works Director, Erica Ahmann Smithies, and understand there may be a few projects that could drastically increase the water savings to the City, and provide the offset the project needs. These options include the following and would be funded by payment of the in-lieu fee provided for by City Ordinance:

1. Assist the City in fixing the leaking transmission line between the City and Rutherford.

It’s our understanding there is a substantial amount of water lost as part of the old pipeline.

2. Place/replace water meters that are not in place or functioning improperly.

3. Paying the in-lieu fee to be used by the City for any of the options identified in the attached Report or otherwise selected by the City.

VI. IN-LIEU RETROFIT FEES
The proposed project will result in the use of approximately 17,752 gallons per day. Since the existing parcel had no existing water usage, conservation measures on the site will not be able to achieve neutrality. Therefore, the project proposes to pay an in-lieu retrofit fee equivalent to the cost of retrofitting showerheads, sink and kitchen faucets, and toilets in existing residences to achieve the required water savings.

Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT

The theoretical residential water usage for homes with old fixtures are summarized in the table below:

Table 1 - Theoretical Water Use with Old Fixtures
Fixture
Flow Rate
(gal/min
or
gal/flush)
Flow
Duration
(min., flush,
load, etc.)
Daily
Uses per
Occupant
Number
of
Occupants
Gallons
per
Day
Showerheads

2.5 8 1 6 120
Sink Faucets 2.2 0.25 3 6 9.9
Kitchen
Faucets 2.2 4 1 6 52.8
Toilet 2.2 1 3 6 39.6
Total 222
The theoretical residential water usage for homes with retrofitted low flow fixtures are summarized in the table below:

Table 2 - Theoretical Water Use with Retrofitted Low Flow Fixtures Fixture
Flow Rate
(gal/min
or
gal/flush)
Flow
Duration
(min., flush,
load, etc.)
Daily
Uses per
Occupant
Number
of
Occupants
Gallons
per
Day
Showerheads 2 8 1 6 96
Sink Faucets 1.5 0.25 3 6 6.75
Kitchen
Faucets 1.8 4 1 6 43.2
Toilet 1.28 1 3 6 23.04
Total 169
A residence with old fixtures uses 222 gallons per day (gpd), while a residence that has been retrofitted with low fixtures will use 169 gpd. An overall savings of 53 gpd.

The calculation for number of residences which would need to be retrofitted based on the anticipated demand for The Hunter Subdivision are shown in the tables below:

Table 3 - Proposed Water Use Savings
Gallons
Daily Annual
Theoretical Water Use with Old Fixtures 222 81140
Theoretical Water Use with Retrofits 169 61681
Savings 53 19458
Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT

Table 4 – Retrofits Required for Hunter Subdivision
Gallons
Daily Annual
Hunter Subdiv. New Water Demand 17752 6479480
Water Savings per Residence w/Retrofit 53 19458
Number of Residences to Retrofit 333 333
In order to offset the anticipated water demand at The Hunter Subdivision, 333 residences will need to be retrofitted.

The anticipated material and installation costs to retrofit a residence are shown in the tables below:

Table 5 - Retrofit Material Costs Anticipated
Material Cost per
Residence Qty *Cost per Unit Total Cost
Toilet 2 $265.68 $531.36
Lavatory Faucet 2 $140.40 $280.80
Kitchen Faucet 1 $150.12 $150.12
Shower Head 1 $309.96 $309.96
Total Estimated Material Cost per Residence* $1,272.24
Table 6 - Retrofit Installation Costs Anticipated
Installation Cost per
residence Hours Qty
*Cost
per hour Total Cost
Toilet 1.5 2 $65.00 $195.00
Lavatory Faucet 1.5 2 $65.00 $195.00
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 1 $65.00 $97.50
Shower Head 0.5 1 $65.00 $32.50
Total Estimated Labor Cost per Residence* $520.00
Table 7 – Total Estimated Costs of Retrofits
Total estimated cost to retrofit each residence * $ 1,792.24 Number of residences to retrofit $333.00
Total Estimated In-Lieu Fee Retrofit Cost* $596,808.19
Material costs cited in the tables above are based upon sources found on www.amazon.com on August 28, 2020 with an 8% markup for tax for the following fixtures:
- Toilet - Kohler Cimarron Comfort Height two-piece 1.28gpf with Aqua Piston Tech Model #K-3887-0
- Lavatory Faucet - American Standard Tropic Centerset Model #7038201 - Kitchen Faucet - American Standard Monterrey Model #6409170 - Shower Head - American Standard Berwick Model #T430501 Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT

Labor costs cited in Tables 5-7 above for cost per hour are based upon estimates found at http://www.angieslist.com/articles/how-much-does-it-cost-hire-handyman.htm VII. CONCLUSION
The proposed project will result in the use of approximately 17,752 gallons per day. The proposed development will use water efficient fixtures and conservation measures to the maximum extent practicable. The offset of the project water demands may be best met through assisting the City of St. Helena with existing water system improvements via in-lieu fees. The project will pay $596,808 as an in-lieu retrofit fee equal to the cost of retrofitting enough residences with low flow fixtures to achieve savings equal to the proposed use.

Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1

WATER NEUTRALITY CALCULATIONS
Agenda Item #6.8.

Hunter Subdivision
Water Neutrality Calculations

1. Occupant Calculation:

Single Family Residences
Total 51 units
4 bedroom units: 51
Apartment Units
Total 25 units
2 bedroom units: 25

2. Proposed Water Usage:

Single Family Residences Fixture
Flow Rate
gal/min. or
gal/flush
Flow Duration
(min., flush,
load, etc.)
Daily Uses
per Occupant
Number of
Occupants
Gallons
per Day
Showerheads 2 x 8 x 1 x 408 = 6528
Sink Faucets 1.5 x 0.25 x 3 x 408 = 459
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 x 4 x 1 x 408 = 2448
Toilet 1.3 x 1 x 3 x 408 = 1591
Clothes Waher 19.7 x 1 x 0.37 x 408 = 2974
Dish Washer 6.3 x 1 x 0.1 x 408 = 257
14257
Apartment Units Fixture
Flow Rate
gal/min. or
gal/flush
Flow Duration
(min., flush,
load, etc.)
Daily Uses
per Occupant
Number of
Occupants
Gallons
per Day
Showerheads 2 x 8 x 1 x 100 = 1600
Sink Faucets 1.5 x 0.25 x 3 x 100 = 113
Kitchen Faucet 1.5 x 4 x 1 x 100 = 600
Toilet 1.3 x 1 x 3 x 100 = 390
Clothes Waher 19.7 x 1 x 0.37 x 100 = 729
Dish Washer 6.3 x 1 x 0.1 x 100 = 63
3494
Total Development Daily Water Usage (gpd) = 17752
Number of Occupants @ 2
per bedroom
408
408
4 bedroom homes. Assume 2:1
ratio. Number of Bedrooms
204
Total number of occupants
100
50 100
2 bedroom units. Assume 2:1 Number of Bedrooms Number of Occupants @ 2 Total number of occupants
Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT 2

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE WATER USE CALCULATIONS

SPATIAL DESIGN GROUP
Agenda Item #6.8.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Appendix B – Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet.

44.1 in./ year
Irrigation
Methodb
1 - Public Low 0.3 Drip 0.81 31593 11701.11 319931.78
2 - Pulic Moderate 0.6 Bubbler 0.81 23455 17374.07 475041.93 3 - Private Low 0.3 Drip 0.81 236095 87442.59 2390855.37 4 - Private Mod 0.6 Bubbler 0.81 103207 76449.63 2090285.77 5 - Private high 0.9 Spray 0.75 9634 11560.80 316095.39 403984 204528.21
7 - Edibles (Beds) 00 0
8 - Orchard 00 0
9 - 00 0
00 5592210.25
6075151.79
The ETWU is less than the MAWA, the proposed water budget complies with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

ETAF Calculations
Regular Landscape Areas
204528
403984

0.51 All Landscape Areas

0.74 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET
This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and it is a required element of the Landscape Documentation Package.

Reference Evapotranspiration (Eto)
Hydrozone # /Planting
Descriptiona
Plant Factor
(PF)
Irrigation
Efficiency
(IE)c
ETAF Landscape Area
(sq. ft)
ETAF x Area Estimated Total
Water Use (ETWU)e (PF/IE)
Regular Landscape Areas

0.37 ETWU Total

0.37 0.74

1.20 Special Landscape Areas

1.00 1.00

1.00 Totals
Totals
Total Area 403984
Average ETAF 0.51
Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)e
Total ETAF x Area
Total Area
Average ETAF
Total ETAF x Area 204528.21
aHydrozone #/Planting Description
E.g

1.) front lawn

2.) low water use plantings

3.) moderate water use planting
bIrrigation Method cIrrigation Efficiency
overhead spray 0.75 for spray head
or drip 0.81 for drip
or subsurface bubbler 0.81 for subsruface
bubbler well
dETWU (Annual Gallons Required) =
Eto x 0.62 x ETAF x Area
where 0.62 is a conversion
factor that converts acreinches per acre per year to
gallons per square foot per
year. eMAWA (Annual Gallons Allowed) = (Eto) ( 0.62) [ (ETAF x LA) + ((1-ETAF) x SLA)]
where 0.62 is a conversion factor that converts acre-inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year, LA is the total landscape area in square feet, SLA is the total special landscape area in square feet,
and ETAF is .55 for residential areas and 0.45 for nonresidential areas.

Average ETAF for Regular Landscape Areas must be

0.55 or below for residential areas, and 0.45 or below
for non-residential areas.

Agenda Item #6.8.

CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE WATER USE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=50'
0 50' 100'
WU 1
Submittal / Revision:

APN: 009-030-057
707-569-6739
325 CARRILLO STREET

SANTA ROSA, CA
S
D
G

SPATIAL
DESIGN
GROUP

ADAMS STREET AND STARR AVENUE

SAINT HELENA, CALIFORNIA
20'

HYDROZONE MAP LEGEND
H
M
L

SUMMARY HYDROZONE TABLE
HYDROZONE Area (sq. ft.) % of Landscape Area

HIGHMODERATE
LOW
9,634
236,095
TOTAL:
103,207
(HIGH) HIGH WATER USE, (MODERATE) MODERATE WATER USE, (LOW) LOW WATER USE

SEE APPENDIX B FOR MAXIMUM APPLIED
WATER ALLOWANCE CALCULATION.

IRRIGATED AREA 403,984

58.5%

2.4%
100%

25.5%

CONCEPTUAL HYDROZONE MAP

MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
H
H H
H H
H H
H H
H H
H
H H
H
H H
H H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
H H

H H H H
H
H
H
H
H H
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
L L
L L L
L L
L L
L
L
L
L L
L
L L L
L
L
L
L
L
L L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L L
L
L L
L
L L
L L
L
L
L
L
L
L L
L
L
L L
L L
L L
L L
L
L
L
L
L
L L
L L

L L L L L L
L
L
L L
L
L
L
LL
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
M
M

H H H H
L L
M
M
M
M
M
L
L L
L
LL
L
L
L
L L
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M L
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L

ADAMS STREET

STARR AVENUE

FUTURE STREET

CITY OF SAINT HELENA
009-030-056

CITY OF SAINT HELENA
009-030-056
*P
*P
*P *P
*P
*P
*P
*P

PRIVATE AREAS

HIGHMODERATE
LOW

PUBLIC AREAS
0 31,593
23,455
SUBTOTAL: 55,048SUBTOTAL: 348,936

7.8%

0.0%5.8%

Agenda Item #6.8.

HUNTER SUBDIVISION

WATER NEUTRAL REPORT
ATTACHMENT 3

MUNICIPAL WATER SAVING MEASURES
Agenda Item #6.8.

Water saving measures for the City of St. Helena
February 2017
The following outlines opportunities for the City of St. Helena to reduce water consumption and reliance on local water supplies. Measures include indoor and outdoor residential water efficiency upgrades, metering households, providing pre-rinse fixtures to restaurants and industrial kitchens, irrigation system audits and component replacements at public facilities, and aiding wine production facilities to reduce and recapture water used in production. These water saving measures would not only decrease St. Helena’s water demand but would also reduce water and sewer bills. This may be particularly desirable given the February 2017 rate increases1, which have on average increased a family’s water bill annually by $432 or 24%.

Though water use in St. Helena has decreased in recent years, comparisons to nearby communities with similar weather patterns and use requirements suggests that there are likely opportunities for implementing water efficiency measures. The 2016 St. Helena Water and Wastewater Rate Study reports 2015 city water use at 502 million gallons or 1,540 acre-feet, well below the “safe yield water supply” of 1,950 acre-feet (AF)2. Given the City’s population of around 6,000, the per capita water use for St. Helena in 2015 is approximately 220 gallons/day.

According to California Regional Water Use Targets, the San Francisco Bay Region, of which St. Helena is included, has an interim water use target of 144 gallons per capita per day3. The Sonoma-Marin Saving Water Partnership has lead an effort over the past years to reduce per capita water use. This campaign has resulted an average 2015 per capita water use of 100 gallons/day among partner cities. Another comparison is average residential single-family home water use. The 2016 St. Helena Water & Wastewater Rate Study assumes average monthly water use in single family homes to be 8,228 gallons/month. The 2015 Santa Rosa Water Rate Study4 estimates monthly water use in single family homes to be 7,000 gallons/month. All of this suggests that it is reasonable to assume that reducing water use St. Helena is an achievable goal.
1 City of St. Helena Water and Wastewater Rate Study. Hansford Economic Consulting. 2016. http://cityofsthelena.org/sites/default/files/2016%20Rate%20Study%20FINAL.pdf 2 St. Helena General Plan Update 2030. http://www.ci.st-helena.ca.us/sites/default/files/ 04_Public%20Facilities%20and%20Services_040215_0.pdf
3 Urban Water Management Plan, City of American Canyon. Figure 3-1: Region Water Use Targets. 2010. http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/ American%20Canyon,%20City%20of/
American%20Canyon%20Final%20UWMP%202010%20Volume%20I.pdf 4 Santa Rosa Water, Water and Wastewater Study. The Reed Group. 2015. http://santarosa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=763&meta_id=80712 Agenda Item #6.8.

This report provides descriptions of the most advantageous water saving projects for the City of St. Helena. A summary of these addressable water savings are listed below.

Outdoor Water Efficiency Upgrades & Landscape Conversion Replacing turf with water efficient landscaping and auditing existing irrigation systems can reduce peak water use in summer months, resulting not just water savings but also reducing the need for capital expenditures to meet future demand.

According to a 2015 California Urban Water Conservation Council report on Turf Removal & Replacement , average turf-replacement water savings in California rage from between 5 18-83%, depending largely on climate. California Drought Executive Order B-29-15 notes water 6 savings from turf replacement projects can be between 13-70 gallons/year/square foot (sqft).

For the City of Napa, projected savings from turf conversion projects was estimated at 25 gallons/year/sqft. Assuming a conservative water saving estimate of 25 gallons/sqft of lawn replaced, replacing 5 acres of turf could save over 5 million gallons of water or 16.7 AF/ year.

Water Saving Measure Annual Savings (AF) Assumptions
Turf replacement 16.7 Assume 5 acres replaced
School/park Irrigation audits/upgrades 5 Assume 2 parks/schools upgraded Greywater/rainwater harvesting
residential

0.65 Assume systems installed at 20
homes
Swimming pool covers 0.25 Assume 10 covers installed
Residential household metering 5.8 Assume meters on 247 mobile homes
Indoor water efficiency upgrades,
residential

8.1 Assume 200 homes upgraded
Pre-rinse valves for commercial/
industrial kitchens

1.3 Assume upgrades to 10% of
commercial kitchens
Winery production water recapture 4.6 Assume moderate production facility
Cumulative savings: 42.4
5 Turf Removal & Replacement, Lessons Learned. California Urban Water Conservation Council. Briana Seapy. March 2015. https://cuwcc.org/Portals/0/Document%20Library/ Resources/Publications/Council%20Reports/Turf%20Removal%20_%20Replacement%20- %20Lessons%20Learned.pdf
6 California Drought Executive Order B-29-15, Directive #3, April 1, 2015. average water savings per square foot turf conversion lawn. Accessed February 12 2017.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Landscape irrigation audits at commercial and institutional sites can identify the need for simple changes to controller scheduling or emitter maintenance that can save customers tens of thousands of gallons per year. Smart irrigation controllers, which utilize real time data to optimize irrigation schedules. In the City of Napa, a project installing smart controllers at 25 City parks and 21 school fields saved over 600 AF between 2005 and 2010 at city parks and schools7. This represents an average of over 2.5 AF of annual water savings at each park or school location. St. Helena Unified School District has 4 school campuses and a District Office, and there are 10 City parks that could potentially benefit from irrigation audits and improvements. Given the example from the City of Napa, it is not unreasonable to predict that the City of St. Helena could experience similar water savings. Upgrading irrigation systems at just 2 parks or schools in St. Helena may realize 5 AF/year of water savings per year.

Laundry to landscape systems that use greywater to irrigate landscapes can put to use the 60 gallons/day of water generated from the washing machine to save a family of 4 40,000 gallons of water per year8. Changes to local and California code9 have made it simple to install basic residential greywater systems. Installing greywater systems at 20 homes could save 800,000 gallons of water or 0.25 AF/year.

Rainwater harvesting both at a residential level or for commercial applications also has potential to reduce City water use. The City of St. Helena provides a rebate program for rainwater barrels or cisterns installed over 100 gallons. A 530 gallon Bushman tank filled 6 months out of the year could save 3,000 gallons of water per year. 20 households so equipped could save 0.4 AF/ year. Commercially, rainwater collected in cisterns can be used to augment water needed in landscaping and potentially wine production or other industrial washing purposes. The amount of water saved will depend on weather patterns and how many times the cisterns can be filled in a year, but the savings could be significant.

Covers on swimming pools can also result in water savings. Swimming pool evaporation is reduced by 50% when the pool is covered. Assuming an average sized pool (430 square feet) this coulee mean over 8,000 gallons of water savings per year per newly covered pool10. From a google map search, there appear to be over 100 outdoor pools in St. Helena. Covering just 10 of these pools, therefore, could save 0.25 AF/year.

Metering Residential Households
There is evidence that installing volumetric water meters on previously unmetered single-family homes can result in substantial water savings. In a recent study done on three Northern and 7 City of Napa Urban Water Management Plan. 2010. http://www.water.ca.gov/ urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/Napa,%20City%20of/Napa,%20City%20of/ UWMP%202010%20-%20NAPA.pdf
8 http://watersprout.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Integrated-GW-System-Info-Packet-1.pdf.

Accessed February 12 2017.
9 http://www.thegreywaterguide.com/california.html. Accessed February 12 2017. 10 http://www.poolspanews.com/how-to/maintenance/evaporation-study-compares-watersavings-of-covers_o. Accessed February 14 2017.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Central California cities, monthly water consumption dropped by 13-21% after six months of metering on previously unmetered homes11. According to the 2016 Rate Study, there are 920 multi-family and mobile home units that are not individually metered, all with an average water use of 5,236 gallons/month. Installing individual meters across these accounts assuming a 13% reduction in water use could save over 23 AF of water per year. Installing meters only at the 247 mobile homes could result in a water savings of 5.8 AF/year.

Indoor Residential Water Efficiency Upgrades
Replacing old water fixtures and toilets is a proven technique for realizing lasting water savings.

The 2016 residential toilet and water fixture program in Santa Rosa, CA, for example, provides a recent example of how homes in St. Helena could be quickly retrofitted. It is estimated that customers on average save 1,100 gallons of water per month after toilets, shower heads, and sink aerators are replaced with water efficient alternatives (assuming toilets replaced are

1.6gallons/flush or higher)12. In Santa Rosa, water efficient toilets, shower heads, and bathroom/ kitchen faucet aerators were installed at 5,500 residential sites in 2016 to realize a water savings of approximately 72.6 million gallons/year13.

Residential developments such as mobile home parks and multi-family dwellings would be particularly advantageous partners to benefit members of the community on on the lowest income scale. There are 920 multi-family and mobile home units in St. Helena. Retrofitting 200 of these homes could realize a water savings of 2.64 million gallons, or 8.1 AF/year.

Pre-Rinse Valves for Commercial & Industrial Water Customers 30% of water in restaurants and industrial kitchens is typically used to pre-rinse dishes. Water efficient pre-rinse valves save 60 gallons of water for every hour of use14. The City of Santa Rosa recently replaced 250 pre-rinse valves in restaurants and commercial kitchens, estimating a water savings of over approximately 36,000 gallons/year for each replaced nozzle15.

Restaurants, schools, industrial kitchens, and tasting rooms in St. Helena could all benefit from water efficient pre-rinse valves. According to Yelp there are over 50 restaurants in St. Helena and over 115 public winery facilities. Providing water efficient pre-rinse valves to just 10% of these facilities could save over 1.3 AF/year.

Water Recapture in Wine Production
11 Impacts of Metering on Residential Water Use in California. Tanverakul, Stephanie A.

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, San Jose State University. 2015. 12 Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities Memorandum Agenda Item 7.1, January 7 2016. http:// santa-rosa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=713&meta_id=68623 13 Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities Agenda Item 7.1 Presentation, January 7 2016. http:// santa-rosa.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=713&meta_id=68626 14 http://conserve.restaurant.org/Best-Practices/Save-Water/Pre-rinse-spray-valves 15 Santa Rosa Board of Public Utilities Agenda for January 2 2016, Item 7.1. http://santarosa.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=9&clip_id=713 Agenda Item #6.8.

Wineries in St. Helena are the biggest water users. Water use for wine production, particularly during the 60 days of harvest can be particularly high when tanks and vats are washed and sterilized. Between 2.6-6 gallons of water is typically used for each gallon of wine produced just during the wine production phase (does not include water used for irrigation or harvest).

Water purification techniques have been able to successfully recapture up to 99% of wine production process water, resulting in huge water savings. For example, Free Flow Wines in Napa, CA successfully installed a recapture system in 2015, realizing a savings of 1.5 million gallons of rinse water per year16. Installing this type and size of rinse water recapture system could result in a savings of over 4.6 AF/year. Wine industry municipal water customers in St. Helena such as Trinchero Family Estates could benefit from this type of water upgrade.

Conclusion
This is a preliminary investigation on the most feasible measures that could be taken to reduce water use in St. Helena. Further data and analysis would likely identify additional partnerships and opportunities. Though per capita water use in St. Helena has dropped significantly in recent years, comparisons to local counterparts show there are likely many opportunities to further reduce the City’s water demand. This report outlines various water efficiency measures to cumulatively save 42 AF/year. All of this suggests that reducing water use by 12 acre-feet/year in St. Helena is a reasonable goal to achieve.
16 California’s Wineyard Pressed to Turn Less Water Into Wine. Alastair Bland. October 1, 2015. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/10/07/446096090/california-s-vineyards-pressed-toturn-less-water-into-wine. Accessed February 12 2017.

Agenda Item #6.8.

Traffic Impact Study
Hunter Subdivision
St. Helena, CA
Prepared for:

City of St. Helena
1480 Main Street
St. Helena, California 94574
Maya de Rosa, Planning & Community Improvement Director Prepared by:
1102 R Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Contact: Dennis Pascua, Transportation Services Manager APRIL 2021
Revised Nov. 2022
Agenda Item #6.9.

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
i April 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the TIS................................................................................. 1

1.2 Project Description.................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Study Area and Scope............................................................................................. 3

1.4 Congestion Management Program.......................................................................... 9

1.5 Methodology........................................................................................................... 9

1.5.1 Intersections................................................................................................ 9

1.5.2 Future Traffic Forecasts............................................................................ 10

1.5.3 Impact Criteria .......................................................................................... 10 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................13

2.1 Existing Street System.......................................................................................... 13

2.2 Pedestrian Facilities.............................................................................................. 14

2.3 Bicycle Facilities................................................................................................... 14

2.4 Transit System ...................................................................................................... 14

2.5 Pope Street Bridge ................................................................................................ 15

2.6 Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................... 16

2.7 Intersection Operations......................................................................................... 19 3 PROJECT TRAFFIC......................................................................................................25

3.1 Trip Generation..................................................................................................... 25

3.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ........................................................................ 26 4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT.........................................................................................35

4.1 Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................... 35

4.2 Intersection Operations......................................................................................... 35 5 BUILDOUT (2040) CONDITIONS................................................................................43

5.1 Planned Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility Improvements....................................... 43

5.2 Transit System ...................................................................................................... 43

5.3 Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................... 43

5.4 Intersection Operations......................................................................................... 44 5 SPECIAL ISSUES ...........................................................................................................51

5.1 Project Access and Circulation ............................................................................. 51

5.2 Queueing............................................................................................................... 51

5.2.1 Existing Condition .................................................................................... 52

5.2.2 Existing plus Project ................................................................................. 53 Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page No.
10839
ii April 2021

5.2.3 Buildout (2040) Condition........................................................................ 55

5.3 Collision Analysis................................................................................................. 58

5.4 Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) ........................................................................... 59

5.5 Parking .................................................................................................................. 59 6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................61

6.1 Existing plus Project ............................................................................................. 61

6.2 Buildout (2040)..................................................................................................... 61 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................64

APPENDICES
A Scoping Agreement
B Traffic Data
C Synchro & Signal Warrant Worksheets
D SWITRS Collision Data

FIGURES
1 Project Site Location and Study Area..................................................................................5 2 Project Site Plan...................................................................................................................7 3 Existing Traffic Controls and Geometrics.........................................................................17 4 Existing Weekday Traffic Volumes...................................................................................21 5 Existing Saturday Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................23 6 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment – Single-Family & Accessory Dwelling Units...................................................................................................................27 7 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment – Multi-Family Housing....................................29 8 Project Trip Assignment – Total (All Uses) ......................................................................31 9 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment – Saturday (All Uses)........................................33 10 Existing plus Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.............................................39 11 Existing plus Project Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............................................41 12 Buildout (2040) Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....................................................47 13 Buildout (2040) Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.....................................................49 Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.
10839
iii April 2021
TABLES
1 Level of Service Criteria for Intersections using HCM Methodology ................................9 2 Study Area Existing Street System Summary ...................................................................13 3 Existing Weekday Peak Hour Intersection LOS................................................................19 4 Existing Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS.................................................................19 5 Weekday Project Trip Generation .....................................................................................25 6 Saturday Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................26 7 Existing plus Project Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service.........................36 8 Existing plus Project Saturday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service..........................37 9 Buildout (2040) Weekday Peak Hour Intersection LOS ...................................................45 10 Buildout (2040) Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS ....................................................45 11 Existing AM, PM, and Saturday Peak Hour Calculated 95th Percentile Queues1.............................................................................................................52 12 Existing plus Project AM, PM and Saturday Peak Hour Calculated 95th Percentile Queues1.............................................................................................................54 13 Buildout (2040) AM, PM and Saturday Peak Hour Calculated 95th Percentile Queues1.............................................................................................................56 14 Collision Summary (2014-2018) .......................................................................................58 Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
iv April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
1 April 2021
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is to identify potential traffic operations deficiencies associated with a proposed residential development known as the Hunter Subdivision (proposed project) located in the eastern portion of the City of St. Helena (City). The TIS will also determine whether the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s level of service (LOS) standards contained in their Traffic Impact Study Scoping Agreement form. The project’s scoping agreement has been approved by the City’s Engineering Division and is provided as Appendix A. If LOS deficiencies are found, improvements are identified that would offset or reduce vehicle delay, or improve LOS.

Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law, which changed the way transportation impacts are analyzed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Under the new transportation guidelines, an evaluation of LOS, or vehicle delay, is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The updates to the CEQA Guidelines required under SB 743 were approved by the California Natural Resources Agency on December 28, 2018. Under the new guidelines, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has been adopted as the most appropriate metric to evaluate transportation impacts under CEQA. The OPR’s regulatory text indicates that a public agency may immediately commence implementation of the new transportation impact guidelines, and that the guidelines must be implemented statewide by July 1, 2020.

A separate VMT analysis has been prepared, and its methodology, analysis results, findings, and mitigation measures (if any) are provided in the environmental impact report (EIR).

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the TIS
This TIS has been prepared per the City’s Traffic Impact Study Scoping Agreement which contains guidelines for the preparation of a TIS. In addition, this TIS complies with the City’s 1993 General Plan Transportation Element as well as the City’s General Plan Update 2040, Circulation Element (2018) that was approved in June 2019.

The objectives of this TIS are:
• Document existing traffic conditions, including intersection levels of service in the study area;
• Estimate trip generation, distribution, and assignment characteristics for the proposed project; Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
2 April 2021
• Analyze the traffic impacts that would occur as a result of project traffic under the Existing and Buildout Year (2040) conditions;
• Describe the potential impacts under the Existing and Buildout Year (2040) conditions; • Identify improvements for any transportation facilities that would be inconsistent with the City’s LOS policies;
• Describe the adequacy of project access locations;
• Analyze vehicular queuing to identify storage length issues; • Analyze vehicle collisions within the past 5 years for major intersections; and • Describe active transportation and transit facilities in the vicinity of the project site.

Dudek analyzed the following scenarios to identify potential LOS deficiencies and queuing and site circulation impacts associated with the proposed project:

Existing Conditions
The TIS includes a description of existing traffic conditions in the site vicinity, including the existing roadway system, existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, existing Saturday peak hour traffic volumes, existing weekday and Saturday roadway segment daily traffic volumes, and traffic operations. The existing condition is representative of the year (2018) when traffic counts were collected.

Existing plus Project
This condition includes analysis of traffic operations under existing conditions with project-related traffic added to the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, and existing Saturday peak hour traffic volumes.

Buildout Year (2040)
This condition includes analysis of traffic operation under Buildout Year (2040) conditions within a long-term planning horizon period, consistent with the City’s General Plan Update 2040 (General Plan Update), when the proposed project would be constructed and fully occupied. This scenario assumes buildout of the land uses designated in the City’s General Plan Update because this is the most current information available. The proposed project is consistent with the site’s residential land use types designated in the 1993 General Plan and the General Plan Update. Buildout (2040) volumes were derived from the Year 2040 Conditions analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the St. Helena General Plan Update, Chapter 3.13 Transportation and Traffic (Dyett & Bhatia 2018).

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
3 April 2021

1.2 Project Description
Figure 1 illustrates the project location and study area. The proposed project would be located on a 16.9-acre vacant site within the City along the eastern terminus of Adams Street and along the northern terminus of Starr Avenue. The project site is undeveloped with the exception of a small vineyard generally located in the southwestern portion of the site. The project site plan is shown in Figure 2.

The proposed project includes a residential subdivision tentative map consisting of 51 singlefamily residences, 25 affordable multifamily units, and 11 accessory dwelling units (ADUs) for a total of 87 dwelling units. Therefore, a cumulative total of 87 residential dwelling units is assumed for the purposes of this analysis. The project site is zoned for medium-density residential and is adjacent to other residential uses to its south and west, and vineyards and undeveloped/vacant parcels to its north and east.

Currently, the project site is located without access to roadways; however, as part of the project Adams Street and Starr Avenue would be extended to serve the site. Primary access to the project site would be provided via the eastern extension of Adams Street, as well as the northern extension of Starr Avenue. Parking for future residences would be provided via private individual garages and driveways for single-family residences, covered carports for multifamily units, and publicly available on-street parking along the interior streets within the project site (as permitted).

1.3 Study Area and Scope
The scope of this TIS has been prepared in coordination with the City (see Appendix A), and focuses on the weekday AM (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.), PM (3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), and Saturday (2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.) peak hour periods. These peak hour periods are analyzed for the hour of highest traffic volume between 7:00 to 9:00 AM, 4:00 to 6:00 PM; and, Saturday 2:00 to 4:00 PM.

These periods represent the highest cumulative total traffic for the adjacent street system.

Per the approved Scoping Agreement, the study intersections include:

1. Main Street (State Route 29 – SR-29)/Fulton Lane – Madrona Avenue

2. Main Street (SR-29)/Adams Street

3. Main Street (SR-29)/Hunt Avenue

4. Main Street (SR-29)/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive

5. Railroad Avenue/Fulton Lane

6. Railroad Avenue/Adams Street
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
4 April 2021

7. Railroad Avenue/Hunt Avenue

8. Library Lane/Adams Street

9. Starr Avenue/Hunt Avenue

10. Starr Avenue/Pope Street

11. Paseo Grand Drive – College Avenue/Pope Street

12. Silverado Trail/Pope Street

13. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road
Further analysis for the 95th percentile queues for all intersections was also analyzed in order to evaluate existing storage lane lengths, especially in regard to left-turn lane queues at Main Street (SR29).

The study intersections above were analyzed for the following study scenarios:
• Existing Conditions (2018)
• Existing plus Project
• Buildout (2040)
This TIS includes a description of existing conditions in the site vicinity, including roadway network, existing and buildout baseline weekday AM, PM, and Saturday peak hour traffic volumes, and traffic operations.

Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Project Site Location and Study Area Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 1 Project Location Regional Map Apr 15, 2019 - 12:22pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig1-site location and study area NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps,05/2017; Open Street Map, 01/2018 LegendSite X Study Intersection

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
6 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

Project Site Plan Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 2 Apr 30, 2019 - 11:30am mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig2-SitePlan

NOT TO SCALE
Source: RSA+, 01/2019

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
8 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
9 April 2021

1.4 Congestion Management Program
The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in Napa County. However, NVTA does not have an adopted Congestion Management Program (CMP). Instead, NVTA works with the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to prepare the Napa County section of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Currently, the NVTA does not have a LOS standard specific to traffic.

1.5 Methodology
The City’s intersection evaluation methodology and impact criteria is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), HCM 6th Edition, methodology for signalized and unsignalized intersections, including intersections under Caltrans jurisdiction.

1.5.1 Intersections
The operational characteristics of an intersection are determined by calculating the intersection’s LOS. The intersection, as a whole and its individual turning movements, can be described alphabetically with a range of levels of service (A through F), with LOS A indicating free-flow traffic and LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. The intersection LOS was calculated using the HCM 6
th Edition methodology. In the HCM, LOS is expressed in terms of the average intersection delay per vehicle for the peak 15-minute period within the analyzed hour.

At two-way, stop sign-controlled intersections, the LOS is defined in terms of the average vehicle delay of an individual movement. This is the industry standard method used to evaluate the performance of a two-way, stop sign-controlled intersection because the average vehicle delay is more closely reflected in terms of individual movements, rather than its performance overall. For this reason, LOS for a twoway, stop sign-controlled intersection is defined in terms of its individual movement. With this in mind, the total average vehicle delay (i.e., average delay of all movements) for a two-way, stop signcontrolled intersections should be viewed with discretion and for that reason is not what is reported within the peak hour intersection LOS tables in the following sections. Table 1 shows the relationship of the average control delay and LOS for signalized and unsignalized intersections.

Table 1
Level of Service Criteria for Intersections using HCM Methodology Level of
Service
Average Control Delay (sec/veh)
Signalized Unsignalized General Description
A 0–10 0–10 Free flow
B >10–20 >10–15 Stable flow (slight delays)
C >20–35 >15–25 Stable flow (acceptable delays)
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
10 April 2021
Table 1
Level of Service Criteria for Intersections using HCM Methodology Level of
Service
Average Control Delay (sec/veh)
Signalized Unsignalized General Description
D >35–55 >25–35 Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay, occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding)
E >55–80 >35–50 Unstable flow (intolerable delay)
F >80 >50 Forced flow (jammed)
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2016.

1.5.2 Future Traffic Forecasts
Future traffic volumes for year 2040 were obtained from the General Plan Update EIR Section

3.13, Transportation and Traffic section. Based on review of the traffic modeling/forecasting data of the General Plan Update, the 2040 forecast traffic volumes have incorporated traffic generated by the proposed project. In addition, traffic generated by the project ADUs was added to the Buildout (2040) scenario.

1.5.3 Impact Criteria
City of St. Helena
The City’s impact criteria is provided in the TIS Scoping Agreement form (Appendix A). The following LOS impact criteria are applicable to study area intersections:
• Operations at a signalized intersection along State Route 29 to deteriorate from LOS D, under conditions without the project, to LOS E or F, or, operations at other signalized intersections to deteriorate from LOS C under conditions without the project to LOS D, E or F. • The LOS to deteriorate to LOS F for signalized intersections that operate at LOS E under conditions without the project.
• The average intersection delay to increase by more than five (5.0) seconds for signalized intersections that operate at LOS F under conditions without the project. • The LOS to deteriorate to LOS D, E or F for unsignalized intersections operating at LOS C or better under conditions without the project, and the traffic volumes would satisfy the Caltrans peak hour volume warrant criterion for traffic signal installation. For unsignalized intersections on State Route 29 operating at LOS D or better under conditions without the project, the impact would be inconsistent with the City’s LOS policies if the project would cause the LOS to deteriorate to LOS E or F, and the traffic volumes would satisfy the Caltrans peak hour volume warrant criterion for traffic signal installation.

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
11 April 2021
• Average delay to increase by five (5.0) or more seconds for unsignalized intersections operating at unacceptable levels (LOS D, E or F; or LOS E or F on State Route 29) under conditions without the project, and the traffic volumes would satisfy the Caltrans peak hour volume warrant criterion for traffic signal installation.

A peak traffic signal warrant per the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) was reviewed to determine whether the installation of a traffic signal may be warranted at unsignalized intersections with unsatisfactory LOS. The signal warrant compares the total traffic from both major street approaches, to the traffic of the single highest minor street approach. The signal warrant analysis is intended to provide guidance in determining the need to install a traffic signal based on data collected in the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD) and CA MUTCD guidelines. An intersection meeting a signal warrant itself does not constitute the only basis for installation of a traffic signal and instead serves as a tool, in addition to collision and engineering data, to provide guidance towards traffic signal installation.

Caltrans
All study area intersections along Main Street, also fall under Caltrans jurisdiction as Main Street is also listed as a state route under Caltrans jurisdiction; SR-29. As stated in the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (December 2002), the level of service for operating State highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOEs). These MOEs describe the measures best suited for analyzing State highway facilities (i.e., freeway segments, signalized intersections, on- or off-ramps, etc.). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and if an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained.

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
12 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
13 April 2021
2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section describes existing conditions within the identified study area. Descriptions are provided for the characteristics of the study area roadway network, peak hour traffic volumes, traffic operations, traffic safety, non-motorized facilities, and transit.

2.1 Existing Street System
Characteristics of the existing street system in the proposed project vicinity are shown in Table 2.

Street classification data is derived from the Circulation Element of the draft St. Helena General Plan Update 2040 (2018). As shown on Figure 2, the primary access points to the project site is provided via Adams Street or Starr Avenue. The existing traffic controls and geometrics at the study area intersections are shown on Figure 3.

Table 2
Study Area Existing Street System Summary
Roadway
Street
Classification
Posted
Speed Limit
(MPH)1
# of
Travel
Lanes Parking Sidewalks Bicycle Lanes
Main Street (SR-29) Regional
Connector
25 2 Yes – along
some sections
Yes No
Fulton Lane/Madrona
Avenue
Open
Space/Rural
Street
25 2 Yes – except
for east of
railroad tracks
Yes – except
for east of
railroad tracks
No
Adams Street Downtown/Mix
ed-Use Street
25 2 Yes – along
some sections
Yes No
Hunt Avenue Residential
Street
25 2 Yes – along
some sections
Yes – along
some sections
Yes – Class III
Railroad Avenue Downtown/Mix
ed-Use Street
25 2 Yes – along
some sections
Yes – along
some sections
No
Pope Street Downtown/Mix
ed-Use Street
25 2 Yes – along
some sections
Yes – along
some sections
Yes – Class II
and Class III
Starr Avenue Residential
Street
25 2 Yes – along
some sections
Yes Yes – Class II
Howell Mountain
Road
Open
Space/Rural
Street
35 2 No No No
Silverado Trail Rural
Throughway2
50 2 No No Yes – Class II
Notes: MPH = miles per hour
1 Speed limit information derived from §10.08.010-0.20 of the City of St. Helena Municipal Code. 2 Obtained from the Circulation Element of the Napa County General Plan (2008).

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
14 April 2021

2.2 Pedestrian Facilities
The pedestrian infrastructure within the study area depends largely on the types of land uses, as agricultural or open space land uses generally lack pedestrian amenities, as seen in segments of Adams Street near the edge of the project site boundary. Around the perimeter of developed land along Starr Avenue and Hunt Avenue, the study area generally contains sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, signage, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant curb ramps. Railroad crossings are generally in good condition to allow safe crossings for pedestrians. Near the project site, Adams Street and Starr Avenue would be extended to provide vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian access to the site. Sidewalks would be provided along both sides of the street allowing safe pedestrian access to the site. The project site would facilitate accessibility to the downtown St.

Helena corridor by way of existing sidewalks that would provide access to several neighborhood services such as Main Street, retail and grocery stores, and the St. Helena Public Library.

2.3 Bicycle Facilities
As shown in Table 2, there are a number of bicycle facilities within the study area. Class I bikeways, also known as bike paths or shared-use paths, are facilities with an exclusive right-ofway for bicyclists and pedestrians, separated from roadways. The project is not proposing any Class I bike paths. Class II bicycle lanes, which are striped and demarcated areas of roadway that separate bicyclists from motorists, are available along the entirety of Starr Avenue and Silverado Trail and the majority of Pope Street from Railroad Avenue to Paseo Grand Drive-College Avenue.

Class III bicycle routes, are shared roadways where vehicles and bicyclists equally share the road, but do not contain a striped bike lane. Class III bicycle routes are provided along Hunt Avenue and portions of Pope Street, east of Railroad Avenue and west of Paseo Grand Drive-College Avenue, towards the approach to the Pope Street Bridge. Along the project access, Starr Avenues connects the site to the larger St. Helena bicycle network via Pope Street or Hunt Avenue. The City’s Bicycle Plan was adopted in 2012 as part of the wider Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency’s Bicycle Master Plan. Several improvements were identified such as Class III bicycle routes along Main Street and Class II bicycle lanes along Adams Street.

2.4 Transit System
The NVTA manages Vine Transit, which provides transit service in the greater Napa County region and most closely serves the project study area and site. The St. Helena Shuttle, Vine Route 10, and Vine Route 29 all provide differing levels of frequency and connectivity to transit riders within the study area.

The St. Helena Shuttle route operates every weekday for one morning and one afternoon on a fixed route starting at 7:50 a.m. and then again, at 3:15 p.m., circulating throughout the City and stopping Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
15 April 2021
directly adjacent to the project site at the intersection of Starr Avenue/Hunt Avenue. The shuttle provides access to several schools in the City as well as an east-west connection through the city.

Outside of the fixed route, the shuttle operates as an on-demand, door-to-door service within much of the city limits Monday to Thursday from 7:45 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with extended hours Friday until 11:00 p.m. Weekend service is also provided with service on Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and on Sundays from 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Service is not provided on major holidays.

Vine Route 10 is a regional transit route that connects the cities of Calistoga and Napa, with stops within the study area along Main Street at Adams Street and at Pope Street/Mitchell Drive.

Weekday service generally occurs every 45 minutes starting at 6:15 a.m. and ending at 10:44 p.m.

Weekend service is provided every hour and is truncated during the morning and night periods.

Service is not provided on weekends or major holidays.

Vine Route 29 connects Calistoga southward towards the greater Napa County residential core, connecting to the Vallejo Ferry and finally the El Cerrito BART station. The nearest stop within the study area is the St. Helena Post Office located on Main Street. Service is primarily provided twice during the morning and afternoon periods starting at 5:22 a.m. and ending at 6:35 p.m.

Service is not provided on weekends or major holidays.

The Napa Valley Wine Train also passes through the city; however, it is mainly utilized as a tourist attraction and not for commuting purposes. Stops are limited and occur on an irregular basis in the city. The Wine Train’s proximity to Main Street can result in increased congestion and vehicle queueing, as well as the potential to impede emergency access across Adams Street and Hunt Avenue. The Wine Train blocks egress and ingress at Adams Street and Hunt Avenue for up to two minutes at a time departing and arriving, therefore these crossings will be closed or delayed for a maximum of eight minutes per day. The Wine Train is mandated to keep all grade crossings clear; therefore, the limited speed in the area is what constitutes the delay described above.

2.5 Pope Street Bridge
The Pope Street Bridge is a narrow two-lane historic bridge that spans the Napa River and connects the City with Silverado Trail, a regional roadway that provides north-south access through Napa County. Silverado Trail also serves as an alternative route to Main Street (SR-29). The Pope Street Bridge is largely unimproved, and is constructed of stone, creating narrow lanes and reduced speed for motorists. This also creates a situation where bicyclists share the road with vehicles, creating potential areas of conflict. Operationally, the Pope Street Bridge allows for one lane of westbound traffic, creating conflicts between vehicles turning onto Pope Street versus vehicles turning onto Silverado Trail. Collisions between these conflict points were analyzed in depth in the following sections. Additionally, emergency access can be impeded due to congestion along the bridge, creating difficulty for services to be provided to areas along Silverado Trail.

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
16 April 2021

2.6 Traffic Volumes
Existing peak hour turning movement counts at the study intersections were conducted in April 2018, during the week (and Saturday) of the Napa Arts in April Art Festival and celebration in Lyman Park. Per review of Caltrans data from the previous seven years, the month of April was identified as the peak month for traffic volumes in the St. Helena downtown area based on traffic volumes on Main Street (SR-29), north and south of Adam Street.1 This data is presented in Appendix B. Therefore, these volumes represent a high traffic period during the year and present a conservative existing baseline scenario.

Traffic volumes were balanced between intersections. Raw intersection turning movement counts are provided in Appendix B. Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, and Saturday peak hour volumes, are summarized in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. These volumes were used to evaluate existing weekday and Saturday traffic conditions.
1 The second busiest time in the area is during the fall harvest “crush” period in the month of October.

Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Existing Traffic Controls and Geometrics Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 3 Apr 15, 2019 - 12:50pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig3-exGeo NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street 1 Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street 3 Hunt Avenue Main Street 4 Pope St – Mitchell Dr Railroad Avenue 5 Fulton Lane Railroad Avenue 6 Adams Street Starr Avenue 10 Pope Street Library Lane Adams Street Starr Avenue 8 9 Hunt Avenue Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street PERM
FREE Silverado Trail Pope Street Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road 12 13 PERM
PROT
PROT

FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE

DEFACTO
FREE
PROT
NRTOR
PROT
LegendSite
X Study Intersection Lane Geometrics Traffic Signal
Stop Sign PROT Protected Left Turn Phasing PERM Permitted Left Turn Phasing Number of lanes (divided roadway)Number of lanes (undivided roadway) XDXUFREE Free Movement DEFACTO Defacto Right Turn Lane NRTOR No Right Turn on Red 2U
2U
2U
2U
2U
2U
2U
2U 2U
2U
2U
2U
2U
2U
2U
2U
2U

NRTOR FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE
FREE

DEFACTO

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
18 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
19 April 2021

2.7 Intersection Operations
An intersection LOS analysis was prepared for the existing weekday and Saturday conditions using the HCM methodology discussed in Section 1. Detailed LOS worksheets and signal warrants are included in Appendix C. Tables 3 and 4 show the results of the weekday and Saturday, respectively, existing conditions LOS analysis.

Table 3
Existing Weekday Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Control
AM Peak PM Peak
Intersection Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2

1. Main Street/Fulton Lane – Madrona Avenue signalized 13.0 B 11.2 B

2. Main Street/Adams Street signalized 22.9 C 20.8 C

3. Main Street/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 16.9 C 18.3 C

4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive signalized 148.7 F 110.1 F

5. Railroad Avenue/Fulton Lane unsignalized 10.1 B 10.4 B

6. Railroad Avenue/Adams Street unsignalized 10.0 A 11.2 B

7. Railroad Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 14.4 B 14.0 B

8. Library Lane/Adams Street unsignalized 10.6 B 12.4 B

9. Starr Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 7.6 A 7.4 A

10. Starr Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 15.4 C 14.1 B

11. Paseo Grand Drive – College Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 27.1 D 15.5 C

12. Silverado Trail/Pope Street unsignalized 18.0 C 27.3 D

13. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road unsignalized 14.5 B 17.7 C Notes:
1 Average seconds per vehicle
2 Level of Service (LOS)
BOLD value indicates unsatisfactory LOS
As shown in Table 3, a majority of the study area intersections are currently operating at satisfactory LOS under existing weekday conditions except for:
• 4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive: LOS F in AM and PM peak hours. • 11. Paseo Grand Drive – College Avenue/Pope Street: LOS D in AM peak hour. • 12. Silverado Trail/Pope Street: LOS D in PM peak hour.

Table 4
Existing Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Control
Saturday PM Peak
Intersection Delay1 LOS2

1. Main Street/Fulton Lane – Madrona Avenue signalized 22.3 C

2. Main Street/Adams Street signalized 37.5 D
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
20 April 2021
Table 4
Existing Saturday Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Control
Saturday PM Peak
Intersection Delay1 LOS2

3. Main Street/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 22.6 C

4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive signalized 129.2 F

5. Railroad Avenue/Fulton Lane unsignalized 9.6 A

6. Railroad Avenue/Adams Street unsignalized 8.7 A

7. Railroad Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 11.1 B

8. Library Lane/Adams Street unsignalized 9.9 A

9. Starr Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 7.2 A

10. Starr Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 11.7 B

11. Paseo Grand Drive – College Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 13.4 B

12. Silverado Trail/Pope Street unsignalized 20.2 C

13. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road unsignalized 15.2 C Notes:
1 Average seconds per vehicle
2 Level of Service (LOS)
BOLD value indicates unsatisfactory LOS
As shown in Table 4, a majority of the study area intersections are currently operating at satisfactory LOS under existing Saturday conditions except for:
• 4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive: LOS F.

Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Existing Weekday Traffic Volumes Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 4 Apr 15, 2019 - 2:21pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig4-ex vols NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave (89) 109 (39) 29 (40) 17(37) 20637 (588)(18) 16(12) 10 (52) 36 (70) 152 (92) 60 (517) 583 (84) 53 1 (55) 78
(89) 100
(33) 26
(50) 29534 (555)(46) 34
(29) 64
(62) 71(33) 61
(43) 69
(480) 508 (46) 33 Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street Hunt Avenue 574 (633)(94) 66(27) 31 (18) 23 (20) 27 (522) 571 3 Main Street Pope St – Mitchell Dr (168) 191(77) 83549 (605)(50) 51(175) 139 (33) 26 (122) 91 (76) 85 (469) 513 (4) 4 4 Railroad Avenue Fulton Lane (13) 9
(130) 94
(109) 191 (12) 6
(10) 5(14) 13
5 Railroad Avenue Adams Street (18) 15
(90) 121
(70) 85
(71) 55 88 (101)(55) 29
(15) 57(47) 140(34) 96
(59) 51
(65) 72 (12) 26
6 Library Lane 8 Adams Street Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street (50) 21
(51) 67
(13) 3
(5) 3 10(3) (10) 6
(3) 2(28) 29(183) 135
(132) 185
(4) 6 (10) 16
(37) 69(82) 47
(29) 9
(8) 31
0(0)
(0) 1
(0) 0(25) 81(2) 0
(0) 6
(0) 1 (9) 45
(13) 31
(126) 242
(114) 39
(119) 33
0(0)
(48) 24
(88) 19(262) 226(8) 6
(8) 4
(1) 0 (17) 20 Starr Avenue 9 Hunt Avenue (12) 15
(65) 75
(81) 63 (8) 7
(11) 6(21) 12 Silverado Trail Pope Street (102) 92
(74) 164
(179) 103395 (428)
(316) 573 (206) 177 Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road 471 (491)(39) 16(26) 48 (4) 10 (4) 5 (496) 702 12 13 Starr Avenue Pope Street (9) 18 (185) 226 (365) 261 (60) 57 (25) 15 (66) 68 10 LegendSite X Study Intersection X (X) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 2,400
1,600 1,600
X,XXX Average Daily Traffic

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
22 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Existing Saturday Traffic Volumes Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 5 Apr 15, 2019 - 2:29pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig5-ex Svols NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave 71 2537 16546 6 111573 53 561 74
1 375428 2748724 423544 41 548 20 Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street Hunt Avenue 51067 3228 22 596 3 Main Street Pope St – Mitchell Dr 153 5750655 128 3871 63 559 6 4 Railroad Avenue Fulton Lane 1073 109 10
811
5 Railroad Avenue Adams Street
86739 30 71 18 226944 44 52 14
6 Library Lane 8 Adams Street Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street 2659 2 1
2 2
14284 93
2 20 43
83 1
2 0
05 1
0 1 30 14 19318 13
0 22 19218
4 9
0 16 Starr Avenue 9 Hunt Avenue
646 44 11
58 Silverado Trail Pope Street 110 114 121471 423 125 Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road 55823 2815 8 520 12 13 Starr Avenue Pope Street 17 188 213 39
9 36 10 LegendSite
X Study Intersection X Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 820 1,200 1,200 X,XXX Average Daily Traffic

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
24 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
25 April 2021
3 PROJECT TRAFFIC
This section documents project-generated changes on the surrounding transportation system and at the study intersections.

3.1 Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the project were calculated based upon the trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation, 10th Edition (ITE 2017). Average trip generation rates represent weighted averages from studies conducted throughout the United States and Canada since 1980 that surveyed the identified use.2 For example, “single-family detached housing,” which has the highest trip generation rate per dwelling unit of all residential uses, specifically identifies all detached homes on individual lots, with a typical site being a suburban subdivision.

In order to reflect the correct intensity of land use and project traffic, the single-family detached housing rate was also used for the income-restricted housing, while the multifamily housing rate was used for the ADU rate. The calculation of project trip generation estimates for the weekday and Saturday is shown in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

As shown in Table 5, during a weekday the project would generate 798 daily trips, 62 AM peak hour trips (16 inbound and 46 outbound), and 82 PM peak hour trips (52 inbound and 30 outbound).

Table 5
Weekday Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
Daily Trip
Rate Unit
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
% In % Out Total % In % Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing (ITE Code 210)

9.44 DU 0.19 0.56 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99
Multifamily Housing (LowRise) (ITE Code 220)7.32 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 Trip Generation
Land Use
Total No.
of Units
Unit Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached
Housing
51 DU 481 10 28 38 32 19 51
Accessory (Granny) Units 11 DU 81 1 4 5 4 2 6
Affordable Housing2 25 DU 236 5 14 19 16 9 25
Total Trip Generation 798 16 46 62 52 30 82
Notes:
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. 2 Single-Family and multifamily land uses are based on surveys and weighted averages. Rates are not based on a specified number of bedrooms or vehicles per household.

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
26 April 2021
2 Reflects use of Single-Family land use since this rate is more conservative (higher trip generation) as compared to multifamily housing.

As shown in Table 6, during a Saturday the project would generate 815 daily trips, and 80 peak hour trips (40 inbound and 40 outbound).

Table 6
Saturday Project Trip Generation
Trip Generation Rates1
Land Use
Saturday
Trip Rate Unit
Peak Hour
% In % Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing
(ITE Code 210)

9.54 DU 0.47 0.47 0.93
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
(ITE Code 220)

8.14 DU 0.35 0.35 0.70
Trip Generation
Land Use
Total No.
of Units Unit Daily
Peak Hour
In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing 51 DU 487 24 24 48
Accessory (Granny) Units 11 DU 90 4 4 8
Affordable Housing2 25 DU 239 12 12 24
Total Trip Generation 815 40 40 80
Notes:
1 Trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017. 2 Reflects use of Single-Family land use since this rate is more conservative (higher trip generation) as compared to multifamily housing.

3.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Project trips were distributed to the study area intersections using the existing travel patterns and logical commute routes for project-related traffic. Project trips were assigned to the study area intersections by applying the project trip generation estimates to the trip distribution percentages at each study area intersection. Single-family and ADU trips were distributed and assigned together, as shown on Figure 6, while the multifamily housing trips were distributed and assigned separately, as show on Figure 7. The total project trip assignment is shown in Figure 8. The project trip distribution and assignment for Saturday includes all uses combined and is shown on Figure 9.

Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Single-Family & Accessory Dwelling Units Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 6 Mar 11, 2021 - 2:54pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig6-SfAcsTrip NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 0 1(1)
(1) 1(2) 1
(1) 2
(0) 1 1 (0) 1
(0) 1
(1) 1
(1) 1(2) 1
(1) 2 Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street Hunt Avenue 1(0)
(3) 9
(8) 5
(1) 1 3 Main Street Pope St – Mitchell Dr 10(3) (4) 12 (11) 7 (9) 6 4 Railroad Avenue Fulton Lane (1) 3 (3) 2 5 Railroad Avenue Adams Street (1) 4 (4) 2 (3) 2 (1) 3
6 Library Lane 8 Adams Street Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street (3) 9 (8) 5 (2) 7 (6) 4 (6) 4
(1) 0
(0) 1
(2) 7 Starr Avenue 9 Hunt Avenue (3) 11
(5)
(16) 10 (10) 7 18 Silverado Trail Pope Street (2) 1 (5) 3 (2) 5 (1) 2 Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road 1(2)
(1) 2 12 13 Starr Avenue Pope Street (3) 10 (2) 8 (9) 6 (7) 5 10 LegendSite X Study Intersection X (X) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XX% Percentage Distribution 5%2% 15% 60% 10% 5% 3%

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
28 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Multi-Family Housing Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 7 Apr 15, 2019 - 3:13pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig7-MFTrips NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave (0) 1 (0) 1 (1) 1 1(1)
(1) 1(2) 1
(1) 2
(0) 1 1 (0) 1 (1) 0 (2) 1 (1) 2 Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street Hunt Avenue(1) 2 (1) 1 3 Main Street Pope St – Mitchell Dr
2(1)
(1) 2
(2) 1
(2) 1 4 Railroad Avenue Fulton Lane (1) 3
(3) 2
5 Railroad Avenue Adams Street (1) 3 (3) 2 (3) 2 (1) 3
6 Library Lane 8 Adams Street Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street (1) 2 (2) 1 (2) 6 (5) 3 (4) 3
(1) 0
(0) 1
(2) 5 Starr Avenue 9 Hunt Avenue (1) 3
(2)(6) 4 (2) 1
7 Silverado Trail Pope Street (2) 1 (2) 1 (1) 2 (1) 2 Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road 1(1)
(1) 0
(0) 1
(1) 2 12 13 Starr Avenue Pope Street (1) 2 (2) 6 (2) 1 (5) 3 10 LegendSite X Study Intersection X (X) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XX% Percentage Distribution 15% 10%5% 25% 20% 15% 5% 5%

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
30 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Project Trip Assignment - Total (All Uses) Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 8 Mar 11, 2021 - 2:51pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig8-ProjTripAs NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave (0) 2 (0) 2 (2) 1 2(2)
(2) 2(4) 2
(2) 4
(0) 2 1 (0) 2
(0) 1
(1) 1
(2) 1(4) 2
(2) 4 Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street Hunt Avenue 1(0)
(4) 11
(9) 6
(1) 1 3 Main Street Pope St – Mitchell Dr 12(4) (5) 14 (13) 8 (11) 7 4 Railroad Avenue Fulton Lane (2) 6 (6) 4 5 Railroad Avenue Adams Street (2) 7 (7) 4 (6) 4 (2) 6
6 Library Lane 8 Adams Street Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street (4) 11 (10) 6 (4) 13 (11) 7 (10) 7
(2) 0
(0) 2
(4) 12 Starr Avenue 9 Hunt Avenue (4) 14
(7)
(22) 14 (12) 8 25 Silverado Trail Pope Street (4) 2 (7) 4 (3) 7 (2) 4 Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road 2(3)
(1) 0
(0) 1
(2) 4 12 13 Starr Avenue Pope Street (4) 12 (4) 14 (11) 7 (12) 8 10 LegendSite X Study Intersection X (X) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
32 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Project Trip Distribution & Assignment - Saturday (All Uses) Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 9 Mar 11, 2021 - 3:01pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig9-SaturdayTrip NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave 42 2
5 4
7 7
5 1
2 1
1 1
26 6
1 Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street Hunt Avenue
1 5
5 1
1 1 3 Main Street Pope St – Mitchell Dr
5 7
7 5 4 Railroad Avenue Fulton Lane 11 11
5 Railroad Avenue Adams Street
9 1
910 10
1 6 Library Lane 8 Adams Street Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street 6 6
1 1 19 19 8 8 Starr Avenue 9 Hunt Avenue
8 13
8 13 Silverado Trail Pope Street
26 62 Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road
22 12 13 Starr Avenue Pope Street
5 8
5 8 10 LegendSite
X Study Intersection X Saturday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XX% Percentage Distribution 15% 5% 30% 30% 15% 5%

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
34 April 2021

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
35 April 2021
4 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT

4.1 Traffic Volumes
The project trip assignments shown in Figure 8 were added to the existing weekday traffic volumes shown in Figure 4 to derive the Existing plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 10 illustrates the Existing plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes that were used to evaluate Existing plus Project weekday traffic conditions.

The project trip assignments shown in Figure 9 were added to the Existing Saturday traffic volumes shown in Figure 5 to derive the Existing plus Project Saturday peak hour traffic volumes. Figure 11 illustrates the Existing plus Project Saturday peak hour traffic volumes that were used to evaluate Existing plus Project Saturday traffic conditions.

4.2 Intersection Operations
An intersection operations analysis was conducted for the study area to evaluate the Existing plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour, and Saturday peak hour conditions. Intersection operations were calculated using the LOS methodology described in Section 1. The following presents the results of the project analysis.

Tables 7 and 8 show the results of the Existing plus Project weekday and Saturday LOS analysis, respectively, and provides a comparison to the Existing (without project) conditions for the weekday peak hours using the HCM methodology described previously at all intersections. Detailed LOS worksheets and signal warrants are included in Appendix C.

As shown in Table 7, based on the appropriate impact criteria, all of the study area intersections would continue to operate at a satisfactory LOS, except for the following intersections:
• 4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive: Continues to operate with unsatisfactory LOS at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours, however the increase in delay is less than 5.0 seconds in the AM peak hour (4.8 seconds), while the increase in delay is greater than 5.0 seconds in the PM peak hour (11.4 seconds). This constitutes a deficiency with the City’s LOS impact criteria (discussed in Section 1.5.3 above) for the PM peak hour. • 11. Paseo Grand Drive – College Avenue/Pope Street: Continues to operate with unsatisfactory LOS at LOS D in AM peak hour. This intersection is unsignalized and does not satisfy a peak hour signal warrants (traffic signal), and the increase in delay is less than

5.0 seconds (1.1 seconds). Therefore, the project would not exceed the City’s impact criteria and would be consistent with the City’s LOS policies.

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
36 April 2021
Table 7
Existing plus Project Weekday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Intersection Control
Existing Existing Plus Project Delay
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Change Impact? Delay1
LOS
2 Delay1
LOS
2 Delay1
LOS
2 Delay1
LOS
2 AM PM AM PM

1. Main Street/Fulton Lane – Madrona
Avenue signalized 13.0 B 11.2 B 13.2 B 11.4 B

0.2 0.2
no no

2. Main Street/Adams Street signalized 22.9 C 20.8 C 23.0 C 21.2 C 0.1 0.4 no no

3. Main Street/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 16.9 C 18.3 C 17.6 C 18.9 C 0.7 0.6 no no

4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive signalized 148.7 F 110.1 F 153.5 F 121.5 F 4.8 11.4 no yes

5. Railroad Avenue/Fulton Lane unsignalized 10.1 B 10.4 B 10.2 B 10.5 B 0.1 0.1 no no

6. Railroad Avenue/Adams Street unsignalized 10.0 A 11.2 B 10.2 B 11.4 B 0.2 0.2 no no

7. Railroad Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 14.4 B 14.0 B 14.8 B 14.5 B 0.4 0.5 no no

8. Library Lane/Adams Street unsignalized 10.6 B 12.4 B 10.8 B 12.8 B 0.2 0.4 no no

9. Starr Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 7.6 A 7.4 A 7.7 A 7.6 A 0.1 0.2 no no

10. Starr Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 15.4 C 14.1 B 16.2 C 14.8 B 0.8 0.7 no no

11. Paseo Grand Drive – College
Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 27.1 D 15.5 C 28.2 D 15.9 C 1.1 0.4 no no

12. Silverado Trail/Pope Street unsignalized 18.0 C 27.3 D 18.5 28.6 D 0.5 1.3 no no

13. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road unsignalized 14.5 B 17.7 C 14.6 B 17.9 C 0.1 0.2 no no Notes:
1 Average seconds per vehicle
2 Level of Service (LOS)
BOLD value indicates unsatisfactory LOS
C

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
37 April 2021
Table 8
Existing plus Project Saturday Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Intersection Control
Existing Existing plus Project Delay
Change
AM
Impact?
AM
Saturday PM Peak Saturday PM Peak
Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2

1. Main Street/Fulton Lane – Madrona Avenue signalized 22.3 C 22.6 C 0.3 no

2. Main Street/Adams Street signalized 37.5 D 37.6 D 0.1 no

3. Main Street/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 22.6 C 23.4 C 0.8 no

4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive signalized 129.2 F 132.9 F 3.7 no

5. Railroad Avenue/Fulton Lane unsignalized 9.6 A 9.8 A 0.2 no

6. Railroad Avenue/Adams Street unsignalized 8.7 A 8.9 A 0.2 no

7. Railroad Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 11.1 B 11.3 B 0.2 no

8. Library Lane/Adams Street unsignalized 9.9 A 10.2 B 0.3 no

9. Starr Avenue/Hunt Avenue unsignalized 7.2 A 7.3 A 0.1 no

10. Starr Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 11.7 B 11.9 B 0.2 no

11. Paseo Grand Drive – College Avenue/Pope Street unsignalized 13.4 B 13.7 B 0.3 no

12. Silverado Trail/Pope Street unsignalized 20.2 C 21.0 C 0.8 no

13. Silverado Trail/Howell Mountain Road unsignalized 15.2 C 15.2 C 0.1 no Notes:
1 Average seconds per vehicle
2 Level of Service (LOS)
BOLD value indicates unsatisfactory LOS

Agenda Item #6.9.

Hunter Subdivision TIS
10839
38 April 2021
• 12. Silverado Trail/Pope Street: Continues to operate with unsatisfactory LOS at LOS D in the PM peak hour. This intersection is unsignalized and satisfies the peak hour signal warrant (traffic signal) for the PM peak hour, however the increase in delay is less than 5.0 seconds (1.3 seconds). Therefore, the project would not exceed the City’s impact criteria and would be consistent with the City’s LOS policies.

As shown in Table 8, based on the appropriate impact criteria, most of the study area intersections would continue to operate at a satisfactory LOS (LOS D or better for intersections along Main Street – SR-29, and LOS C or better for all other intersections) during the Saturday peak hour, except for the following intersections:
• 4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive: Continues to operate with unsatisfactory LOS at LOS F, however, the increase in delay is less than 5.0 seconds (3.7 seconds). Therefore, the project would not exceed the City’s impact criteria and would be consistent with the City’s LOS policies.

Based on the LOS results of the Existing plus Project weekday and Saturday peak hour traffic analysis, and the City’s impact criteria, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the City’s LOS policies, and would require an improvement:
• 4. Main Street/Pope Street – Mitchell Drive: LOS F during the weekday PM peak hour.

An improvement for this intersection is provided in Section 6 below.

Agenda Item #6.9.

1 5
3 2
6 8 12 11

LIBRARY

MADRONA AVENUE

FULTON LANE RAILROAD AVENUE
SR-29

SILVERADO TRAIL
HOWELL

PASEO GRAND

MOUNTAIN ROAD

COLLEGE
DRIVE
AVENUE
LANE

ADAMS STREET

HUNT AVENUE

STARR AVENUE

POPE STREET
4 MITCHELL DRIVE

MAIN STREET

PRATT AVENUE
7 13
SPRING MTN. ROAD
9 10 Existing plus Project Weekday Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Hunter Subdivision - St. Helena FIGURE 10 Mar 11, 2021 - 2:55pm mpopovic P:\300.Environmental\10839 Hunter Subdivision\DUDEK WORK PRODUCTS\DOCUMENTS\Traffic\Graphics\Autocad Files\Base_HunterSubdivision_04.15.19.dwg Layout: fig10-exwp vols NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Maps, 05/2017 Main Street Fulton Ln – Madrona Ave (89) 109 (39) 31 (40) 19(39) 21639 (590)(18) 16(12) 10 (54) 38 (74) 154 (94) 64 (517) 585 (84) 53 1 (55) 78
(89) 102
(33) 26
(50) 29534 (555)(46) 35
(30) 65
(64) 72(37) 63
(45) 73
(480) 508 (46) 33 Main Street 2 Adams Street Main Street Hunt Avenue 575 (633)(98) 77(36) 37 (18) 23 (20) 27 (523) 572 3 Main Street Pope St – Mitchell Dr (168) 191(77) 83561 (609)(55) 65(188) 147 (33) 26 (122) 91 (76) 85 (480) 520 (4) 4 4 Railroad Avenue Fulton Lane (13) 9
(132) 100
(115) 195 (12) 6
(10) 5(14) 13
5 Railroad Avenue Adams Street (18) 15
(92) 128
(70) 85
(71) 55 88 (101)(55) 29
(15) 57(54) 144(40) 100
(61) 57
(65) 72 (12) 26
6 Library Lane 8 Adams Street Railroad Avenue 7 Hunt Avenue Paseo Grand Dr – College Ave 11 Pope Street (50) 21
(55) 78
(13) 3
(5) 3 10(3) (10) 6
(3) 2(38) 35(183) 135
(132) 185
(4) 6 (10) 16
(37) 69(86) 60
(29) 9
(8) 31
0(0)
(0) 1
(0) 0(36) 88(2) 0
(0) 6
(0) 1 (9) 45
(13) 31
(136) 249
(116) 39
(119) 35
0(0)
(48) 24
(88) 19(266) 238(8) 6
(8) 4
(1) 0 (17) 20 Starr Avenue 9 Hunt Avenue (4) 14
(12) 15(65) 75
(81) 63
(7)
(8) 7
(11) 6(21) 12(0) 0
(0) 0
(22) 14 (12) 8 25 Silverado Trail Pope Street (106) 94 (81) 168(182) 110395 (428) (316) 573 (208) 181 Silverado Trail Howell Mountain Road 473 (494)(40) 16(26) 49 (4) 10 (4) 5 (498) 706 12 13 Starr Avenue Pope Street (13) 30 (185) 226 (365) 261 (64) 71 (36) 22 (78) 76 10 LegendSite X Study Intersection X (X) Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Weekday AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes