Agenda — St. Helena City Council, June 26, 2023 (part 2 of 22)

30 relating to roosting bats are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:

BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats in trees adjacent to the Project site within 2 weeks prior to any Project construction (site clearing, grading). The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and presence of guano within the Project site and 50 feet around these areas. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be mapped and described in a survey letter report. If roosting bats (individuals or colonies) are detected within the Project site, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified as soon as possible prior to any construction activity to confirm the bats can be avoided during construction. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely avoided, a qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and approval, and that plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction that could impact the roosting bats or maternity colony.

AES-1: To minimize spillover light while ensuring adequate nighttime security, the Project applicant shall prepare lighting design guidelines for the Project to be reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Design Review process. The lighting design guidelines shall include a lighting plan noting fixtures and lumens, and standards such as, lighting is to be shielded and downward focused to reduce glare and spillover light, up cast decorative lighting shall be limited to minimize effects on wildlife and to retain the rural ambience of the area, and the use of mirrored glass shall not be permitted. The lighting guidelines shall conform with Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. The guidelines and lighting plan shall be approved as part of the Design Review application.

Implementation of MM BIO-1 would ensure that measures be taken to avoid any potentially significant impact to roosting bats during construction of the Project. Additionally, implementation of MM AES-1 would address indirect impacts to native bats relating to spillover light, which can affect some species. With implementation of these required mitigation measures, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to native bats would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-46 through 3.4-48.) Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 111 of 4069 ends

31 White-tailed kites. No white-tailed kites have been observed on or near the Project site during the 2011, 2015, 2018, or 2019 biological surveys of the site. Moreover, no tree removal is proposed as part of the Project, so no direct impacts (such as mortality and/or injury to nesting kites) are anticipated as a result of the Project. However, if white-tailed kites were to be breeding near the site before Project initiation, construction-related activities could potentially cause an adult kite to abandon an active nest that is in close proximity to the construction area, potentially leaving eggs or chicks vulnerable to predation or without provisions. In addition, increased lighting and glare associated with the Project’s operation could result in indirect impacts to the white-tailed kites’ nesting habitat. As explained below, mitigation is necessary to ensure that any potentially significant impact relating to white-tailed kites is mitigated to a level of less than significant.

Nesting and migratory birds. No active nests for nesting or migratory birds were documented on or near the Project site during the 2011, 2015, 2018, and 2019 biological surveys.

However, trees, shrubs, grassland, and vineyards on or adjacent to the Project site provide potential nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) and California Fish and Game Code section 3500. Direct impacts to nesting birds could result from vegetation clearing and site grading during Project construction. Potential indirect impacts to birds nesting near the Project site during construction would essentially be identical to those described above for white-tailed kite.

To ensure that any potential impacts relating to white-tailed kite and nesting and migratory birds are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:

BIO-2: If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), the Project applicant or their contractor shall implement the following measures to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting raptors and other nesting birds:
• Preconstruction surveys by a biologist of all potential nesting habitats within 500-feet of construction activities, where accessible, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance. If construction is stopped for 14 days or more during the breeding season, a new preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted before work can be restarted to ensure no new nesting has occurred in the interim.
• If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required, following submittal of a survey report letter to the City of St. Helena Planning Department.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 112 of 4069 ends

32 • If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a nodisturbance buffer shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined by the biologist that all the young have fledged. The buffers shall be established by the biologist in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Typical buffers may include 500 feet for raptors and 50 to 250 feet for other bird species based on the location of the nest, the nesting species present, and types of construction activities that may cause potential nest abandonment. The perimeter of the buffer zone shall be fenced or marked with staked flagging.

Implementation of MM BIO-2 would ensure that measures be taken to avoid any potentially significant impact concerning white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds during the avian nesting season. Additionally, implementation of MM AES-1 would address indirect impacts to white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds relating to spillover light, which can affect some species. With implementation of these required mitigation measures, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-46 through 3.4-48.)
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, impacts relating to this issue would be less than significant with the incorporation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM AES-1. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-43 through 3.4-49.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 113 of 4069 ends

33 2. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-49.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project site supports 0.07 acres of wetlands, 870 linear feet of other waters, consisting of four seasonal wetlands and two agricultural ditches. Construction activities would result in the fill of the four wetlands, and construction of a retaining wall on or near the property line may potentially impact agricultural ditches by filling or otherwise altering the structure or flow of these features. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-49.) To ensure that any potential impacts of the Project relating to wetlands are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:

BIO-3: Wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively) shall be obtained prior to any grading work. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate authorization from the Army Corp of Engineers and any other regulatory agency to alter the wetland.

Implementation of MM BIO-3, through the permitting process for waters of the state and waters of the U.S., compensation would be required for a loss of wetlands that can be avoided or replaced on-site. Compensation may be in the form of off-site replacement or purchase of approved mitigation banking credits. With implementation of MM BIO-3, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts to wetlands would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-49.)

3. Wildlife Movement and Nesting/Migratory Birds
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.4-50 through 3.4-51.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project site does not function as a wildlife movement corridor due to the surrounding development, lack of connectivity with other undeveloped areas, and existing and Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 114 of 4069 ends

34 historic uses of the site. Moreover, the Project site does not provide suitable aquatic habitat for native resident or migratory fish species, and the Project site does not provide an essential habitat linkage or migratory corridor functions for resident or migratory wildlife. Additionally, existing permitting requirements and conditions of approval (e.g., MS4 Permit and the City’s Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance) are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation and to meet water quality standards, rendering potential indirect impacts to any native resident or migratory fish via construction runoff in the Napa River less than significant.

Absent mitigation, the Project could potentially impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Although the annual grassland onsite does not provide adequate cover or nursery sites for many mammal species, trees along the edge of the site could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and roosting bats. In addition, some birds may use the grassland for nesting when sufficient (i.e., tall) vegetation is present. Moreover, because the riparian corridor along the Napa River is located approximately 500 feet north of the Project site, absent mitigation, lighting and increased usage of the site by humans may result in indirect effects to local wildlife using the riparian corridor for nursery sites or as a migratory corridor. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measures have been identified:

Page 115 of 4069 ends

35 construction. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely avoided, a qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and approval, and that plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction that could impact the roosting bats or maternity colony.

BIO-2: If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), the Project applicant or their contractor shall implement the following measures to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting raptors and other nesting birds:
§ Preconstruction surveys by a biologist of all potential nesting habitats within 500-feet of construction activities, where accessible, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance. If construction is stopped for 14 days or more during the breeding season, a new preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted before work can be restarted to ensure no new nesting has occurred in the interim.
§ If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required, following submittal of a survey report letter to the City of St. Helena Planning Department.
§ If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a nodisturbance buffer shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined by the biologist that all the young have fledged. The buffers shall be established by the biologist in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Implementation of MM AES-1 would ensure that lighting associated with the Project would adhere to guidelines and standards that reduce glare and spillover light and would ensure that indirect impacts to wildlife relating to light would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Implementation of MM BIO-1 would avoid any potentially significant impact to roosting bats Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 116 of 4069 ends

36 during construction of the Project, while implementation of MM BIO-2 would avoid any potentially significant impact concerning white-tailed kite, nesting birds, and migratory birds during the avian nesting season. With implementation of MM AES-1, BIO-1, and BIO-2, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.4-50.) C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-26 through 3.5-29.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project site is undeveloped and there are no buildings present on the Project site that could be considered historical resources under CEQA; therefore, the Project would not have an impact any historical buildings. There are archaeological resources, however, on the Project site that qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. Notably, the Project site is intersected by CA-NAP-406, which is a small site on which 5,711 pieces of lithic debitage, 17 bifaces, one core, seven edge-modified flakes, one hammerstone, 101 charcoal fragments, seven pieces of baked clay, and 40 historical-era artifacts were found. CA-NAP-406 has been determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Properties (“NRHP”) and the California Register of Historic Properties (“CRHP”). Previous investigations evaluating CA-NAP406, however, were restricted to portions of this resource located west of the Project site. Phase 1 and Phase 2 archaeological excavations, as well as a ground-penetrating radar (“GPR”) investigation, were conducted on the Project site, and based on this evidence, no intact deposits or features associated with CA-NAP-406 appear to extent to within the Project site. It is likely that the upper layer of fill present on a majority of the Project site is comprised largely of redeposited and otherwise disturbed cultural deposits associated with CA-NAP-406. Soils identified below the fill were not found to contain cultural deposits or substantial frequencies of cultural material.

However, because there is the potential to unearth unknown resources during Project construction, there could be a potentially significant impact to subsurface archaeological resources, absent mitigation. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:

Page 117 of 4069 ends

37 a Native American monitor to be present shall be made by the City, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribe prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. In addition, prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing work, construction crews shall be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Areas observed to have potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present in depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.

The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be provided a copy of technical reports prepared for the Project and pertinent appendices to inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological and tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the qualified archaeological principal investigator, that meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted, in consultation with the Tribe.

Should it be determined by the Tribe and the archeologist, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. As approved by the City, in consultation with the Tribe this buffer may be adjusted by the Tribe and the archaeological principal investigator to a distance that maintains a protective perimeter around the unanticipated resource, while still allowing for construction to continue in the surrounding area.

Page 118 of 4069 ends

38 representative to be contacted to determine the appropriate course of action depending on the resource. For the reasons discussed herein and the reasons discussed in the EIR, compliance with MM CUL-1, along with Public Resources Code section 5097.98, California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e), would ensure that potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-26 through 3.5-29.) B. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5- 29 through 3.5-30.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: A Cultural Inventory Report and Extended Phase I and Phase II Reports were prepared for the Project, which explain that three archeological sites were previously identified within the Project site (CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP-1008), two of which (CANAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008) were determined not to be NRHP/CRHR eligible. The Cultural Inventory Report determined that impacts to CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 would not represent a significant effect, although appropriate mitigation to account for unanticipated impacts would be required. Resource CA-NAP-406 has been determined to be eligible for CRHR (Criterion 4) and NRHP (Criterion D) listing. The Phase I and Phase II archaeological excavations and GPR investigation did not identify any intact deposits or features associated with CA-NAP406 within the Project site. However, the Project could result in a potentially significant impact relating to this issue absent mitigation, due to the sensitivity of the site for unknown archeological resources that may be present subsurface that could be unearthed during construction activities. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:

Page 119 of 4069 ends

39 potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present in depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.

Compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that proper procedures and protocol are in place in the event a resource is identified. The procedures require work to stop in the event a resource is discovered and require an archaeologist and/or Native American representative to be contacted to determine the appropriate course of action depending on the resource. For the reasons discussed herein and the reasons discussed in the EIR, compliance with MM CUL-1, along with Public Resources Code section 5097.98, California Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, and State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e), would ensure that potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-29 through 3.5-30.) Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 120 of 4069 ends

40 C. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5- 30 through 3.5-31.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: A substantial level of archaeological investigation work was conducted to analyze the potential impacts of the Project, including a Cultural Inventory Report, Extended Phase I and Phase II Reports, and a GPR investigation that looked for any subsurface anomalies to a depth of approximately 26 feet below the surface. No human remains have been documented or have been found during the archaeological investigation work conducted for the Project.

Nevertheless, due to the high archeological sensitivity of the area around the Project site, it is possible to inadvertently uncover human remains during ground-disturbing Project activities, such as grading and excavation. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:

CUL-2: In the event any human remains are unearthed during site disturbing activities, Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies protocols to follow in the event human remains are discovered. The Code mandates stopping work within 100 feet of the find and contacting the County Coroner to determine the origin of the remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours to request that the Commission determine the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendent from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent shall be provided with the opportunity to make recommendations regarding the means of treating or disposing of the remains with appropriate dignity. Projectrelated ground disturbance in the vicinity of the find shall not resume until all statutory requirements have been met and evidence of completion has been submitted to the City, in consultation with the Tribe.

Implementation of MM CUL-2 provides specific procedures to follow in the event human remains are identified. The procedures require work to stop and the County Coroner contacted to determine the origins of the remains. For these reasons and the reason set forth in the EIR, compliance with MM CUL-2 and with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code would ensure that the Project’s potentially direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 121 of 4069 ends

41 D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Seismic-Related Ground Failure and Liquefaction
Threshold: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Findings: Less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6- 21 through 3.6-23.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Seismic ground shaking is an unavoidable hazard for nearly all man-made facilities (buildings and structures) in the region. The geologic setting means proposed facilities are likely to experience ground shaking from at least one major earthquake (e.g., greater than moment magnitude 6.7) sometime during the operational life of a project. The Project site is also underlain by soils that if not properly engineered during construction site preparation, could be subject to secondary effects such as seismically induced liquefaction, differential settlement or compression. If future development of the site is not constructed in a manner that protects residents from geologic and seismic hazards, the Project could have a significant impact. The City General Plan includes policies to address geological impacts, as does the Municipal Code. Initial geotechnical work for the Project site has identified issues related to liquefaction and identified recommendations to avoid or reduce risks due to liquefaction. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:

GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, the Project applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical report prepared and submitted to the City of St. Helena Building Department for review and approval in accordance with adopted City standards. The structural designs shall adhere to the currently adopted version of the California Building Code. The report shall identify specific site preparation methods, grading practices, foundation designs, and other recommendations appropriate for minimizing damage from weak soils, expansive soils, differential settlement, and seismic hazards, including liquefaction. Specifically, the following requirements for the geotechnical and soils report shall be met:
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conduct a detailed evaluation of liquefaction in accordance with California Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 122 of 4069 ends

42 Department of Conservation Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. • Additional subsurface soil borings shall be completed as necessary to represent the full range of site conditions, including the southern portion of the parcel mapped as alluvial fan.
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall include recommendations for building foundations and improvements, including sidewalks, parking lots, and subsurface utilities, that take into consideration the potential effects of settlement, collapse, and expansive or corrosive soils. This includes the recommendation to over excavate to an average depth of 4.5 feet (and up to 10 feet in the location of the former pond) due to anticipated settlement. • All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical report shall be implemented as a condition of project approval. This report shall be completed as a condition of approval of the final tentative map.

Implementation of MM GEO-1 and compliance with the California Building Code would ensure that impacts to relating to seismic ground shaking and liquefaction would be reduced to a level of less than significant. With implementation of MM GEO-1, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-23.)

2. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would implementation of the Project occur on weak, compressible, and/or expansive soils that could result in adverse impacts on habitable structures? Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-

24.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the Project indicated that engineered fill was placed on top of a 3-foot layer of soft, weak natural soil with high moisture content across the Project site, and above uncompacted fill in a former pond area. Over-excavation, moisture-conditioning, and recompaction of the recent fill and the underlying weak soils was recommended to avoid future settlement after development. It is anticipated that placement of engineered fill for use as structural building pads, roads, and within utility trenches (including) over excavation and recompaction would remove and/or otherwise address the preexisting Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 123 of 4069 ends

43 potential for expansive or corrosive soils. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented: (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-24.)
GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, the Project applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical report prepared and submitted to the City of St. Helena Building Department for review and approval in accordance with adopted City standards. The structural designs shall adhere to the currently adopted version of the California Building Code. The report shall identify specific site preparation methods, grading practices, foundation designs, and other recommendations appropriate for minimizing damage from weak soils, expansive soils, differential settlement, and seismic hazards, including liquefaction. Specifically, the following requirements for the geotechnical and soils report shall be met:
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conduct a detailed evaluation of liquefaction in accordance with California Department of Conservation Special Publication 117A: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. • Additional subsurface soil borings shall be completed as necessary to represent the full range of site conditions, including the southern portion of the parcel mapped as alluvial fan.
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall include recommendations for building foundations and improvements, including sidewalks, parking lots, and subsurface utilities, that take into consideration the potential effects of settlement, collapse, and expansive or corrosive soils. This includes the recommendation to over excavate to an average depth of 4.5 feet (and up to 10 feet in the location of the former pond) due to anticipated settlement. • All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical report shall be implemented as a condition of project approval. This report shall be completed as a condition of approval of the final tentative map.

Implementation of MM GEO-1 would ensure that impacts to relating to weak, compressible, and/or expansive soils would be reduced to a level of less than significant. MM GEO-1 requires compliance with California Department of Conservation Special Publication Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 124 of 4069 ends

44 117A, which ensures that unstable soils would be addressed. With implementation of MM GEO1, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-24.)

3. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would implementation of the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
Findings: Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6- 24 through 3.6-25.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: there are no records of fossil finds within the City, and the Holocene alluvium mapped at the surface has a low potential for paleontological resources. However, there is a slight chance deeper excavations on-site for underground utilities, for example, could encounter Pleistocene age alluvium with the potential for fossils. To ensure that any such potential impacts are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:

GEO-2: In the event that known or suspected paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading or trenching, the area of discovery shall be roped off by the construction contractor to include a 50- foot radius buffer and remain off-limits until cleared by a qualified paleontologist. The Project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) guidelines, who shall be tasked with assessing the significance of the fossil find, including documenting the nature, location, and taxa of the find. The qualified paleontologist shall use his/her professional judgement as to the significance of the find, and whether the find should be preserved in a museum repository. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor shall remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. Documentation of the fossil find, including appropriate salvage and recovery of fossil specimens and of transfer of to an appropriate repository (e.g., University of California Museum of Paleontology) shall be submitted to the City of St. Helena as evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure.

MM GEO-2 identifies the appropriate steps if paleontological resources are uncovered during site disturbance. With implementation of MM GEO-2, potential direct, indirect, and cumulatively considerable impacts relating to this issue would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.6-25.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 125 of 4069 ends

45 E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Upset and Accident Conditions
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.8-16 through 3.8-19.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Due to the historic use of a portion of the site for agricultural uses, specifically an orchard in the late 1940s, there is a potential for contaminated soils to be encountered during construction activities. While the Phase I ESA concludes that it is unlikely that residual levels of pesticides would be present in significant concentrations, the absence of contaminants of concern such as OCPs and arsenic has not been confirmed through on-site soils testing. While potentially significant impacts are not likely, to ensure that any Project impact concerning hazardous materials are mitigated to a level of less than significant, the following mitigation measure has been identified:

HAZ-1: As a condition of approval for construction and grading permits for the Project site, the Project applicant shall ensure the following subsurface soils testing and follow-up analysis shall be performed prior to obtaining a grading permit:
• A soils testing work plan shall be developed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (DTSC 2008) by an appropriately licensed individual (i.e., professional geologist, engineer, or similar qualification) for the portions of the Project site historically used for agriculture. Special consideration shall be given to targeting site soils that are representative of historic agricultural use, and to avoid sampling recent fill material placed during levee construction. Prior to carrying out soils testing, the work plan shall be submitted to the Napa County Division of Environmental Health (as the Certified Unified Program Agency for all cities and areas of Napa County) and the City of St. Helena for review and approval.
• The number of soil samples, sampling methods, compounds tested, background samples (if applicable), and laboratory analyses shall Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 126 of 4069 ends

46 be completed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance. Should analytical results exceed naturally occurring concentrations or applicable CHHSLs, the health risks of such a condition shall be evaluated in human health risk assessment as described in DTSC standards and guidance (e.g., preliminary endangerment
assessment guidance manual).
• The risk assessment shall describe measures that must be implemented to ensure potential health risks to construction workers, site residents, and the general public as a result of hazardous materials are reduced to a cumulative risk of less than one in one million for carcinogens and a cumulative hazard index of 1 for non-carcinogens, or as required by the Napa County Division of Environmental Health acting as the Certified Unified Program Agency and/or DTSC oversight.
• In the event human health risk assessment shows elevated chemical concentrations pose a risk to human health or the environment, the risks shall be eliminated or substantially reduced by removal (e.g., excavation of soils and off-site disposal) or remediation of contaminated soils, and/or implementation of institutional controls and engineering controls (IC/EC). IC/EC may include use of a construction risk management plan, use of hardscape to cap problem areas, importation of clean soil in landscaped area to eliminate exposure pathways, and/or deed restrictions. If IC/EC are implemented, an Operations and Maintenance Program shall be prepared and implemented to ensure that the measures adopted are maintained throughout the life of the project.
• The soil testing report, and if applicable, the human health risk assessment and Operations and Maintenance Program, shall be subject to review and approval by the City of St. Helena Department of Public Works, the Napa County Division of Environmental Health and/or other regulatory oversight agencies.

Implementation of MM HAZ-1 would ensure that if soils located within the Project site contain pesticides that exceed CHHSLs for residential development and occupancy, such soils would be removed and/or remediated prior to any site disturbance or occupancy. With implementation of MM HAZ-1, a preliminary soil screening survey would ensure that soils on the Project site would comply with CHHHLs for residential development and occupancy ensuring the impact is mitigated to less than significant. With implementation of MM HAZ-2 and compliance Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 127 of 4069 ends

47 with all applicable federal, state, and regional regulations regarding hazardous materials, potential impacts related to upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be reduced to a level of less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.8-18).

F. NOISE

1. Local Noise Level Standards
Threshold: Would the Project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.11-14 through 3.11-20.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: The Project would not result in significant operational noise impacts in excess of applicable standards. The EIR includes analysis of stationary and mobile (transportation) noise impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. The analysis concluded that the Project’s operational activities would not result in a substantial noise increase that would exceed applicable City noise standards noise.

Construction of the Project would generate noise that could expose nearby receptors (residences) to elevated noise levels. The City’s Health and Safety Code (Chapter 8.24 of Title 8, the Health and Safety Code) requires noise generating construction activities (including demolition, excavation, and building construction), be restricted to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and prohibited on Sunday and holidays (City of St.

Helena Chapter 8.24). This ensures that sensitive receptors are not disturbed by early morning or late night activities. However, the City’s 1993 General Plan includes Implementing Policy 8.3.11, which states “Require construction operations to use noise suppression devices and techniques and limit noisy construction activities to the least noise sensitive times (8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday).” Due to the proximity of residences to the Project site and the potential for construction noise to be an annoyance, the impact is considered potentially significant unless City policies and ordinances are implemented. To ensure that short-term construction noise does not have a significant impact upon residential receptors, the following mitigation measure has been identified:

NOI-1: The Project applicant or its contractors shall implement the following for onsite noise control and sound abatement means that, in aggregate, would yield sufficient construction noise reduction during the site preparation, grading/excavation and building construction phases of the Project to ensure compliance with the FTA-based guidance standard of 90 dBA hourly Leq at or beyond the property lines of the nearest residences, as noted.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 128 of 4069 ends

48 Administrative Controls – At all times during site preparation and construction:
• Comply with Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code with respect to allowable construction periods,
• Minimize idling time of onsite equipment, and
• Either locate onsite stationary construction equipment (such as generators or air compressors) as far from adjacent residential property boundaries as is feasible, or place this equipment inside an approved noise-attenuating casing (e.g., sound-attenuated air intakes and heat vents, exhaust mufflers, etc.), or place this equipment indoors.

Engineering Controls – All mobile and stationary construction equipment employing an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order; and Install Sound Abatement – During site preparation and construction which involves the operation of more than two pieces of heavy equipment (dozer, backhoe, frontend loader, crane, tractor, etc.) for at least one hour and when operating within 25 feet of the exterior of a residence (either offsite or onsite), do the following:
• Erect a temporary barrier (i.e., plywood sheet) or install sound blankets (or comparable temporary solid barriers) on the Project’s construction fencing, or
• Locate sound path intervening containers or trailers onsite to block direct line-of-sight between residences and the operating heavy equipment.

Implementation of MM NOI-1 would substantially lessen construction noise upon adjacent residences by requiring administrative controls, engineering controls, and/or installation of sound abatement. Installation of an effectively placed storage container or a temporary plywood or blanket barrier on a portion of the site boundary that blocks line-of-sight between the source(s) of noise emission and the receptor of concern (e.g., residence) would be expected to provide a minimum of 3-5 dBA of noise reduction. By way of examples, doubling the distance of an operating generator from a receptor would be expected to yield a 6 dB reduction in noise. Proper engine mufflers installed on construction equipment helps ensure that source sound emission levels are further reduced. Implementation of MM NOI-1 would help minimize construction noise impacts to less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.11-16.) G. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Resources Eligible for Listing in Register of Historical Resources Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 129 of 4069 ends

49 place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-31 through 3.5-32.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Based on a review of the Cultural Resources evaluation conducted for the Project site and letters provided by the Tribes in response to letters sent by the City pursuant to AB 52, there are no known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) present, as defined in PRC Section 21074, on the Project site or in its immediate vicinity. Due to the sensitivity of the site for unknown archeological resources that could be unearthed during construction activities, it was determined there would also be potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be encountered during Project. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure has been identified:

CUL-1: The City shall require that an archaeological monitor is present during all ground-disturbing activities with the potential to impact previously identified cultural resources or to encounter unanticipated cultural deposits including tribal cultural resources. The determination for a Native American monitor to be present shall be made by the City, in consultation with the appropriate Native American tribe prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. In addition, prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing work, construction crews shall be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Areas observed to have potential to contain yet-identified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located throughout the Project site, but primarily would be in the western portion of the site where the existing vineyard is located. It is anticipated resources would not be present in depths of more than 10 feet below the surface. Archaeological and Native American monitoring may be adjusted at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator, meeting the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed subsurface soils and their observed potential to contain intact cultural deposits or material.

The archaeological and tribal monitors shall be provided a copy of technical reports prepared for the Project and pertinent appendices to Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 130 of 4069 ends

50 inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological and tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the qualified archaeological principal investigator, that meets the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications for Archaeology, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted, in consultation with the Tribe.

While no known TCRs have been identified that may be affected by the Project, implementation of MM CUL-1 would require construction work to stop and a Native American representative contacted (if not already conducting on-site monitoring) if any TCRs are unearthed and appropriate measures to be implemented to evaluate the significance of the find. Compliance with MM CUL-1 would ensure potential impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3.5-

32.)

2. Resources Determined by the Lead Agency
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
Findings: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-31 through 3.5-32.) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(1).)
Explanation: Based on a review of the Cultural Resources evaluation conducted for the Project site and letters provided by the Tribes in response to letters sent by the City pursuant to AB 52, there are no known tribal cultural resources (TCRs) present, as defined in PRC Section 21074, on the Project site or in its immediate vicinity. Due to the sensitivity of the site for unknown Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 131 of 4069 ends

51 archeological resources that could be unearthed during construction activities, it was determined there would also be potential for unknown tribal cultural resources to be encountered during Project. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure has been identified:

Page 132 of 4069 ends

52 archaeological principal investigator to a distance that maintains a protective perimeter around the unanticipated resource, while still allowing for construction to continue in the surrounding area.

32.)
SECTION 3. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY

MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the proposed Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:

A. TRANSPORTATION

1. Air Quality Management Plan Consistency
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)?
Findings: Significant and unavoidable impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.14-40 through 3.14-46.) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091(a)(3).) Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project’s significant and unavoidable impact relates to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Explanation: The Project’s significant and unavoidable impact relates to VMT. The City is using the threshold for residential land uses recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning Research (OPR) in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018).

OPR recommends that a residential project that exceeds a level of 15% below existing VMT per capita would have a potentially significant transportation impact. Existing VMT may be defined as the average for the jurisdiction, or regionally. The City has selected the City of St. Helena as the appropriate basis of comparison. The City’s average VMT per capita is 11.34, as estimate by the Solano Napa Activity-Based Model (SNABM). The Project VMT per capita, estimated by SNABM based on the Project location, is 11.37. Based on the applied threshold of significance, a Project VMT above 9.64 is considered significant.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 133 of 4069 ends

53 Key factors for VMT are location and regional land use patterns. In other words, VMT correlates to how far residents must travel for work, shopping, and other services. Potential mitigation measures include neighborhood/site design to encourage walking and cycling, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to reduce commute trips. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project includes pedestrian and bicycle network improvements. Generally, employment and retail opportunities are not close enough to the Project site to realize large reduction in automotive travel. It is estimated that the project design may reduce VMT by up to

2.0%. TDM strategies are generally geared towards employment uses, where employers can encourage and incentivize alternative means of commuting. As a residential development, the Project is limited in such measures. The EIR estimates such measures would realize a less than

0.5% reduction in VMT. The Project site is not currently served by the local transit operator. Per the City’s 2019 General Plan, transit usage across the City is only 1%. Therefore, even if extension of transit to the Project site were to occur, VMT reduction would be negligible.

For these reasons and the reasons set forth in the EIR, the Project’s effect on VMT is a significant and unavoidable impact on both a direct and cumulatively considerable basis. (Draft EIR, p. 3.14-46.)
SECTION 4. FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts. The City Council hereby finds as follows:

A. AESTHETICS
As discussed in the EIR, cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-41 through 3.1-42.) the cumulative context for aesthetics includes the area that comprises the viewshed in which the Project site is visible. There were no cumulatively significant aesthetics impacts identified in the 1993 General Plan EIR or the 2019 General Plan EIR. It was determined that the City’s design review process, in combination with General Plan policies would maintain the high-quality visual character of existing and future development, would limit impacts to agricultural lands, and would primarily contain growth within the Urban Limit Line, ensuring that cumulative aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.

Thus, there is no existing cumulative impact related to visual character or scenic quality. At a localized level, there are no approved or reasonably foreseeable projects that would be visible from the Project site, with the exception of a single-family residence, accessory dwelling unit and barn under construction to the west of the Project site, which would not result in a cumulative impact.

The Project, along with existing and future development within the City, would contribute to the existing ambient light in the Project vicinity by introducing streetlights, landscape lighting, and interior and exterior buildings lights. The 1993 General Plan EIR found lighting to be a potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to less than significant through compliance with General Plan policies and the design review process. These requirements are incorporated Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 134 of 4069 ends

54 into MM AES-1, which would ensure that the Project’s contribution to a cumulative lighting impact would be less than considerable.

B. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
As explained in the EIR, the Project will not have a cumulatively considerable impact.

Based on the land use conversion table prepared by the California Department of Conservation, between 2014 and 2016, 35 acres of the 30,654 acres of County’s Prime Farmland were converted to urban and built-up land. However, overall, Important Farmland in the County increased by 149 acres. The Project site contains less than 6 acres of Prime Farmland and less than 1 acre of Farmland of Statewide Importance that were determined to not be of high quality due to a number of factors detailed in the EIR. In addition, the Project site has long been designated for urban use.

The St. Helena 1993 General Plan and also the current 2019 General Plan contains policies regarding the preservation of agricultural lands. For these reasons, the Project would contribute to a cumulative impact related to agricultural resources. No mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, pp.

3.2-13 through 3.2-14.)
C. AIR QUALITY
As explained in the EIR, emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative air quality impacts because the Project’s construction-related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-25.)
The cumulative context of an air pollutant is dependent on the specific pollutant being.

Ozone (O3) precursors are a regional pollutant; therefore, the cumulative context would be existing and future development within the entire SFBAAB. This means that O3 precursors generated in one location do not necessarily have O3 impacts in that area. Instead, precursors from across the region can combine in the upper atmosphere and be transported by winds to various portions of the air basin. Consequently, all O3 precursors generated throughout the air basin are part of the cumulative context.

The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis is Napa County and surrounding areas, which are located within the SFBAAB for O3. The SFBAAB includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, as well as the southern half of Sonoma County and the southwestern portion of Solano County. The BAAQMD establishes emissions thresholds for regional emissions.

Particulates (fugitive dust and DPM) and TACs would result in localized impacts in close proximity to pollutant sources. There are no other active cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity of the Project site that are anticipated to contribute to localized TAC exposure.

Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative air quality impact.

D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 135 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 136 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 137 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

As discussed in the EIR, the chance of encountering paleontological resources at the site is considered low because there are no records of fossil finds within the City, and the Holocene alluvium mapped at the surface has a low potential for paleontological resources. However, there is a slight chance deeper excavations on-site for underground utilities could encounter Pleistocene age alluvium with the potential for fossils. It is possible that construction of the Project in combination with other cumulative projects in undeveloped areas in the City and County underlain by Pleistocene age alluvium could disturb multiple unknown unique paleontological resources, although unlikely to occur. Due to the size of the Project site and the low likelihood of unearthing any fossils, the Project’s contribution to a cumulative paleontological impact would not be considerable.

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

3.8-23.)
The cumulative context for the analysis of potential hazardous materials impacts (including hazardous materials usage during construction, exposure to potentially contaminated soils) is generally site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials on a project-by-project basis Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 138 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For groundwater resources, the cumulative context is the Napa Valley Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin) Development of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects within this area that results in an increase in groundwater demand could result in impacts related to depletion Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 139 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

19.)
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 140 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

The cumulative context for traffic noise is the traffic volume increases resulting from the Project along with buildout of the 1993 General Plan, and the anticipated increase in traffic volumes along local roadways. The traffic analysis assumed a cumulative context of transportation impacts resulting from the Project along with buildout of the 2019 General Plan. The evaluation concluded that roadway traffic levels would not reach significant levels when compared against existing roadway traffic noise levels. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to existing cumulative noise would not be considerable
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area and would not contribute to a cumulative growth impact. While the Project does entail residential development and would result in population growth, the population growth is not unplanned. The Project site was designated for future residential development in the City’s 1993 General Plan and 2019 General Plan, and the Project site is located within the City’s Urban Limit Line with access to existing utilities. The Project would not demolish existing housing or displace residents and would not contribute to a cumulative impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-3 through 4.6.) Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 141 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

Q. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts relating to tribal cultural resources with the incorporation of specified mitigation measures. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.5-33 through 3.5-34.) Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 142 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

In order to ensure that the City’s future water demand is met by its supplies, the City established a water-neutral policy, which requires all new development to completely offset its water use. With the implementation of this water-neutral policy and other water conservation measures in the City, the City has determined that future water demand is not expected to exceed the 1,950 acre-feet annual use policy limit set by the Safe Yield Committee. As discussed in the EIR, the Project would comply with the City’s water-neutral policy by completing offsetting its Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 143 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. WILDFIRE
The Project is not located in or near a state responsibility area or on land classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. For these reasons and the reasons discussed in the EIR, the Project would not have a significant cumulative impact relating to wildfires. (Draft EIR, p. ES-3.) Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 144 of 4069 ends

64 SECTION 5. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE

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

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

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

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

Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed by Project implementation include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. Wood products, asphalt, and concrete would be used in construction along with gas and diesel fuel. With respect to Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 145 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

In general, a project could foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if the project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service, the provision of new access to an area, or a change in zoning or General Plan amendment approval), or economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 146 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City’s Residential Growth Management System is no longer enforceable due to the passage of SB 330 (see Gov't Code sec. 66300) otherwise known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. This act prevents cities from establishing or implementing any provision that imposes a limit Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 147 of 4069 ends

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

17.152).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 148 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 149 of 4069 ends

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

B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

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

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

2. Infeasibility, or

3. Inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(c))
Section 15126.6(f)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, “among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 150 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

1. No Project/No Development Alternative
Description: Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative (“No Project Alternative”) The No Project/No Development Alternative considers the effects of forgoing the Project entirely and leaving the Project site in its current undeveloped condition. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project would not be approved or constructed. This alternative serves to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the property in its existing state. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.) Impacts: The No Project/No Development Alternative would produce no changes on the Project site, because the site would remain in its current undeveloped condition, effectively eliminating the Project impacts discussed in the EIR. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-6 through 5-7.) Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the Project’s objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-6.)
Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative on the following grounds: (1) this alternative fails to meet any of the Project objectives; and (2) potentially conflicts with the Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code section 65589.5) which was enacted to increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California's communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 151 of 4069 ends

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

2. No Project/General Plan Alternative
Description: Under this alternative, it is assumed the Project would be developed consistent with the underlying MDR land use designation and MR zoning which allows development of the Project site with residential uses up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) under the 1993 General Plan MDR designation which was revised to 16 du/ac under the 2019 General Plan consistent with the MR zoning, which permits a maximum density of 16 du/ac. For the purposes of this alternative a density of 9 du/ac was assumed for a total of 152 single-family residential units. Based on the number of units this alternative would result in a population of 372 residents, an increase of 159 residents as compared to the Project. It is assumed Starr Avenue and Adams Street would both be extended to connect to the Project site and the street and lot layout would be very similar to the Project with the exception of the 3.4-acre portion of the site currently designated for multifamily units (Lot 52). This portion of the Project site would be configured to accommodate single-family residences. (Draft EIR, p. 5-7.) Impacts: Due to the denser development and increased number of residential units, it is anticipated that impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gases, energy, public utilities, population and housing, and noise would be increased. It is anticipated the same mitigation measures for impacts to nesting birds and bats (biological) and the potential to unearth any previously unknown historic, archeological, or paleontological resource (cultural, geology and soils), potential soil contamination from agricultural chemical residues (hazards), and noise from construction equipment would be still be required. No potentially significant impacts associated with the Project would be avoided or reduced. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-7 through 5-11.) Objectives and Feasibility: The No Project/General Plan Alternative would develop the site consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning assuming ag a density of 9 du/ac and would complete the planned extensions of Adams Street and Starr Avenue. However, this alternative would not achieve the Project objective of developing a variety of housing types, including multifamily housing and ADUs. Housing would be less affordable to a range of incomes since development would be limited to single-family homes. This alternative would not minimize traffic-related environmental impacts due to the increase in units and residents. Overall, this alternative would not meet most of the Project objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-11.) Finding: The City Council rejects the No Project/General Plan Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) this alternative does not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment; and (2) this alternative meets the Project objectives to a lesser extent than the Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 152 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 153 of 4069 ends

73 4. Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative
Description The Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative includes the approximately 1-acre park to preserve a majority of the on-site seasonal wetlands with the remaining approximately 16-acres designated for up to 180 affordable housing units, assuming a density of 11.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) under the existing Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation (current zoning allows for a maximum density of 16.0 du/ac). The units would be attached housing (duplex or triplex) and would be 100% affordable. It is assumed buildings would be no taller than 30-feet, consistent with the underlying MR zoning. Under the technical guidance issued by OPR, a 100% affordable housing project is exempt from the requirement to calculate VMT. Site access and internal roads would essentially be the same as the Project. Using the City’s persons per household factor of 2.45 people per unit for medium/higher density residential land uses this alternative would generate 441 residents, an increase of 194 residents as compared to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 5-14.) Impacts: Due to the increase in residents, it is anticipated the increase in air pollutants and GHG emissions associated with operation would be slightly higher than the Project due to the increase in vehicle trips, as well as the demand for water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, schools, solid waste disposal, and energy. Construction and footprint-related impacts associated with biological, cultural, and geological resources, hazardous materials, and noise would essentially be the same as the Project, as these impacts would be less-than-significant with mitigation. It is anticipated the same mitigation measures for impacts to bats, and nesting birds (biological) and the potential to unearth any previously unknown historic, archeological, or paleontological resource (cultural, geology and soils), and potential soil contamination from agricultural chemical residues (hazards) would be still be required. This alternative would minimize impacts to on-site seasonal wetlands with inclusion of the 1-acre park, similar to the Park Preserve/Open Space Alternative. As a 100% affordable housing project, this Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-14 through 5-17.) Objectives and Feasibility: The Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative would subdivide the site consistent with the underlying land use designation and zoning, would complete the planned extensions of Adams Street and Starr Avenue, and would contribute to the provision of workforce and affordable housing objective. However, this alternative would not achieve the Project objective of developing a variety of housing types, including single-family and ADUs. The housing would be affordable to a range of incomes including, very low, low and moderate-income households, but would not include any single-family or market rate homes. This alternative generally meets a majority of the Project objectives but not all of the objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 5-20.) Finding: The City Council rejects the Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) maintenance of isolated wetlands/open space represents an ongoing financial burden on the City; (2) isolated wetlands offer little habitat value, whereas off-site mitigation may result in higher value habitat with greater connectivity being preserved; and (3) the Alternative Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 154 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

B. The City, per the adopted 2015 Housing Element, has a jobs to housing ratio above the County average, indicating a need for additional housing. As of the most recent Housing Element Progress Report (April 2022), the City had not met its regional housing needs allocation for very-low or moderate income housing.

C. The Project would implement the City’s General Plan. The Project site is identified as a housing site in the City’s current General Plan, the current Housing Element, and the previous two iterations of the City’s General Plan dating back to the 1975 General Plan.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 155 of 4069 ends

75 D. The significant and unavoidable impact is related to VMT. Ultimately VMT per capita will be reduced by providing necessary housing in jurisdictions with a high number of jobs. As stated previously, the City of St. Helena currently has a jobs housing imbalance which the Project will help address.

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 156 of 4069 ends

EXHIBIT B: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 157 of 4069 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
SCH No. 2018032014
City of St. Helena
October 2022
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 158 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 159 of 4069 ends

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

3.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources
AES-1: To minimize spillover
light while ensuring adequate
nighttime security, the Project
applicant shall prepare lighting
design guidelines for the Project
to be reviewed and approved by
the City as part of the Design
Review process. The lighting
design guidelines shall include a
lighting plan noting fixtures and
lumens, and standards such as,
lighting is to be shielded and
downward focused to reduce
glare and spillover light, up cast
decorative lighting shall be
limited to minimize effects on
wildlife and to retain the rural
ambience of the area, and the
use of mirrored glass shall not
be permitted. The lighting
guidelines shall conform with
Lighting Zone 2 of Title 24, Part
6, of the California Code of
Regulations. The guidelines and
lighting plan shall be approved
as part of the Design Review
application.

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

Prior to Design
Review hearing
Community
Development Dept.

No building permit
will be issued

Page 160 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

3.3 Biological Resources
BIO-1: A qualified biologist shall
conduct a habitat assessment
for bats in trees adjacent to the
Project site within 2 weeks prior
to any Project construction (site
clearing, grading). The habitat
assessment shall include a
visual inspection of potential
roosting features (bats need not
be present) and presence of
guano within the Project site
and 50 feet around these areas.

Potential roosting features found
during the survey shall be
mapped and described in a
survey letter report. If roosting
bats (individuals or colonies) are
detected within the Project site,
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife shall be notified as
soon as possible prior to any
construction activity to confirm
the bats can be avoided during
construction. If a bat roosting or
maternity colony cannot be
completely avoided, a qualified
biologist shall prepare a bat
mitigation and monitoring plan
for California Department of
Fish and Wildlife review and
approval, and that plan shall be
implemented prior to
Project applicant shall
retain a qualified biologist
to conduct
nesting/roosting bat
habitat assessment; map
and describe any potential
roosting features in a
survey letter report. If bats
are detected the CDFW
shall be contacted and
bats avoided during
construction, otherwise a
bat mitigation and
monitoring plan shall be
prepared for CDFW
review and approval.

Perform study two
weeks prior to site
clearing/grading.

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

Community
Development Dept.
& Public Works
Dept.

No grading permit
will be issued

Page 161 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 4
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
commencement of construction
that could impact the roosting
bats or maternity colony.

BIO-2: If construction activities
are scheduled to occur during
the breeding season for birds
(February 1 through August 31),
the Project applicant or their
contractor shall implement the
following measures to avoid
potential adverse effects to
nesting raptors and other
nesting birds:
 Preconstruction surveys by
a biologist of all potential
nesting habitats within
500-feet of construction
activities, where
accessible, shall be
conducted by a qualified
biologist. Surveys shall
occur no more than 14
days prior to the initiation
of site disturbance. If
construction is stopped for
14 days or more during the
breeding season, a new
preconstruction nesting
bird survey must be
conducted before work can
be restarted to ensure no
Project applicant shall
retain a qualified biologist
to conduct preconstruction
nesting bird surveys a
minimum of 14 days if
construction occurs
between February 1
through August 31. A
survey report shall be
prepared documenting
results of the survey. If
nesting birds are present
buffers shall be created
around the trees.

Perform study two
weeks prior to site
clearing/grading.

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

Community
Development Dept.
& Building Dept.

No grading permit
will be issued

Page 162 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 5
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
new nesting has occurred
in the interim.
 If preconstruction surveys
indicate that nests are
inactive or potential habitat
is unoccupied during the
construction period, no
further mitigation is
required, following
submittal of a survey report
letter to the City of St.

Helena Planning
Department.
 If active nests are found
during preconstruction
surveys, a no-disturbance
buffer shall be created
around active nests during
the breeding season or
until it is determined by the
biologist that all the young
have fledged. The buffers
shall be established by the
biologist in conjunction
with the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Typical buffers
may include 500 feet for
raptors and 50 to 250 feet
for other bird species
based on the location of
the nest, the nesting

Page 163 of 4069 ends

species present, and types
Agenda Item #6.1.

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

BIO-3: Wetland permits (e.g.,
404 Nationwide Permit, 401
Water Quality Certification, and
1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement, respectively) shall
be obtained prior to any grading
work. Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the Project
applicant shall demonstrate
authorization from the Army
Corp of Engineers and any
other regulatory agency to alter
the wetland.

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

Prior to site clearing
or grading.

Community
Development Dept.
& Public Works
Dept.

No grading permit
will be issued

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

Community
Development Dept.
& Building Dept.

Construction shall
cease until
compliance has
been verified

Page 164 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 7
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
shall be made by the City, in
consultation with the
appropriate Native American
tribe prior to the initiation of
ground disturbing activities. In
addition, prior to the initiation of
ground-disturbing work,
construction crews shall be
made aware of the potential to
encounter cultural resources
and the requirement for cultural
monitors to be present during
these activities. Areas observed
to have potential to contain yetidentified subsurface cultural material or deposits are located
throughout the Project site, but
primarily would be in the
western portion of the site
where the existing vineyard is
located. It is anticipated
resources would not be present
at depths of more than 10 feet
below the surface.

Archaeological and Native
American monitoring may be
adjusted at the recommendation
of the qualified archaeological
principal investigator, meeting
the Secretary of the Interior
Professional Qualifications for
Archaeology, and in
consultation with the City, based
during ground disturbing
work.

Page 165 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 8
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
on inspection of exposed
subsurface soils and their
observed potential to contain
intact cultural deposits or
material.

The archaeological and tribal
monitors shall be provided a
copy of technical reports
prepared for the project and
pertinent appendices to inform
their monitoring efforts. The
archaeological and tribal
monitors shall have the authority
to temporarily halt work to
inspect areas as needed for
potential cultural material or
deposits. In the event that
archaeological resources (sites,
features, or artifacts) are
exposed during construction
activities, all construction work
occurring within 100 feet of the
find shall immediately stop until
the qualified archaeological
principal investigator, that meets
the Secretary of the Interior
Professional Qualifications for
Archaeology, can evaluate the
significance of the find and
determine whether or not
additional study is warranted, in
consultation with the Tribe.

Should it be determined by the

Page 166 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 9
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
Tribe and the archeologist,
temporary flagging may be
installed around this resource in
order to avoid any disturbances
from construction equipment. As
approved by the City in
consultation with the Tribe, this
buffer may be adjusted by the
Tribe and the archaeological
principal investigator to a
distance that maintains a
protective perimeter around the
unanticipated resource, while
still allowing for construction to
continue in the surrounding
area.

During all ground
disturbing activities.

Community
Development Dept.
and Public Works
Dept.

Construction shall
cease until
compliance has
been verified

Page 167 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 10
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
Heritage Commission within 24
hours to request that the
Commission determine the
person or persons it believes to
be descended from the
deceased Native American. The
most likely descendant shall be
provided with the opportunity to
make recommendations
regarding the means of treating
or disposing of the remains with
appropriate dignity. Projectrelated ground disturbance in the vicinity of the find shall not
resume until all statutory
requirements have been met
and evidence of completion has
been submitted to the City, in
consultation with the Tribe.

3.6 Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of
any site-specific grading or
building permits, the Project
applicant shall have a designlevel geotechnical report prepared and submitted to the
City of St. Helena Building
Department for review and
approval in accordance with
adopted City standards. The
structural designs shall adhere
to the currently adopted version
of the California Building Code.

The project applicant shall
prepare a design-level
geotechnical report that
meets the California
Department of
Conservation Special
Publication 117A:

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

No grading permit
will be issued

Page 168 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 11
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
The report shall identify specific
site preparation methods,
grading practices, foundation
designs, and other
recommendations appropriate
for minimizing damage from
weak soils, expansive soils,
differential settlement, and
seismic hazards, including
liquefaction. Specifically, the
following requirements for the
geotechnical and soils report
shall be met:
 Analysis presented in the
geotechnical report shall
conduct a detailed
evaluation of liquefaction
in accordance with
California Department of
Conservation Special
Publication 117A:

Guidelines for Evaluating
and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California.
 Additional subsurface soil
borings shall be completed
as necessary to represent
the full range of site
conditions, including the
southern portion of the
parcel mapped as alluvial
fan.
shall contain specific site
preparation methods,
grading practices,
foundation designs and
recommendations.

Page 169 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 12
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
 Analysis presented in the
geotechnical report shall
include recommendations
for building foundations
and improvements,
including sidewalks,
parking lots, and
subsurface utilities, that
take into consideration the
potential effects of
settlement, collapse, and
expansive or corrosive
soils. This includes the
recommendation to over
excavate to an average
depth of 4.5 feet (and up to
10 feet in the location of
the former pond) due to
anticipated settlement.
 All design criteria and
specifications set forth in
the design-level
geotechnical report shall
be implemented as a
condition of project
approval. This report shall
be completed as a
condition of approval of the
final tentative map.

Page 170 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 13
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
GEO-2: In the event that known
or suspected paleontological
resources (e.g., fossils) are
unearthed during grading or
trenching, the area of discovery
shall be roped off by the
construction contractor to
include a 50-foot radius buffer
and remain off-limits until
cleared by a qualified
paleontologist. The Project
applicant shall retain a qualified
paleontologist per the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
(2010) guidelines, who shall be
tasked with assessing the
significance of the fossil find,
including documenting the
nature, location, and taxa of the
find. The qualified paleontologist
shall use his/her professional
judgement as to the significance
of the find, and whether the find
should be preserved in a
museum repository. Once
documentation and collection of
the find is completed, the
monitor shall remove the rope
and allow grading to
recommence in the area of the
find. Documentation of the fossil
find, including appropriate
salvage and recovery of fossil
If paleontological
resources are unearthed
during grading or
trenching, the contractor
shall stop all work within a
50-foot radius and contact
a qualified paleontologist
to assess the find and the
City. If it is a fossil the
paleontologist shall
determine the appropriate
steps.

During grading and
trenching.

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

Construction shall
cease until
compliance has
been verified

Page 171 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 14
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
specimens and of transfer of to
an appropriate repository (e.g.,
University of California Museum
of Paleontology) shall be
submitted to the City of St.

Helena as evidence of
compliance with this mitigation
measure.

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: As a condition of
approval for construction and
grading permits for the Project
site, the Project applicant shall
the ensure following subsurface
soils testing and follow-up
analysis shall be performed
prior to obtaining a grading
permit:
 A soils testing work plan
shall be developed in
accordance with DTSC’s
Interim Guidance for
Sampling Agricultural
Properties (DTSC 2008) by
an appropriately licensed
individual (i.e., professional
geologist, environmental
engineer, or similar
qualification) for the
portions of the Project site
historically used for
The project applicant shall
retain a qualified individual
to prepare a soils testing
work plan in accordance
with DTSC’s Interim
Guidance for Sampling
Agricultural Properties to
be submitted to the
County and City for review
and approval. The plan
shall address the proper
steps to follow if any
contaminated soils are
identified.

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

Page 172 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 15
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
agriculture. Special
consideration shall be
given to targeting site soils
that are representative of
historic agricultural use,
and to avoid sampling
recent fill material placed
during levee construction.

Prior to carrying out soils
testing, the work plan shall
be submitted to the Napa
County Division of
Environmental Health (as
the Certified Unified
Program Agency for all
cities and areas of Napa
County) and the City of St.

Helena for review and
approval.
 The number of soil
samples, sampling
methods, compounds
tested, background
samples (if applicable),
and laboratory analyses
shall be completed in
accordance with DTSC’s
Interim Guidance. Should
analytical results exceed
naturally occurring
concentrations or
applicable CHHSLs, the

Page 173 of 4069 ends

health risks of such a
Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 16
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
condition shall be
evaluated in human health
risk assessment as
described in DTSC
standards and guidance
(e.g., preliminary
endangerment assessment
guidance manual).
 The risk assessment shall
describe measures that
must be implemented to
ensure potential health
risks to construction
workers, site residents,
and the general public as a
result of hazardous
materials are reduced to a
cumulative risk of less than
one in one million for
carcinogens and a
cumulative hazard index of
1 for non-carcinogens, or
as required by the Napa
County Division of
Environmental Health
acting as the Certified
Unified Program Agency
and/or DTSC oversight.

In the event human health
risk assessment shows
elevated chemical
concentrations pose a risk
to human health or the

Page 174 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 17
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
environment, the risks
shall be eliminated or
substantially reduced by
removal (e.g., excavation
of soils and off-site
disposal) or remediation of
contaminated soils, and/or
implementation of
institutional controls and
engineering controls
(IC/EC). IC/EC may
include use of a
construction risk
management plan, use of
hardscape to cap problem
areas, importation of clean
soil in landscaped area to
eliminate exposure
pathways, and/or deed
restrictions. If IC/EC are
implemented, an
Operations and
Maintenance Program
shall be prepared and
implemented to ensure
that the measures adopted
are maintained throughout
the life of the Project.

The soil testing report, and if
applicable, the human health
risk assessment and Operations
and Maintenance Program, shall
be subject to review and

Page 175 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

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

3.11 Noise and Vibration
NOI-1: The Project applicant or
its contractors shall implement
the following for onsite noise
control and sound abatement
means that, in aggregate, would
yield sufficient construction
noise reduction during the site
preparation, grading/excavation,
and building construction
phases of the Project to ensure
compliance with the FTA-based
guidance standard of 90 dBA
hourly Leq at or beyond the
property lines of the nearest
residences, as noted.

Administrative Controls – At all
times during site preparation
and construction:
 Comply with Chapter 8.24
of the Municipal Code with
respect to allowable
construction periods,
During construction
activities the contractor
shall demonstrate
compliance with Comply
with Chapter 8.24 of the
Municipal Code. All onsite
construction equipment
shall be located as far
away from any residences
but if within 25 ft of an
occupied residence shall
be shielded to block noise.

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

Page 176 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 19
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
 Minimize idling time of onsite
equipment, and
 Either locate onsite
stationary construction
equipment (such as
generators or air
compressors) as far from
adjacent residential
property boundaries as is
feasible, or place this
equipment inside an
approved noise-attenuating
casing (e.g., soundattenuated air intakes and
heat vents, exhaust
mufflers, etc.), or place this
equipment indoors.

Page 177 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
October 2022 20
Hunter Subdivision Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Implementation
Procedure
Timing of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Responsibility
Non-Compliance
Sanction/Activity
Monitoring
Compliance
(Initial/Date)
exterior of a residence (either
offsite or onsite), do the following:
 Erect a temporary barrier (i.e.,
plywood sheet) or install
sound blankets (or
comparable temporary solid
barriers) on the Project’s
construction fencing, or
 Locate sound path
intervening containers or
trailers onsite to block direct
line-of-sight between
residences and the
operating heavy equipment.

Page 178 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.1.

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

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 179 of 4069 ends

Hunter Subdivision Resolution /
Conditions of Approval
June 26, 2023
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.

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

SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ONE PARCEL FOR MULTI-FAMILY

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

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

3.13-acre parcel for multi-family homes and two parcels for landscaping and an onsite water well on a property located at the eastern terminus of Adams Street in the Medium Density Residential (MR) zoning district.; and
WHEREAS, a public notice was published in the Napa Valley Register and mailed to residents and occupants within 300 feet of the project site in compliance with state and local law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on February 7, 2023, held a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the City Council on the approval of the Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC2023-002, recommending that the City Council approve the Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution _______ Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2018032014) for the Hunter Subdivision Project; Adopting Findings Pursuant To The California Environmental Quality Act; Adopting A Statement Of Overriding Considerations; and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the certified Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the Planning Division located at City of St. Helena City Hall, 1088 College Avenue, St. Helena CA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the findings identified in Municipal Code Section 16.16.080(A) to support the recommended approval of the Tentative Parcel Map, and determined based on the evidence in the record before the Planning Commission as follows:

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 180 of 4069 ends

Hunter Subdivision Resolution /
Conditions of Approval
June 26, 2023

1. That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of the St. Helena Municipal Code; and

2. That the design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the State Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the City Council.

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

SECTION 1: The City Council finds:
(a) That it has reviewed the proposed tentative map and the evidence and testimony received in conjunction with the public hearing on the proposed tentative map, and that the proposed subdivision as conditioned by the proposed conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable provisions of the St. Helena Municipal Code; and
(b) That design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the State Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the City Council.

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

SECTION 3: The documents and materials that constitute the records of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at the City of St. Helena City Hall at 1088 College Avenue. St. Helena, CA. The custodian for these records is the City of St. Helena City Clerk.

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the City of St. Helena City Council approved the foregoing at a Special Meeting of the St. Helena City Council on June 26, 2023, by the following vote:

Mayor Dohring: _____
Vice Mayor Hall: _____
Councilmember Chouteau: _____
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 181 of 4069 ends

Hunter Subdivision Resolution /
Conditions of Approval
June 26, 2023
Councilmember Hardy: _____
Councilmember Summers: _____
APPROVED: ATTEST:
________________________ ________________________
Paul Dohring, Mayor Cindy Tzafopoulos, City Clerk
ADOPTED AND APPROVED the 26
th day of June, 2023.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 182 of 4069 ends

Hunter Subdivision Resolution /
Conditions of Approval
June 26, 2023
EXHIBIT A: PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 183 of 4069 ends

1 HUNTER SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 6-26-23
Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001
APN 009-030-057
These conditions shall apply to City approval of Tentative Subdivision Map TM 2022-001.

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

Planning Division: General Conditions

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 184 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 185 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Division: Final Map Conditions

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

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

CC&R's shall be recorded at time of recordation of final map. CC&R's shall include all Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 186 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

Planning: Misc. Conditions

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

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

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

Planning: Flooding Conditions

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

Planning: Landscape Conditions

30. City of St. Helena Community Development Department shall review the final landscape and fencing plan as part of a Design Review approval and prior to issuance of building permits for Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 187 of 4069 ends

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

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

Planning: Construction Activities Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

Public Works: General Conditions

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 188 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.04.221).

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

17.116.030(G)(2).

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 189 of 4069 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Public Works: Fees

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 190 of 4069 ends

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

Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

55. The improvement plans shall include the following note per the Engineering Controls portion of Mitigation Measure NOI-1: “All mobile and stationary construction equipment employing an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order.”

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 191 of 4069 ends

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

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

57. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-1 of the approved environmental document, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats in trees adjacent to the Project site within 2 weeks prior to any Project construction (site clearing, grading). The habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and presence of guano within the Project site and 50 feet around these areas. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be mapped and described in a survey letter report. If roosting bats (individuals or colonies) are detected within the Project site, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified as soon as possible prior to any construction activity to confirm the bats can be avoided during construction. If a bat roosting or maternity colony cannot be completely avoided, a qualified biologist shall prepare a bat mitigation and monitoring plan for California Department of Fish and Wildlife review and approval, and that plan shall be implemented prior to commencement of construction that could impact the roosting bats or maternity colony. A written report of the findings shall be provided to the City prior to grading.

58. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-2 of the approved environmental document, if construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for birds (February 1 through August 31), prior to commencement of construction the Project applicant or their contractor shall implement the following measures to avoid potential adverse effects to nesting raptors and other nesting birds:
• Preconstruction surveys by a biologist of all potential nesting habitats within 500 feet of construction activities, where accessible, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Surveys shall occur no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of site disturbance. If construction is stopped for 14 days or more during the breeding season, a new preconstruction nesting bird survey must be conducted before work can be restarted to ensure no new nesting has occurred in the interim.
• If preconstruction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation is required, following submittal of a survey report letter to the City of St. Helena Planning Department.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 192 of 4069 ends

10 • If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a no-disturbance buffer shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined by the biologist that all the young have fledged. The buffers shall be established by the biologist in conjunction with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typical buffers may include 500 feet for raptors and 50 to 250 feet for other bird species based on the location of the nest, the nesting species present, and types of construction activities that may cause potential nest abandonment. The perimeter of the buffer zone shall be fenced or marked with staked flagging.

59. In accordance with mitigation measure BIO-3 of the approved environmental document, wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively) shall be obtained prior to any grading work.

Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project applicant shall demonstrate authorization from the Army Corp of Engineers and any other regulatory agency to alter the wetland.

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

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

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

63. Per mitigation measure HAZ-1 of the approved environmental document, the Project applicant shall ensure the following subsurface soils testing and follow-up analysis be performed prior to obtaining a grading permit:
• A soils testing work plan shall be developed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (DTSC 2008) by an appropriately licensed individual (i.e., professional geologist, environmental engineer, or similar qualification) for the portions of the Project site historically used for agriculture. Special consideration shall be given to targeting site soils that are representative of historic agricultural use, and to avoid sampling recent fill material placed during levee construction. Prior to carrying out soils testing, the work plan shall be submitted to the Napa County Division of Environmental Health (as the Certified Unified Program Agency for all cities and areas of Napa County) and the City of St. Helena for review and approval.
• The number of soil samples, sampling methods, compounds tested, background samples (if applicable), and laboratory analyses shall be completed in accordance with DTSC’s Interim Guidance. Should analytical results exceed naturally occurring concentrations or applicable CHHSLs, the health risks of such a condition shall be evaluated in human health risk assessment as described in DTSC standards and guidance (e.g., preliminary Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 193 of 4069 ends

11 endangerment assessment guidance manual). • The risk assessment shall describe measures that must be implemented to ensure potential health risks to construction workers, site residents, and the general public as a result of hazardous materials are reduced to a cumulative risk of less than one in one million for carcinogens and a cumulative hazard index of 1 for non-carcinogens, or as required by the Napa County Division of Environmental Health acting as the Certified Unified Program Agency and/or DTSC oversight. In the event human health risk assessment shows elevated chemical concentrations pose a risk to human health or the environment, the risks shall be eliminated or substantially reduced by removal (e.g., excavation of soils and off-site disposal) or remediation of contaminated soils, and/or implementation of institutional controls and engineering controls (IC/EC). IC/EC may include use of a construction risk management plan, use of hardscape to cap problem areas, importation of clean soil in landscaped area to eliminate exposure pathways, and/or deed restrictions. If IC/EC are implemented, an Operations and Maintenance Program shall be prepared and implemented to ensure that the measures adopted are maintained throughout the life of the Project.

64. Per mitigation measure NOI-1 of the approved environmental document, the contractor shall implement the following for onsite noise control and sound abatement means that, in aggregate, would yield sufficient construction noise reduction during the site preparation, grading/excavation, and building construction phases of the Project to ensure compliance with the FTA-based guidance standard of 90 dBA hourly Leq at or beyond the property lines of the nearest residences, as noted.

Administrative Controls – At all times during site preparation and construction:
• Comply with Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code with respect to allowable construction periods,
• Minimize idling time of onsite equipment, and
• Either locate onsite stationary construction equipment (such as generators or air compressors) as far from adjacent residential property boundaries as is feasible or place this equipment inside an approved noise-attenuating casing (e.g., sound-attenuated air intakes and heat vents, exhaust mufflers, etc.), or place this equipment indoors.

Engineering Controls – All mobile and stationary construction equipment employing an internal combustion engine shall be equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order; and
Install Sound Abatement – During site preparation and construction which involves the operation of more than two pieces of heavy equipment (dozer, backhoe, front-end loader, crane, tractor, etc.) for at least one hour and when operating within 25 feet of the exterior of a residence (either offsite or onsite), do the following:
• Erect a temporary barrier (i.e., plywood sheet) or install sound blankets (or comparable temporary solid barriers) on the Project’s construction fencing, or Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 194 of 4069 ends

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

Public Works: Improvement Plan and Construction Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 195 of 4069 ends

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

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

Public Works Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Conditions

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

13.12.030(B) of the SHMC and/or Appendix J of the EIR. The required improvements to offset water demand are as follows: Identify and implement offsite improvements that reduce water loss from the public water distribution system and/or identify and implement offsite improvements that result in a net increase in potable water availability equivalent to 19.8 AFY, or a combination of these. No building permit may be issued until the City has confirmed that the Developer has completed the approved measures and such measures have been accepted by the City, or Developer has entered into a public improvement agreement with the City to ensure the completion of such improvements and provided security in one of the forms described in Government Code section 66499 in an amount equal to the estimated cost of construction of the proposed offsite improvements as determined, or reviewed and approved, by the City Engineer. Any public improvements shall be constructed to St. Helena Public Works Construction Standards whenever applicable.

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

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

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

Helena domestic water.

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 196 of 4069 ends

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

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

13.20.070 of the St. Helena Municipal Code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 197 of 4069 ends

15 Public Works Drainage Improvements Conditions

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

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

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

90. Post-Development storm water discharge from parcel 009-030-057 shall not exceed the predevelopment discharge including the projected build-out, expressed as a 30% undeveloped pervious and 70% impervious drainage watershed. Applicant shall prepare an analysis to show compliance with this COA. Refer to COA #90 #91 for additional requirements of the analysis.

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

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

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

Public Works Final Map Conditions

94. A final map, as defined in the State Subdivision Map Act, shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer, showing all parcels, rights-of-way, and easement(s) shall be filed with the City Engineers Office. The final map shall be substantial conformance with the Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 198 of 4069 ends

16 approved Tentative Map and all applicable conditions of approval. The final map is not valid until it has been approved and recorded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work shall not proceed until clearance has been issued by all of these agencies.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 199 of 4069 ends

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

Public Works Subdivision Final and/or Release of Securities Conditions:
112. All public improvements shown on the Improvement Plans shall be completed and accepted by the City prior to release of any security posted.
113. All punch-list work shall be completed, and any outstanding inspection fees or other charges shall be paid prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy or prior to acceptance of the improvements, at the discretion of the City.
114. Video inspections shall be made of all storm drain and sewer lines installed by developer as set forth in the approved improvement plans to ensure that they are clean of dirt, rocks, debris or other material. Contractor/developer shall be responsible for cleaning and flushing all storm drain lines prior to acceptance by the City. If flushing of the storm drain system is required, the contractor/developer shall put sufficient plugs/filters in place to ensure that any debris, mud or other material is not washed beyond the piping system in the subdivision nor Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 200 of 4069 ends

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

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

Locations of the fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of the final map.
120. Plans submitted for building permit shall exhibit compliance with the current St. Helena Fire Code, as adopted and codified in St. Helena Municipal Code Chapter 15.36. 121. Prior to issuance of future building permits, all construction plans for homes and other structures shall include fire sprinklers as required by the City of St. Helena Fire Department. 122. One hour minimum fire-resistant construction on all exterior walls within 10’ of property boundary is required. Fire resistant construction of interior walls shall be determined by type of occupancy.
123. Any gates installed to control vehicular access to a property are required to be setback 30- feet from the property line and/or edge of pavement, whichever is greater. No vehicle gates may be installed without Fire Department and Public Works Department review and explicit approval.
124. Access to the levee road is restricted for public use and only granted to emergency vehicles and emergency egress for Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park residents. Signage prohibiting Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 201 of 4069 ends

19 its use by the public is recommended. Public access will be granted at the discretion of the Authority Having Jurisdiction during emergencies/evacuations.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 202 of 4069 ends

FILE NUMBER: PL10-040 and TM2022-001
SUBJECT: Request by Ben and Kelly Vanzutphen to subdivide a 16.9-acre parcel to establish 51 single-family residential lots, 11 of which are proposed with accessory dwelling units on approximately 13.4 acres. A 3.13-acre parcel will be established to accommodate a 25-unit multi-family housing development. Two additional remnant parcels (Parcel A; 0.06 acres) and (Parcel B; 0.04 acres) will remain with no plans for future development. A total of 87 units are intended to be built. The currently vacant project site is located north of Hunt Avenue and east of the future extension of Adams Street within the Medium Density Residential (MR) Zoning and (MDR) General Plan districts.

PREPARED BY: Eric Norris, Planning Consultant
REVIEWED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Maya DeRosa, Community Development Director APPLICATION FILED:09/09/10 ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE:03/25/11 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: North of Hunt Avenue, east of the future extension of Adams Street
APN: 009-030-057
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Medium Density Residential (MDR/MR) APPLICANT: Ben and Kelly Van Zutphen PHONE: 707-431-8582

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On February 7, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of St Helena held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Hunter project’s Environmental Impact Report and the proposed Tentative Map. At the conclusion of the February 7 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (member Rothfeld was absent) to 1) approve Planning Commission Resolution PC2023- 001, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and 2) approve Planning Commission Resolution PC2023-002, recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Map TM2022-001.

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Meeting of May 1, 2023
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 203 of 4069 ends

BACKGROUND
The following is a discussion of the project’s setting and background. 1993 General Plan
The subject property has been designated since at least 1993 for development with Medium Density Residential homes. The 1993 General Plan land use map designates the property for Medium Density Residential (MDR), which is described as follows in the 1993 General Plan:

The MDR designation provides for single-family detached and attached homes, secondary residential units, public and semi-public uses, and similar and compatible uses. Residential densities shall be in the range of 5.1 to 12.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The MDR designation is the predominant residential designation, occurring throughout large areas of the City. The wide distribution of this designation is intended to maintain a development pattern in newly developing areas that is consistent with historic development patterns.

As discussed later in this report, the proposed subdivision was submitted and accepted as a complete application (that is, ready for staff review and analysis) in 2011, when the 1993 St Helena General Plan was in effect. Although the 1993 General Plan was replaced in 2019 by the current General Plan (the “2019 General Plan”), the 1993 General Plan is used in this report because state law regulating the review of subdivision maps mandates the use of the Plan that was in place when an application was filed. A discussion of the proposed subdivision’s consistency with the General Plan adopted in 2019 is included later in this report for informational purposes.

Zoning
At the time that application for the proposed subdivision was accepted as complete, the zoning for the site, as shown on the City’s Zoning Map, was Medium Density Residential (MR). The current zoning designation is the same. The Zoning Map as it existed in 2011 and in its current form are both attached to this report.

The MR zoning district provides for single-family detached homes, accessory dwelling units, limited agricultural uses and compatible uses.

The Zoning Code (both at the time of application completeness and today) describes the MR zoning district as follows:
“The MR district is established for consistency with the medium density residential general plan designation. The district provides for single-family detached homes, accessory dwelling units, limited agricultural uses and compatible uses. Residential densities shall not be less than 5.1 dwelling units per acre nor more than sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre.” [Zoning Code 17.40.010]
Municipal Code Section 17.40.060 (Development Standards) establishes the standards for lots:
• Minimum lot area: 7,000 square feet
• Minimum lot width and frontage: 70 feet
• Minimum density: 5.1 units per acre
The parcels proposed for single-family residential lots range in size from 7,000 square feet to 12,814 square feet. All proposed lots meet the minimum depth and width requirement of 70 feet.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 204 of 4069 ends

The MR district allows a minimum density of 5.1 dwelling units per acre up to a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre. The Tentative Map would accommodate at least 87 units on a 16.9-acre site resulting in a proposed density of 5.15 dwelling units per acre in compliance with the MR district minimum density requirement.

All other applicable standards related to the siting and development of the proposed structures, including lot coverage, floor area ratio, and structure height and setbacks, will be reviewed for compliance when the proposed dwelling units are submitted to the City for design review and a conditional use permit (for the multi-family homes).

PROJECT PROCESSING HISTORY
It is important to note that although this site has remained an undeveloped parcel, it has been designated for residential development since at least 1993 (see General Plan discussion).
2010: Application Submitted
On September 9, 2010, the applicants, Ben and Kelly Van Zutphen, applied to the City to subdivide an approximately 17-acre parcel of land in the eastern area of the city, east of the existing terminus of Adams Street. The proposed subdivision would create lots for 51 single-family homes and 11 accessory dwelling units, and a 52nd lot on which at least 25 multi-family housing units would be built. Several rounds of review and revisions transpired over the course of the next six months.
2011: Application Complete/1st EIR Process Begins
On March 25, 2011, a completeness letter was issued by the City to the applicants along with a request for additional information related to the existing well and site drainage. The Planning Commission held a “pre-scoping” meeting on July 19th to review the Initial Study and gather public comments. On August 6th, the Planning Commission held a second “pre-scoping” meeting and directed the Planning Department to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the project’s Environmental Impact Report. On December 6th, the Planning Commission held a public scoping meeting for the project EIR. 2012: Draft EIR #1 Released for Public Review
On March 19, 2012, the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR #1 was circulated. The Draft EIR was released on March 29th for public and agency review with the initial comment period scheduled to end on July 13th, then extended an additional 45 days to end on September 4th, with a Draft EIR public comment meeting held on August 28th. 2013: Planning Commission Considers Draft EIR #1
Urban Planning Partners (consultants contracted to prepare the Draft EIR) commenced preparation of responses to comments in January of 2013. On September 17, 2013, the Planning Commission considered certification of the Final EIR. The item was presented to the Planning Commission then continued to a future date but was not acted on.

Following the Planning Commission meeting and continuance of the item, additional information was submitted to the City that included a re-design of the intersection of Pope Street and the Silverado Trail. This re-design resulted in the requirement for additional CEQA analysis of the project EIR.
2014 - 2015
No significant progress was documented for the project or the project EIR in the years 2014 to 2015.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 205 of 4069 ends

2016: Draft EIR #1 Revised
Urban Planning Partners completed revisions to the Draft EIR and resubmitted to the City in approximately the middle of 2016. DEIR revisions resulted in request for information regarding water use and affordable housing provisions for the Tentative Map. On October 3rd, City staff requested additional information and funding from the applicant. Staff met with the applicant on December 20th to discuss the details of the request for additional information and funding.
2017: Draft EIR Consultant Quits; New EIR Consultant
On April 21, 2017, the project applicant provided some requested information but did not provide additional funding until May 2017. On May 19th, Urban Planning Partners declined to complete the project EIR and officially confirmed resignation on June 29th.

City staff sent requests for consultation services to three planning consulting firms on the City’s approved Master Services Agreement list. None of the firms replied to the request for services and on September 14th, the City issued a Request for Proposals soliciting proposals from qualified environmental consultants for the preparation of an EIR for the project. On December 12th, Dudek is contracted to complete the project EIR. 2018: Preparation of EIR #2 Begins/Revised Map and Info Submitted On March 6, 2018, the city issued a new Notice of Preparation, and the public comment period is initiated, followed by a public scoping meeting held on March 12th. The public comment period ends on April 13th. On August 3rd, the applicant submitted a revised tentative map and supporting documentation, with the subdivision design remaining largely unchanged.
2019: Revised Map and Info Submitted
On February 1, 2019, the applicant submitted an updated tentative map, a proposed Affordable Housing Agreement, and additional technical studies. The applicant was contacted on September 4th and informed that further work on the project application and EIR will not commence until unpaid balances are remitted to the City. On November 26th, the City approved an augmented budget for Dudek to complete additional technical work for the project EIR following payment from the applicant. 2020: EIR Preparation Continues
On March 16th, augmentation of the Dudek budget was approved for the completion of a Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) study, General Plan Goals and Policies update, and Wildfire analysis to include in the project EIR.
2021: Draft EIR #2 Circulates for Public Review/Response to Comments Begins On February 9, 2021, the Dudek budget was approved for augmentation again to include a second Administrative Draft EIR, second Screen-check DEIR, and Final EIR preparation. On April 27th, Interwest was contracted by the City to provide planning services and manage the processing of the project. The City held a public comment period on the second Draft EIR from September 23rd to November 8th (45 days); with the comment period later extended to November 30th (67 days total) due to the volume of comments received and requests for additional time from commenters. Dudek began preparation of responses to comments in December.
2022: Response to Comments on EIR #2 Continues/Staff Report Prepared On April 12, 2022, Dudek requested additional funding to complete the project FEIR. The City prepared a Professional Service Agreement (PSA)to facilitate a sewer line capacity study on April 22nd in response to technical comments raised as part of the Draft EIR public review. The staff report package for Planning Commission is prepared for the November 1, 2022 meeting.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 206 of 4069 ends

In response to numerous requests from the public for additional time to review the staff report package, the November 1, 2022, Planning Commission meeting was cancelled.

The meeting was subsequently rescheduled for February 7, 2023; the staff report package was updated and republished, and new public hearing notices were published and mailed. In response to comments on one aspect of the traffic analysis for the proposed project, a typographical error in the Traffic Impact Analysis was made and the Final EIR was amended to include this change.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project being considered by the Planning Commission at this time is a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide an approximately 17-acre parcel of land in the eastern area of the city, east of the existing terminus of Adams Street. The proposed subdivision would create lots for 51 single family homes, and a separate parcel (lot 52) on which multi-family attached housing units would be built. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map is included as Attachment 3 to this report.

Approval of the tentative subdivision map is the first necessary but not final step for the subdividing of the property; future discretionary applications would define the design of the development that would take place on the lots created by the subdivision.

Including the ADUs, the project as currently envisioned by the applicant would have 87 homes, which is the minimum number of homes that can be built on the site per its existing General Plan and Zoning designations. A summary of the currently proposed residential units is shown below:

Single Family Homes: 51 units
Attached Multi-Family: 25 units
Accessory Dwelling Units: 11 units
TOTAL: 87 units
The overall residential density of the project, including all residential types, is 5.15 units per acre (87/16.9 = 5.15).

Each of the single-family lots would be at least 7,000 square feet in size, with larger corner lots and cul-de-sac lots.

As part of the first phase of construction, infrastructure to support the proposed project would be developed, including:
• Storm drain, and sanitary sewer facilities will be constructed per City standards. All lots have been designed to drain to the street.
• Per the General Plan Circulation Element, Starr Avenue will be extended through the project area across an existing City-owned parcel, and Adams Street will be extended eastward to connect with Starr. Internal roadways would be constructed. All streets have been designed according to the City standards. Starr Avenue and Adams Street will also include on-street bicycle lanes.

An existing well will be preserved on proposed Parcel B and connected to an on-site “purple pipe” water distribution system to provide all landscape irrigation and outdoor needs (car washing, etc.) throughout the project site. The well and onsite water system would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association.

The “panhandle” potion of Lot 52 will be landscaped and maintained by the property owner.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 207 of 4069 ends

If the proposed Tentative Map is approved, prior to any construction occurring, the project will also require approvals by the City Council of a Final Map, an Affordable Housing Agreement, Design Review approval by the Planning Commission for the proposed single-family homes and a Conditional Use Permit for the development of the proposed multi-family homes. Public meeting notices will be sent for all future hearings. These applications are not being considered at this time but will be submitted and reviewed at a future date.

Also, a small portion of lot #51 (see Attachment 3) is located on City-owned property, currently intended as part of the right of way of Adams Street. A proposed condition of approval requires that this property be vacated and transferred to the applicant prior to recordation of the Final Map.

ANALYSIS
Tentative Maps are governed by Section 16.16 of the St Helena Municipal Code (SHMC), as well as the California Subdivision Map Act. Specifically, Sections 16.16.060 (Planning Commission action) and 16.16.070 (City Council action) require the proposed Map to be first presented to Planning Commission for review and recommendation to City Council.

Section 16.16.080(A) defines the findings that must be made for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of a tentative map. While there are a number of concerns that have been expressed by the community, a Tentative Map may only be denied if it is found to be inconsistent with the findings below (from Section 16.16.080 of the St Helena Municipal Code):

A. In recommending approval or conditional approval or in approving or conditionally approving a tentative map, the planning commission and city council shall find:

2. Except for condominium conversion projects where no new structures are added, that the design of the proposed subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as described in the state Subdivision Map Act and any guidelines promulgated by the city council.

In addition, the proposed subdivision is a “housing development project” as defined by State law, and in recent years the State legislature has passed legislation that significantly restricts the grounds pursuant to which a housing development project can be denied.

Specifically, Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1) provides that if a housing development project complies with applicable objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time the application was deemed complete, the City may only deny the project if it finds, based on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record that both of the following conditions exist:

1. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health of safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 208 of 4069 ends

2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Other, more general policy considerations not related to these findings or to consistency with the General Plan (such as the other concerns expressed by the public) should not be cited in a recommendation to approve or deny the proposed subdivision.

The following sections describe staff's analysis of each of the findings required for approval of a tentative map, which staff recommends can be made. 1993 General Plan Consistency
Because the application for the proposed subdivision was deemed complete by the City in 2010, at a time when the City’s 1993 General Plan was in place, the 1993 General Plan was used to determine “… consistency with the general plan.” Staff’s review of applicable policies from the 1993 General Plan is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report. Staff’s recommendation is that the proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable 1993 General Plan policies.

Although consistency with the General Plan adopted in 2019 (the “2040 General Plan Update”) is not part of the determination of General Plan consistency, an analysis has been prepared by staff and is included as Attachment 5 to this staff report. The conclusion of staff’s analysis is that the proposed project is also consistent with the current (2019) General Plan.

Specific Plan Consistency
The proposed subdivision is not located in a Specific Plan area.

Zoning Code Consistency
For the purposes of the proposed subdivision map, consistency with “… other applicable provisions of this code” is determined by reviewing the map in relation to the density and lot standards for the MR zoning designation.

Other portions of the Zoning Code or the St Helena Municipal Code which deal more specifically with development projects (that is, the construction of homes and other structures) are not relevant to the consistency of the subdivision map, which is the only application being considered at this time. Those separate findings, where needed, would be made at the time subsequent applications are submitted to the City.

As noted earlier in this report, Municipal Code Section 17.40.060 (Development Standards) establishes the standards for lots in the MR zoning district:
• Minimum lot area: 7,000 square feet
• Minimum lot width and frontage: 70 feet
• Minimum density: 5.1 units per acre
Based on a review of the proposed subdivision, staff recommends that the map complies with and is consistent with these standards:

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 209 of 4069 ends

• All proposed residential lots1 are at least 7,000 square feet in size • All proposed residential lots are at least 70 feet in width • The overall density of the project, including the proposed 25 multi-family homes on Parcel 52 and the proposed 11 accessory dwelling units, is 5.15 units per acre, which meets the minimum required density.
(1. Non-residential lots, such as the lot containing the existing well, are not subject to the minimum standards and are not included in this analysis.) Design for Passive or Natural Heating or Cooling
This standard is described as follows in the State of California Subdivision Map Act:
(b) (1) Examples of passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design, include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure in an east-west alignment for southern exposure.
(2) Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure to take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes.
(c) In providing for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the design of a subdivision, consideration shall be given to local climate, to contour, to configuration of the parcel to be divided, and to other design and improvement requirements, and that provision shall not result in reducing allowable densities or the percentage of a lot that may be occupied by a building or structure under applicable planning and zoning in effect at the time the tentative map is filed. [CA Govt Code section 66473.1] Based on an analysis of the proposed subdivision, staff recommends that the map provides, to the extent feasible, opportunities for passive or natural heating or cooling, as discussed below.
• Approximately 40 of the proposed lots would allow a house oriented in an east-west configuration, allowing these homes, if properly designed, to take advantage of solar exposure.
• Approximately 40 of the proposed lots would allow for homes oriented so that, if front and rear doors and windows were opened, the prevailing upvalley breeze would provide for natural cooling.
• There is no existing shade on the property, but future homes would be required to install landscaping, including trees that would provide shade.

CEQA
A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2018032014) was prepared and available for public review and comment during the state-mandated 30-day public review period from March 6, 2018, through April 9, 2018. A public scoping meeting was held on March 12, 2018. Concerns raised from public agencies and the public include impacts to the property from potential flooding, traffic and circulation impacts, increased water demand, and impacts to cultural resources.

A Draft EIR was prepared with a 45-public review period beginning on September 23, 2021 and ending on November 8, 2021. Due to the volume of comments, the public review Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 210 of 4069 ends

period was extended to November 30, 2021, for a total of 67 days.

The Draft EIR is included as Attachment 6 to this report. The proposed Final EIR, which includes comments on the Draft EIR and responses to comments, is included as Attachment 7. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included in the Resolution in Attachment 1.

One comment received after the publication of the November 2022 Planning Commission agenda package called attention to a minor typographical error in Table 7 of the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix K to the Draft EIR) which overstated the project’s impact to the intersection of Silverado Trail/Pope Street. Due to a typographical error, the TIA published with the Draft EIR incorrectly showed a future level of service of “E” at this location; the corrected version shows a future level of service of “C” (the analysis of delay was correct and showed a “LOS C” level of delay). This change is shown in Chapter 3 of the Final EIR, “Changes to the Draft EIR.”
All documents referenced in the EIR are available for inspection upon request.

Topics Addressed in the Draft EIR
The Draft EIR discusses the project's impacts associated with the following topics.

The Draft EIR’s conclusions are discussed later in this report; conclusions of the EIR about the significance of impacts for each topic are shown below. • Aesthetics (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Agriculture and Forest Resources (Less than Significant) • Air Quality (Less than Significant)
• Biological Resources (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Cultural and Tribal Resources (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Energy (Less than Significant)
• Geology and Soils (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Less than Significant)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Hydrology and Water Quality (Less than Significant)
• Land Use and Planning (Less than Significant)
• Mineral Resources (Less than Significant)
• Noise and Vibration (Potentially Significant, but mitigation available) • Population and Housing (Less than Significant)
• Public Services (Less than Significant)
• Recreation (Less than Significant)
• Traffic and Transportation (Significant and Unavoidable) • Tribal Cultural Resources (Less than Significant)
• Utilities and Service Systems (Less than Significant) • Wildfire (Less than Significant)
Alternatives Considered
The EIR evaluated four Alternatives in addition to the proposed project. The four alternatives (described in detail in the Draft EIR) are:
• Alternative 1) No Project/No Development Alternative, described in the Draft EIR as, “… the Proposed Project would not be approved or constructed. Under this alternative, the Project site would retain its current land use designation and zoning consistent with both the 1993 General Plan and the City’s current 2019 General Plan.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 211 of 4069 ends

• Alternative 2) No Project/General Plan, described as, “… the Project would be developed consistent with the underlying MDR land use designation and MR zoning which allows development of the Project site with residential uses up to a maximum density of 12 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) under the 1993 General Plan MDR designation which was revised to 16 du/ac under the 2019 General Plan consistent with the MR zoning, which permits a maximum density of 16 du/ac. For the purposes of this alternative a density of 9 du/ac was assumed for a total of 152 single-family residential units.”
• Alternative 3) Park/Open Space Preserve Alternative, described as, “… includ[ing] an approximately 1-acre park/open space that would preserve a majority of the onsite wetlands to help lessen impacts to seasonal wetlands … To accommodate the park three lots would need to be removed … and vegetated swales to capture runoff would be located adjacent to developed areas. … The remaining approximately 16- acres would be developed with approximately the same number of residential units as the Proposed Project and would maintain a density of 5.1 du/ac.” • Alternative 4) Increased Density/Affordable Housing Alternative, which “... includes the approximately 1-acre park to preserve a majority of the on-site seasonal wetlands with the remaining approximately 16-acres designated for up to 180 affordable housing units, assuming a density of 11.3 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) … The units would be attached housing (duplex or triplex) and would be 100% affordable.” The alternatives are described in detail and analyzed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR.

Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, would result in the fewest environmental impacts, and is the “environmentally superior alternative.” However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Of the alternatives evaluated, Alternative 3, the Park/Open Space Preserve alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, according to the Draft EIR, “… this alternative would not avoid all of the significant impacts associated with the Project and all of the identified mitigation would still be required.” Potentially Significant Impacts
Impacts of potential significance requiring mitigation were identified in the following areas:
• Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Noise and Vibration
The Draft EIR concluded that mitigation was available to reduce all of these impacts to a level of Less Than Significant.

A summary listing of all potentially significant impacts and their associated mitigation measures is included in the Executive Summary in the Draft EIR (Attachment 6 to this staff report). Detailed discussions of impacts and mitigation are provided in Section 3 of the Draft EIR.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 212 of 4069 ends

Significant and Unavoidable Impact: Vehicle Miles Traveled Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, impacts related to Transportation and Traffic (specifically, Vehicle Miles Traveled or “VMT”) were found to be significant and unavoidable. This impact relates to the number of miles that will be traveled in motor vehicles by persons living in the proposed subdivision (trips to work, school, shopping, etc.). This impact is discussed in detail in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR.

State law, effective January 1, 2020, requires the local agencies examine this impact and that the impacts of a proposed project on roadway congestion (historically, the standard used by most California cities and counties) is no longer included in an EIR. (The traffic congestion impacts of the proposed project were examined, but for purposes of determining consistency with General Plan congestion policies, this analysis is not included in the Draft EIR.)
The state’s intent in requiring that VMT be projected is to focus efforts statewide on reducing unnecessary vehicle travel, generally by locating homes closer to jobs, shopping, and other daily needs, and by increasing the use of public transit, walking, and bicycling. As discussed in the Draft EIR, reductions in VMT for residential projects like the proposed project in semi-rural areas are difficult to achieve.

Compared to a commercial development, which could implement ride-sharing programs, residential projects have few options available to effectively reduce vehicle travel; none are available to reduce VMT for the Hunter subdivision enough to reduce this impact to a level of Less Than Significant.

For this reason, the Draft EIR concluded that this impact is Significant and Unavoidable.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
State law provides a means for the approval of a project which is identified to have one or more significant impacts. To do so, the local agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations which provides the reasons why the agency feels that the benefits of the project outweigh (or “override”) the potential impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (included in Attachment 1 to this report) which provides the following reasons why approving the project is appropriate:

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

2. The City, per the adopted 2015 Housing Element, has a jobs to housing ratio above the County average, indicating a need for additional housing. As of the most recent Housing Element Progress Report (April 2022), the City had not met its regional housing needs allocation for very-low or moderate income housing.

3. The Project would implement the City’s General Plan. The Project site is identified as a housing site in the City’s current General Plan, the current Housing Element, and the previous two iterations of the City’s General Plan.

4. The significant and unavoidable impact is related to VMT. Ultimately VMT per capita will be reduced by providing necessary housing in jurisdictions with a high number of jobs. As stated previously, the City of St. Helena currently has a jobs housing imbalance which the Project will help address.

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

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 213 of 4069 ends

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

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

Public and Agency Comments on the Draft EIR
A total of 121 Draft EIR comment letters were received from the 2021 public review and Response to Comments were prepared and included in the Final EIR. Notification of the availability of the Final EIR was sent to the agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments. Topics addressed in the comments include:
• Concern about the capacity of downstream sewer lines to accommodate additional flows generated by the project.
• Concern about the “high density” of the proposed project. • Concern about the loss of open space and the ability to walk on informal trails located on the project site.
• Concern about projected water use and the ability of the project to feasibly comply with the City’s water neutrality requirement.
• Concern about future traffic congestion and traffic safety impacts (including for children walking to school).
• Concern about the project’s impact on the ability of residents in the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community to evacuate in the event of an emergency. • Concern about the ability of the City-constructed levee on the Napa River (built to protect the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community from flooding) to protect new homes in the proposed project.
• Concerns about changes to the appearance of the project site when existing open space and vines are replaced with a suburban neighborhood. • Concerns about the project’s effect on the City’s plans to construct a new roadway connection to the Silverado Trail.

Responses to all of the comments received during the public review period are included in the Final EIR and Responses to Comments, Attachment 7 to this staff report.

Based on thorough review of the comments by City staff, legal counsel, and the EIR consultant, none of the comments or responses raised any issues which would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Attachment 7 includes a list of minor errata changes to the Draft EIR which were included in the responses to comments.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared for the potential impacts Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 214 of 4069 ends

that require mitigation and is contained in the Executive Summary, Section ES.6 of the Draft EIR. Findings for Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approval of Tentative Map File #PL10-040 are contained in the Resolution prepared for this project.

Revised Conditions of Approval
Following the publication of the November 2022 Planning Commission package, City staff and the applicant have discussed a number of changes to the proposed conditions of approval requested by the applicant. Staff ultimately agreed to some of the requested changes, but disagreed with others, as shown below.

Changes agreed to or rejected by staff are shown below; condition numbers reflect the updated conditions of approval as included in the Resolution approving the Tentative Map (attachment 2 to this report). The updated conditions of approval are included in the proposed Resolution approving the Tentative Map.

On February 7, the Planning Commission was also presented with changes to conditions of approval #85, #89 and #90. The Commission recommended that these changes, discussed below. be included in the final conditions of approval.

Conditions Revised
The following conditions of approval reflect changes requested by the applicant and make minor changes suggested by City staff to reflect standard City procedures. The final conditions are shown below, followed by a discussion of the changes made.

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

COA #22 was revised to require that the owners of Lot 52 are part of a HOA or other funding mechanism, and to allow flexibility in the type of funding mechanism established to maintain common areas, the internal irrigation system, and the well on Parcel B.

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

COA #26 was revised to show a requirement to “meet or exceed” Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (prior version required exceedance, which is not consistent with City practice).

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

This is a new condition of approval which is typically applied to development projects and inadvertently not included in earlier versions of the conditions of approval.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 215 of 4069 ends

COA 32: Mechanical equipment, including heating and air conditioning units and spa equipment, shall be located away from property lines and shall be shielded or enclosed to minimize noise levels. Noise generated shall not exceed 60 dBa, Ldn. This condition of approval implements Mitigation Measure NOI-1 from the project environmental impact report, Chapter 8.24 of the St Helena Municipal Code, and noise-related policies of the St Helena General Plan, including policy 8.3.11 from the 1993 General Plan and policy PS2.4 from the 2019 General Plan. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #31; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #32 was revised to add reference to the sources for the requirement to place HVAC units to minimize noise levels.

COA 36: Prior to recordation, the Final Map shall be designed per City standards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director to accommodate the following facilities in the right of way of both Starr Avenue and Adams Street:
• Curb and Gutter in accordance with City Standard #310 for a 24” gutter. • Sidewalks, either attached to the curb or detached from the curb, on both sides of the street along Starr Avenue, and only on the south side of Adams Street, in accordance with City Standard #315
• Parking lane on both sides of the street in accordance with City Standard #301 for a “Collector” street.
• Class II on-street bike lane on both sides of the street in accordance with Caltrans’ • Highway Design Manual Index 1003.2 but not less than 5 feet wide. • Two vehicle travel lanes in accordance with City Standard #301 for a “Collector” street.
• Striping to delineate parking, bike, and travel lanes. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #35; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #36 was revised to clarify that City Standard #315 (see the second bullet item) allows the sidewalk to be either attached to the curb or separated from the curb by a parkway strip. This COA was also revised to indicate that “City standards” would be used to determine the design of the facilities shown on the Final Map.

COA 41: All public facilities damaged by construction activities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant and shall be repaired per City standards to the satisfaction of the City at the Applicant’s expense. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #40; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA 41 was revised to indicate that City standards will be used to determine whether repairs have been completed correctly.

COA 48: Except for the existing well on Lot 19 of the Tentative Map that will be providing irrigation water to this development, all existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks shall be abandoned under permit and inspection of Napa County Department of Environmental Health. If applicant determines that there are none, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project engineer shall provide a letter describing the scope of the search done to make this determination and demonstrating, in a manner consistent with City standards and proper engineering practices and to the reasonable Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 216 of 4069 ends

satisfaction of the City Engineer, that there are no other existing wells, septic tanks and/or underground fuel storage tanks within the boundaries of the Tentative Map. [Note:

Formerly numbered as COA #47; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27] COA 48 was revised to refer include, “… in a manner consistent with City standards and proper engineering practices” as the standard for verifying compliance with this condition of approval.

COA 66: Street A: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Street A shall be improved to include two 10 ft. travel lanes, two 8 ft. parking lanes, curbs, gutters, a 6 ft. planter strips and 4 ft. sidewalk on the south side of the road and a 10-foot distance from the face of curb to the right-of-way line on the west side of the road. The total right-ofway width shall be 56 feet. The area between the curb and the right-of-way line on the west side of the street shall be graded such that it can be passable by pedestrians (cross slopes should not exceed 5%). The structural section of the street shall be per recommendations contained in the Soils Report. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #65; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #66 has been revised to require two 10-foot-wide travel lanes in Street A, rather than 12-foot-wide lanes. This was done to conform with City standards for local streets.

COA 69: Access from Lot 52 to Starr Avenue shall be for EVA and pedestrian purposes.

Ownership of this parcel shall be the same as Lot 52, or the access point shall be made part of Lot 52. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #68; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #69 has been revised to eliminate specific requirements for the width of Lot 52 while maintaining its use for emergency vehicle access and pedestrian use.

COA #85. The proposed well and appurtenances (pump, etc.) for this development shall be owned and operated by the Homeowner’s Association for this development. The well shall supply irrigation water for all landscaping of common areas and on all lots within the subdivision to limit use of domestic water produced by the City. Signage shall be provided on each lot warning of the use of well water and that the well water shall not be used for domestic purposes. Piping for all irrigation water from the well shall be purple pipe (same as used for recycled water). Also, disclosure statements (either through disclosures as required by the Department of Real Estate or on the final map) shall be provided to all property owners notifying them about use of well water and statements warning that well water should not be used for domestic purposes. If the City’s reclaimed water system becomes available at the project site, the onsite irrigation system shall be connected to the reclaimed water system and the well shall be permanently closed. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #84; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #85 has been added to require that the onsite irrigation system be connected to the City’s reclaimed water system when it is available at the site, and that the onsite well be closed at that time.

COA 87: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, all City-required improvements related to storm water for the project shall be installed by the project developer at its expense. Drainage improvements shall be designed and funded by the developer in accordance with the Design Criteria utilizing the rationale method and any applicable adopted City drainage plans. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #86; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #87 has been revised to clarify the timing of this condition, and to state that the developer is responsible for installing improvements as required by the City and the Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 217 of 4069 ends

developer’s expense.

COA 89: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and approval, drainage plans and hydraulic calculations prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. The drainage plans and calculations shall indicate the following conditions before and after development:
•Quantities of water, water flow rates, major water courses, drainage areas and patterns, diversions, collection systems, flood hazard areas, sumps and drainage courses. [Note:

Formerly numbered as COA #88; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27] COA #89 includes a minor wording change (“Prior to issuance of the first building permit …”) to clarify the timing of this condition.

COA 90: Post-Development storm water discharge from parcel 009-030-057 shall not exceed the pre-development discharge including the projected build-out, expressed as a 30% undeveloped pervious and 70% impervious drainage watershed. Applicant shall prepare an analysis to show compliance with this COA. Refer to COA #90 for additional requirements of the analysis. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #89; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #90 has been revised to clarify that post-development stormwater “leaving the site” must not exceed specified levels (which assume development of the site) and that the applicant provide an analysis to confirm this level.

COA #91 - Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide to the City an analysis of the capacity and condition of existing drainage facilities downstream of the development (including any detention/retention ponds), including recommendations for on-site and/or offsite drainage improvement, which shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Site grading and drainage improvements shall be shown on the improvement plans. In the unlikely event that the downstream facilities require improvements, the applicant shall enter a Funding Agreement as a means of reimbursement from the City. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #90; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27] COA #91 has been revised to provide for potential reimbursement by the City for the cost of downstream flood control improvements built by the applicant.

COA 93: Prior to Final Map recordation, the developer shall obtain a construction easement from the City over Parcel 009-030-019 to construct the drainage improvements, wall, and fence on lots 5-20. The drainage ditch on Lots 5-20 shall be privately owned and maintained. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #92; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #93 has been revised to clarify that the City of St Helena is the owner of the parcel over which a construction easement is needed, and that individual homeowners will be responsible for maintaining a future drainage ditch on their lots.

COA 98: Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall either complete required improvements in accordance with the approved improvement plans or enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed consistent with City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #97; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #98 has been revised to indicate that City standards will be used to determine Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 218 of 4069 ends

whether improvements have been installed correctly.

COA 108: All streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks or other public facilities damaged in the course of construction associated with this development shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be repaired per City standards to the satisfaction of the City at the Developer’s expense. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #107; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #108 has been revised to indicate that City standards will be used to determine whether repairs have been completed correctly.

COA 110: Dust control must be maintained per City standards to the City’s satisfaction. [Note:

Formerly numbered as COA #109; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27] COA #110 has been revised to indicate that City standards will be used to determine whether dust control have been maintained correctly.

COA 111: A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for any structure until required improvements are completed per City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #110; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27] COA #111 has been revised to indicate that City standards will be used to determine whether improvements have been installed correctly.

COA 119: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer is responsible for fire hydrants to be included and installed within the development in compliance with City standards (number, location and spacing) to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. Locations of the fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of the final map. [Note: Formerly numbered as COA #118; renumbered due to the insertion of COA #27]
COA #119 has been revised to indicate that City standards will be used to determine whether fire hydrants have been placed and installed correctly.

Conditions Not Revised As Requested by the Applicant
The applicant requested the following changes, which were not agreed to by staff:

COA 73: The applicant requested to include a dollar cap on the cost of improvements that will be installed at his expense to achieve water neutrality. Staff’s position is that improvements to achieve the required reduction in overall domestic water use must be installed to achieve water neutrality, regardless of cost.

COA 88: The applicant requested deleting this condition. Staff disagreed, but did agree to minor wording changes, as discussed above.

COA 90: The applicant requested that this condition be deleted, and that postdevelopment stormwater flows leaving the site be allowed to increase. Staff disagreed, pointing out that the applicant agreed as part of the settlement of a lawsuit with the City not to protest requirements to install the improvements required by this condition.

COA 91: The applicant requested that this condition be deleted. Staff disagreed; this requirement to provide detailed hydrological analysis of proposed stormwater systems is a standard requirement for all development projects.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 219 of 4069 ends

Tentative Map Updates
To respond to comments received since the publication of the November 2022 Planning Commission package, the updated proposed tentative map includes the following minor changes:
• Lot 52 now shows conceptual grading and elevation and indicates that the proposed use is “Multi-Family Residential”.
• A note has been added to Sheet 4 including condition of approval #35 in its entirety to clarify changes that must be made to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the public right of way prior to recordation of a Final Map. • The property owner’s name has been updated to “White Fang Properties, LLC,” to reflect a change in ownership that occurred in October 2022.

OTHER PROJECT ISSUES
Based on public input and prior review of the project, the following are issues of concern to the public, but not necessarily related to the approval at hand. • Water Neutrality
• Trail/Open Space
• Levee/Flooding
• Parking
• Aesthetics
• Sewer Capacity
• “High Density” Nature of the Project
• Traffic/Congestion
• Intersection Design Adams Street/Starr Avenue and Starr Avenue/Street A • Vacation of City Property
These issues are discussed below.

Water Neutrality
The issue of Water Neutrality and the project’s ability to comply with the City’s requirement for no net increase in demand for domestic water, is addressed in detail in Master Response #2 to the comments on the Draft EIR.

In summary, the Draft EIR concluded that a variety of measures (detailed in Appendix J to the Draft EIR) are available that would either decrease water demand or increase the efficiency of the City’s water system so that the additional demand created by the proposed project would be offset and overall citywide demand would not increase. The Master Response also notes that the use of the onsite water well for irrigation and other outdoor uses is part of the overall strategy to reduce water demand for the project.

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 220 of 4069 ends

A condition of approval is also included requiring the applicant to identify and implement specific water system improvements to achieve water neutrality prior to issuance of any building permits.

Trail/Open Space
Many commenters expressed concern about how the project would affect their ability to use the portion of the existing public Napa River Trail system adjacent to the project site.

As noted in the responses to comments on the Draft EIR on this topic, the Final EIR includes this statement:

The Project does not propose removing the existing trail or levee maintenance road, as explained in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation on page 3.12-17 and on page 2-23 in Chapter 2, Project Description.

The trail system is located entirely outside of the proposed project and would not be affected by the proposed project. An illustration of the existing trail in relation to the proposed subdivision is included as Attachment 14 to this staff report.

Levee/Flooding
Many commenters expressed concern about various issues associated with the Cityconstructed levee adjacent to the project site. These include:
• Questions about the engineering standards and requirements used to design and construct the levee.
• Whether the levee was constructed or inspected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
• Whether the levee would adequately protect the project site. • Whether the capacity of the City-owned flood basin adjacent to the project site would be affected by the proposed project to the extent that its capacity would be exceeded. • Whether the City is properly maintaining the levee, including controlling rodents whose burrows could affect the integrity of the levee.
• Whether climate change could cause changes in flooding that would affect the ability of the levee to protect the project site.

Detailed responses to these concerns are provided in Master Response #3 to comments on the Draft EIR. Very brief summaries of the more detailed information in the Master Response include:
• The levee was designed and built by the City to meet US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) standards. Numerous levees throughout the US are built by local agencies in the same; not all levees are built by the USACOE. • The levee was designed to provide protection from a “200-year” flood on the Napa River (a flood event which would be expected to occur once every 200 years, or with a 1-in-200 chance of occurring in any given year). This exceeds the usual 100-year standard.
• The adjacent flood basin was designed to accommodate storm flows from the subdivision, and assumed more paved and developed area (and, therefore, more Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 221 of 4069 ends

storm flows) than would be expected from the project as now proposed. The basin can handle storm flows from the proposed project.
• The City is properly maintaining the levee, including rodent control. Maintenance records are available online and at city hall.
• Because the levee was designed to accommodate a more severe flooding event than required (200-year vs 100-year), future increases in storm flows in the Napa River (if they occur as a result of climate change) would be handled better than if the levee were designed to minimum 100-year standard.

Additional Levee Comments
Since the preparation of the Master Responses, comments have continued to be received regarding the levee adjacent to the project site and the protection it provides to the project area.

These comments and responses from the Public Works Department are addressed in a “Frequently Asked Questions” document included as Attachment 23 to this staff report.

The City has also received comments asserting that the City would be “strictly liable” for any flooding that could occur either due to overtopping or failure of the levee. Those comments are addressed in a separate memo sent to the City Council by the City Attorney, and included with this staff report as Attachment 32.

Parking
Several commenters expressed concern that the new homes in the subdivision would cause parking on local streets to increase. While the responses to the comments from the perspective of the Draft EIR note that parking is not a CEQA issue which needs to be examined in the environmental document, staff offers the following responses from a planning perspective:
• Any development which takes place in the subdivision will be subject to detailed review to ensure that City parking standards are met. These include required parking for single and multi-family homes, both of which require a combination of covered and uncovered onsite parking.
• Parking on public streets is available to anyone; except where specifically signed, the City does not limit parking on public streets in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision.
• Because the project does not contain any features that would tend to attract large numbers of people on a regular basis, staff does not foresee any unusual increases in on-street parking in the vicinity as a result of the proposed project.

Aesthetics
Many commenters expressed concern about the change in appearance of the project site that would occur if homes replaced the existing open fields and vines.

The Draft EIR examines impacts to aesthetics in detail in section 3.1, “Aesthetics/Visual Resources.” A brief summary of the Draft EIR’s conclusions:
• The St Helena General Plan does not designate any specific views that are to be protected, but does provide general policies which seek to, “… [protect] views from streets, parks, and open spaces to vineyards, agriculture, and hillsides.” • The proposed project orients its major streets so that views of surrounding hillsides Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 222 of 4069 ends

and open space areas will be retained.
• Future development will be reviewed through the Development Review process, at which time specific home designs and placements will be reviewed by City staff and the Planning Commission to ensure that it complies with City standards.

Sewer Capacity
Many commenters expressed concern about the impact of the proposed project on the capacity of sewer lines downstream of the project, and especially in the Vineyard Valley mobilehome community, where the existing sewer system occasionally overflows during heavy rains (when rainfall essentially “leaks” into the City’s sewer system and therefore increases flows and causes overflows).

This issue is examined in detail in Master Response #4 in the Final EIR, which includes the results of a detailed analysis of sewer capacity. A summary of the detailed Master Response #4:
• Due to the unwanted infiltration of rainwater into the sewer system during storms, the capacity of the sewer lines downstream of the project is occasionally exceeded, causing overflows. This is referred to a “Peak Wet Weather Flows” or “PWWF.” • During dry weather, flows in the sewer lines do not include rainwater, and the capacity of the lines is not exceeded.
• This lack of capacity during PWWF conditions is known to the City, and a future increase in the size of a sewer line downstream of the proposed subdivision has been identified to correct this problem.
• During dry weather conditions, there is sufficient capacity in the downstream sewer line to accept flows from the proposed project without overflowing. • During PWWF conditions, flows from the proposed project would represent 0.5% of the flows in the line. While overflows can be expected in the downstream line until improvements are constructed, adding flows from the proposed project would not increase either the number or the severity of the overflows. • Capacity is available at the City’s sewage treatment plan to handle flows from the proposed project.

The proposed project, the EIR concludes, would not have an adverse impact on the City’s sewer system.
“High Density” Nature of the Project
Several commenters expressed concern about placing a “high density” residential project adjacent to the existing Vineyard Valley mobilehome community. These commenters were apparently opposed to the project.

Staff notes that the Vineyard Valley community, with an overall density of approximately

5.4 dwelling units per acre (based on a review of aerial photography), is slightly more dense (a “higher density”) than the proposed subdivision (5.1 dwelling units per acre).

As noted earlier in this report, the proposed project is at the lowest allowable density in the Medium Density Residential land use category, which ranges from 5.1-12.0 units per acre (1993 General Plan) and 5.1-16.0 units per acre (2019 General Plan).

Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 223 of 4069 ends

Based on staff’s analysis, the commenters who expressed concern about a “high density” project are expressing an opinion that is not supported by the actual project density.

These commenters may be supporting a lower planned density of development for the project site, but the project must comply with the minimum density of 5.1 units per acre.

Traffic/Congestion
Many commenters expressed concern about increased traffic congestion as a result of the proposed project. While this impact is not examined the Draft EIR (because changes in state environmental law have removed discussion of traffic congestion from environmental documents), the traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project included an analysis of traffic and congestion impacts.

A brief summary of the results of the traffic analysis is provided in Attachment 15 to this report. The full text of the analysis is in Appendix K to the Draft EIR (Attachment 6 to this report).

Intersection of Adams Street/Street A/Starr Avenue
During staff’s review of the proposed subdivision, concerns were expressed that because the intersections of Adams Street/Starr Avenue and Starr Avenue/Street are relatively close to each other, drivers could face difficulties negotiating the combination of these intersections. A modified design was developed that would end Street A at a cul-de-sac which would be open only to emergency vehicles, eliminating one of the intersections and simplifying the traffic movements.

However, a review of the City’s roadway standards concluded that there is no clearly defined objective standard for intersection spacing, and that the proposed design meets all of the City’s roadway design standards.

Therefore, staff did not recommend that the subdivision be revised to include the alternative roadway design (a cul-de-sac at Starr Ave/Street A).

Vacation of City Property
A small portion of proposed Lot 51 (at the southwest corner of Adams Street and Starr Avenue) is located on City-owned property which is currently proposed as part of the future right-of-way of Adams Street. This has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by the Public Works department (the portion of Lot 51 is not needed as future right-ofway), but approving the lot as proposed will require that the City vacate this property.

A proposed condition of approval is included to require the applicant to take appropriate steps to transfer this piece of City property to the applicant. 2019 GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
An analysis of the proposed project’s conformance with applicable policies of the current 2019 St Helena General Plan is included as Attachment 5 to this staff report. Based on staff’s analysis, the project conforms with all applicable policies, including the proposed type and density of residential density proposed.

Note: As discussed earlier in this report, the 1993 St Helena General Plan, which was in effect at the time the application for the proposed subdivision was accepted as complete in 2011, is used in the official determination of consistency with the “General Plan.” The analysis of conformance with the current 2019 General Plan is provided for informational purposes only.

ISSUES
Agenda Item #6.1.

Page 224 of 4069 ends

St. Helena City CouncilJune 26, 2023

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023