HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 30 40 20 20 81 20 570 10 61 590 80 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 30 40 20 20 81 20 570 10 61 590 80 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 31 41 21 21 84 21 588 10 63 608 82 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 201 69 65 94 60 168 231 877 15 453 799 80
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Sat Flow, veh/h 693 461 419 146 381 1053 747 1292 22 813 1136 153 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 0 0 126 0 0 21 0 598 63 0 690
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1573 0 0 1579 0 0 747 0 1314 813 0 1289 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 15.4 2.8 0.0 21.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 15.4 18.3 0.0 21.3 Prop In Lane 0.53 0.27 0.17 0.67 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 335 0 0 322 0 0 231 0 892 453 0 879 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.67 0.14 0.00 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 938 0 0 954 0 0 880 0 1847 1039 0 1812 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 26.0 0.0 0.0 25.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 5.8 11.5 0.0 8.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 2.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.5 0.5 0.0 13.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.7 0.0 0.0 26.1 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 7.0 11.7 0.0 37.9 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A C A A B A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 154 126 619 753
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.7 26.1 7.7 35.7
Approach LOS C C A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 37.4 13.8 37.4 13.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 * 5.2 * 4.7 * 5.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 72 * 29 * 72 * 29
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.5 6.2 23.3 5.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 7.8 0.8 9.4 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 2: Main St & Adams St Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 40 60 30 50 40 51 30 520 30 51 580 20 Future Volume (veh/h) 40 60 30 50 40 51 30 520 30 51 580 20 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.75 0.65 0.74 0.66 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 41 62 31 52 41 53 31 536 31 53 598 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 127 171 74 138 101 105 96 652 38 130 705 16
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.08 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 317 735 316 354 437 451 1767 1226 71 1767 1261 44 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 134 0 0 146 0 0 31 0 567 53 0 619
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1368 0 0 1242 0 0 1767 0 1297 1767 0 1306 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 31.9 2.3 0.0 35.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 31.9 2.3 0.0 35.5 Prop In Lane 0.31 0.23 0.36 0.36 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 371 0 0 344 0 0 96 0 689 130 0 721 V/C Ratio(X) 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.82 0.41 0.00 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 466 0 0 431 0 0 354 0 975 354 0 981 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 40.8 0.0 17.3 39.6 0.0 19.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 4.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 9.4 1.1 0.0 21.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.2 0.0 0.0 29.7 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.0 20.0 40.4 0.0 62.7 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A D A B D A E
Approach Vol, veh/h 134 146 598 672
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.2 29.7 21.1 61.0
Approach LOS C C C E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.2 45.2 25.5 10.9 43.4 25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 * 4.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 16 * 60 * 24 * 16 * 60 * 24 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 37.5 8.7 4.3 33.9 7.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
3: Main St & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 30 550 70 20 640
Future Vol, veh/h 40 30 550 70 20 640
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 39 71 0 169 169 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - 85 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 42 31 573 73 21 667
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1527 850 0 0 815 0
Stage 1 779 - - - - -
Stage 2 748 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 129 359 - - 808 -
Stage 1 451 - - - - -
Stage 2 466 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 101 281 - - 678 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 230 - - - - -
Stage 1 378 - - - - -
Stage 2 435 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 25.3 0 0.3
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 249 678 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.293 0.031 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 25.3 10.5 -
HCM Lane LOS - - D B -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 0.1 -
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 2040 GP Buildout 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 160 131 40 80 60 541 61 70 601 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 160 131 40 80 60 541 61 70 601 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 25 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1318 1318 1856 1318 1318 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 163 134 41 82 61 552 62 71 613 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Cap, veh/h 0 121 140 216 66 174 104 686 24 108 714 4
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.50 0.50 0.07 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1856 752 1368 419 1139 1767 1151 129 1767 1292 21 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 163 175 0 82 61 0 614 71 0 623 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1856 752 1787 0 1139 1767 0 1280 1767 0 1313 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 11.2 0.0 8.0 4.2 0.0 57.4 4.9 0.0 55.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 11.2 0.0 8.0 4.2 0.0 57.4 4.9 0.0 55.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.02
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 121 140 282 0 174 104 0 710 108 0 718 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.62 0.00 0.47 0.59 0.00 0.86 0.66 0.00 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 134 154 503 0 320 355 0 772 355 0 792 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 62.0 54.3 0.0 52.9 63.3 0.0 31.5 63.4 0.0 31.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 125.7 2.2 0.0 2.0 1.9 0.0 8.8 2.6 0.0 8.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 192.8 0.0 0.0 65.6 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 9.9 5.9 0.0 2.7 2.2 0.0 62.8 2.5 0.0 38.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 187.7 56.5 0.0 54.8 65.2 0.0 233.1 65.9 0.0 105.6 LnGrp LOS A A F E A D E A F E A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 163 257 675 694
Approach Delay, s/veh 187.7 56.0 217.9 101.5
Approach LOS F E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.6 70.1 28.9 11.9 69.8 13.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 7.7 * 7.7 3.7 * 7.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 75 * 35 25.0 * 75 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.2 57.9 13.2 6.9 59.4 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.8 1.4 0.1 2.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 146.8
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.2
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 30 91 20 30 121 20
Future Vol, veh/h 30 91 20 30 121 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 6 6
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 33 99 22 33 132 22
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 134 0 168 91
Stage 1 - - - - 85 -
Stage 2 - - - - 83 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.13 - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.227 - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1444 - 820 964
Stage 1 - - - - 936 -
Stage 2 - - - - 938 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1441 - 800 957
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 800 -
Stage 1 - - - - 934 -
Stage 2 - - - - 917 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 3 10.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 819 - - 1441 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.187 - - 0.015 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 - - 7.5 0
HCM Lane LOS B - - A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - - 0 -
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
6: Railroad Ave & Adams St Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.9
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 71 40 20 71 51 30 70 20 51 60 20
Future Vol, veh/h 10 71 40 20 71 51 30 70 20 51 60 20
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 80 45 22 80 57 34 79 22 57 67 22
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.8 8.9 9
HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 25% 8% 14% 39%
Vol Thru, % 58% 59% 50% 46%
Vol Right, % 17% 33% 36% 15%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 120 121 142 131
LT Vol 30 10 20 51
Through Vol 70 71 71 60
RT Vol 20 40 51 20
Lane Flow Rate 135 136 160 147
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.179 0.175 0.204 0.196
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.772 4.641 4.608 4.792
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 748 770 775 746
Service Time 2.822 2.689 2.654 2.841
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.18 0.177 0.206 0.197
HCM Control Delay 8.9 8.7 8.8 9
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 71 10 10 71 90 0 0 0 100 0 30
Future Vol, veh/h 40 71 10 10 71 90 0 0 0 100 0 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 27 0 18 18 0 27 4 0 7 7 0 5
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 41 73 10 10 73 93 0 0 0 103 0 31
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 193 0 0 101 0 0 338 391 103 334 350 152 Stage 1 - - - - - - 178 178 - 167 167 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 160 213 - 167 183 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1374 - - 1485 - - 614 543 949 618 573 892 Stage 1 - - - - - - 821 750 - 833 758 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 840 724 - 833 746 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1339 - - 1460 - - 562 499 927 580 527 865 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 562 499 - 580 527 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 781 714 - 786 732 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 800 699 - 801 710 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 2.6 0.4 0 12.3
HCM LOS A B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1339 - - 1460 - - 628
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.031 - - 0.007 - - 0.213
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 7.8 0 - 7.5 0 - 12.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.8
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
8: Library Ln & Adams St Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Future Vol, veh/h 40 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 30
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 1 0 4 4 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 49 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 16 0 0 19 0 0 154 133 20 130 133 19 Stage 1 - - - - - - 117 117 - 16 16 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 37 16 - 114 117 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1595 - - 1591 - - 811 756 1055 840 756 1056 Stage 1 - - - - - - 885 797 - 1001 880 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 976 880 - 888 797 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1593 - - 1585 - - 759 729 1050 818 729 1052 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 759 729 - 818 729 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 854 769 - 969 879 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 939 879 - 860 769 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 5.6 0 0 8.5
HCM LOS A A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 1593 - - 1585 - - 1052
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.031 - - - - - 0.035
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 7.3 0 - 0 - - 8.5
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th AWSC 2040 GP Buildout
9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.5
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 10 60 10 10 0 60 16 20 0 16 10
Future Vol, veh/h 10 10 60 10 10 0 60 16 20 0 16 10
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 11 12 70 12 12 0 70 17 23 0 17 11
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay 7.3 7.6 7.8 7.2
HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 62% 12% 50% 0%
Vol Thru, % 17% 12% 50% 62%
Vol Right, % 21% 75% 0% 38%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 96 80 20 26
LT Vol 60 10 10 0
Through Vol 16 10 10 16
RT Vol 20 60 0 10
Lane Flow Rate 110 92 23 28
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.128 0.097 0.028 0.031
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.174 3.783 4.364 4.007
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 855 935 810 883
Service Time 2.222 1.859 2.448 2.077
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.129 0.098 0.028 0.032
HCM Control Delay 7.8 7.3 7.6 7.2
HCM Lane LOS A A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
10: Pope Street & Starr Ave Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 31 220 240 51 61 11
Future Vol, veh/h 31 220 240 51 61 11
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 98 98 98 98 98 98
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 32 224 245 52 62 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 297 0 - 0 559 271
Stage 1 - - - - 271 -
Stage 2 - - - - 288 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.43 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.43 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - - 3.527 3.327
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1259 - - - 488 765
Stage 1 - - - - 772 -
Stage 2 - - - - 759 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1259 - - - 474 765
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 474 -
Stage 1 - - - - 750 -
Stage 2 - - - - 759 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1 0 13.4
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1259 - - - 503
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - - 0.146
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.9 0 - - 13.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - - 0.5
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 241 20 20 291 10 20 0 30 20 0 20
Future Vol, veh/h 20 241 20 20 291 10 20 0 30 20 0 20
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 85 - - 90 - - 110 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 21 256 21 21 310 11 21 0 32 21 0 21
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 323 0 0 277 0 0 677 674 267 685 679 318 Stage 1 - - - - - - 309 309 - 360 360 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 368 365 - 325 319 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - 4.13 - - 7.13 6.53 6.23 7.13 6.53 6.23 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.13 5.53 - 6.13 5.53 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.227 - - 2.227 - - 3.527 4.027 3.327 3.527 4.027 3.327 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1231 - - 1280 - - 365 375 769 361 372 720 Stage 1 - - - - - - 699 658 - 656 625 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 650 622 - 685 651 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1229 - - 1280 - - 345 362 769 336 359 719 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 345 362 - 336 359 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 687 647 - 644 614 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 620 611 - 645 640 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0.5 12.4 13.7
HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 345 769 1229 - - 1280 - - 458
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.062 0.042 0.017 - - 0.017 - - 0.093 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.1 9.9 8 - - 7.9 - - 13.7
HCM Lane LOS C A A - - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.3
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 14.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 140 151 161 620 560 160
Future Vol, veh/h 140 151 161 620 560 160
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - 100 - - 225
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 147 159 169 653 589 168
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1580 589 757 0 - 0
Stage 1 589 - - - - -
Stage 2 991 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 4.13 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 2.227 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 119 506 849 - - -
Stage 1 553 - - - - -
Stage 2 358 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver ~ 95 506 849 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 223 - - - - -
Stage 1 443 - - - - -
Stage 2 358 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 82.1 2.1 0
HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 849 - 314 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.2 - 0.976 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.3 - 82.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - F - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 - 10.2 - -
Notes
~: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th TWSC 2040 GP Buildout
13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd Timing Plan: Saturday Mid-Day Hunter Subdivision 5:00 pm 04/17/2018 2040 GP Buildout Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 20 730 30 10 680
Future Vol, veh/h 40 20 730 30 10 680
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 1 0 1 1 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - 50 100 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96
Heavy Vehicles, % 3 3 3 3 3 3
Mvmt Flow 42 21 760 31 10 708
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1489 762 0 0 792 0
Stage 1 761 - - - - -
Stage 2 728 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.43 6.23 - - 4.13 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.43 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.43 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.527 3.327 - - 2.227 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 136 403 - - 824 -
Stage 1 459 - - - - -
Stage 2 476 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 134 402 - - 823 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 273 - - - - -
Stage 1 459 - - - - -
Stage 2 470 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 19.8 0 0.1
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 306 823 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.204 0.013 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 19.8 9.4 -
HCM Lane LOS - - C A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.8 0 -
Agenda Item #6.9.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Plus Project - MITIGATION 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Hunter Subdivision 04/17/2018 Existing Plus Project - MITIGATION Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 191 147 26 91 83 561 65 85 520 4 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 191 147 26 91 83 561 65 85 520 4 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1329 1329 1870 1329 1329 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 0 203 156 28 97 88 597 69 90 553 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 0 103 173 185 33 276 107 784 30 109 815 6
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.54 0.54 0.07 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 1870 1453 1521 273 1479 1781 1163 134 1781 1317 10 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 0 203 184 0 97 88 0 666 90 0 557 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1870 1453 1794 0 1479 1781 0 1297 1781 0 1327 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 12.4 0.0 7.0 6.0 0.0 61.1 6.2 0.0 41.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 0.0 9.0 12.4 0.0 7.0 6.0 0.0 61.1 6.2 0.0 41.9 Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.01
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 103 173 218 0 276 107 0 814 109 0 821 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.00 1.17 0.84 0.00 0.35 0.82 0.00 0.82 0.83 0.00 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 135 214 350 0 398 261 0 1055 176 0 983 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 0.0 72.9 70.6 0.0 58.7 76.3 0.0 31.4 76.2 0.0 20.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 120.0 5.4 0.0 0.3 5.7 0.0 3.1 7.3 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 139.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 0.0 13.1 8.0 0.0 3.6 3.9 0.0 63.7 4.0 0.0 14.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 0.0 192.9 76.0 0.0 59.0 82.0 0.0 174.0 83.5 0.0 21.5 LnGrp LOS A A F E A E F A F F A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 203 281 754 647
Approach Delay, s/veh 192.9 70.1 163.2 30.1
Approach LOS F E F C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.3 74.5 24.2 12.3 74.5 13.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 7.7 * 7.7 3.7 * 7.7 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.3 * 92 * 24 12.3 * 1E2 9.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.0 43.9 14.4 8.2 63.1 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.8 0.7 0.0 3.6 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 106.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 188 152 111 436 119 345
Average Queue (ft) 99 65 29 168 53 132
95th Queue (ft) 167 121 86 354 106 273
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 789
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 12 2 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 4 12 9
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 150 174 421 149 412
Average Queue (ft) 87 65 57 217 46 184
95th Queue (ft) 150 122 145 386 125 341
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 0 6
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 91 86 47 41
Average Queue (ft) 33 4 12 2
95th Queue (ft) 72 30 39 17
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 250 350 145 165 745 150 478
Average Queue (ft) 123 162 96 91 359 58 187
95th Queue (ft) 211 307 173 181 663 150 393
Link Distance (ft) 428 910 2047 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 14 3 1 29 0 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 18 6 8 23 1 13
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 64
Average Queue (ft) 2 33
95th Queue (ft) 13 55
Link Distance (ft) 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 87 79 84 76
Average Queue (ft) 49 36 45 40
95th Queue (ft) 77 59 71 66
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 48 36 27 71
Average Queue (ft) 13 2 14 31
95th Queue (ft) 41 14 35 55
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 35 31
Average Queue (ft) 1 9 9
95th Queue (ft) 12 33 31
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 70 65 68
Average Queue (ft) 34 22 35
95th Queue (ft) 59 51 57
Link Distance (ft) 2129 367 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 10 96
Average Queue (ft) 5 0 40
95th Queue (ft) 28 5 71
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 16 65 96 74 48
Average Queue (ft) 4 1 17 37 20 16
95th Queue (ft) 20 9 47 69 47 40
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 259 103 91 10 39
Average Queue (ft) 90 46 3 0 7
95th Queue (ft) 191 84 48 5 26
Link Distance (ft) 872 420 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 52 38 17
Average Queue (ft) 20 1 1
95th Queue (ft) 47 17 7
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 118
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 249 221 126 374 119 293
Average Queue (ft) 98 88 22 159 40 123
95th Queue (ft) 184 161 81 314 88 227
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 1089
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 11 0 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 3 6
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 172 243 174 422 149 410
Average Queue (ft) 115 108 44 226 70 179
95th Queue (ft) 181 194 136 386 150 335
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0 9
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 85 110 55 142
Average Queue (ft) 34 19 15 19
95th Queue (ft) 69 70 44 78
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 291 245 143 164 558 150 470
Average Queue (ft) 142 110 62 81 277 64 229
95th Queue (ft) 244 197 137 167 482 162 409
Link Distance (ft) 428 909 988 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 1 23 0 23
Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 1 7 19 0 19
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 18 68
Average Queue (ft) 1 39
95th Queue (ft) 11 60
Link Distance (ft) 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 109 112 91 86
Average Queue (ft) 60 61 41 44
95th Queue (ft) 95 95 74 72
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 54 27 89
Average Queue (ft) 6 3 11 38
95th Queue (ft) 27 28 33 68
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34 10 58 56
Average Queue (ft) 6 1 21 27
95th Queue (ft) 26 10 48 51
Link Distance (ft) 334 195 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 62 35 66
Average Queue (ft) 36 12 32
95th Queue (ft) 57 37 54
Link Distance (ft) 2129 367 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 54 83
Average Queue (ft) 7 37
95th Queue (ft) 33 63
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 28 50 35 36
Average Queue (ft) 9 3 17 11 15
95th Queue (ft) 29 17 41 29 37
Link Distance (ft) 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 287 81 10 35
Average Queue (ft) 137 36 0 4
95th Queue (ft) 255 66 7 19
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 30
Average Queue (ft) 32 2
95th Queue (ft) 61 13
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 81
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 187 111 78 310 119 261
Average Queue (ft) 73 49 16 112 34 111
95th Queue (ft) 134 92 59 247 84 208
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 1089
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 2 4
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 148 171 174 414 149 418
Average Queue (ft) 68 69 41 192 46 202
95th Queue (ft) 126 140 126 337 113 364
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 13 0 16
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 7
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 125 233 97 236
Average Queue (ft) 50 63 19 58
95th Queue (ft) 98 157 56 157
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 199 250 145 165 518 150 464
Average Queue (ft) 112 118 55 45 228 49 241
95th Queue (ft) 188 216 124 133 442 145 428
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 0 18 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 0 0 10 1 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 6 24 65
Average Queue (ft) 0 2 35
95th Queue (ft) 6 13 55
Link Distance (ft) 351 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 80 95 69 69
Average Queue (ft) 41 41 32 36
95th Queue (ft) 65 70 56 60
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 39 11 27 64
Average Queue (ft) 5 1 3 27
95th Queue (ft) 24 8 18 50
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 11 30 49
Average Queue (ft) 1 3 20
95th Queue (ft) 7 18 46
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 53 32 60
Average Queue (ft) 27 12 28
95th Queue (ft) 52 37 50
Link Distance (ft) 2129 367 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 62 66
Average Queue (ft) 6 28
95th Queue (ft) 35 59
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 26 28 31 39 53
Average Queue (ft) 4 1 4 9 10 14
95th Queue (ft) 20 14 20 29 27 39
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 300 84 26 13 25
Average Queue (ft) 124 36 1 0 3
95th Queue (ft) 262 66 19 6 16
Link Distance (ft) 872 420 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 82 18 24 29 6
Average Queue (ft) 28 1 1 3 0
95th Queue (ft) 59 10 15 18 0
Link Distance (ft) 355 161 2786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 52
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 210 168 129 390 119 382
Average Queue (ft) 94 71 33 147 56 132
95th Queue (ft) 171 138 99 309 110 271
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 10 4 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 26 9
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 152 174 444 149 382
Average Queue (ft) 97 66 63 226 53 181
95th Queue (ft) 161 125 154 382 130 334
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 17 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 8 0 6
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 82 63 31
Average Queue (ft) 42 6 13 1
95th Queue (ft) 86 44 44 19
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 211 395 145 165 876 149 399
Average Queue (ft) 122 169 99 74 393 54 197
95th Queue (ft) 199 311 177 176 775 148 368
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 18 2 0 29 0 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 5 2 22 1 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 11 23 66
Average Queue (ft) 0 1 33
95th Queue (ft) 8 12 54
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 107 84 80 80
Average Queue (ft) 54 38 44 40
95th Queue (ft) 86 66 69 65
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 57 31 89
Average Queue (ft) 14 4 12 34
95th Queue (ft) 42 24 34 67
Link Distance (ft) 192 2127 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 30 35
Average Queue (ft) 1 7 8
95th Queue (ft) 12 28 31
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 58 59 63 60
Average Queue (ft) 29 24 34 21
95th Queue (ft) 51 53 52 50
Link Distance (ft) 2127 358 1269 206
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 57 17 100
Average Queue (ft) 6 1 45
95th Queue (ft) 33 9 79
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 16 65 97 46 43
Average Queue (ft) 3 1 21 37 18 19
95th Queue (ft) 17 7 50 69 35 41
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 211 91 9 48
Average Queue (ft) 87 43 0 7
95th Queue (ft) 177 75 4 28
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 70 12 23
Average Queue (ft) 22 0 1
95th Queue (ft) 52 9 11
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 122
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 212 193 127 392 120 325
Average Queue (ft) 100 84 24 179 37 137
95th Queue (ft) 189 153 85 348 85 251
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 13 1 11
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 4 7
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 178 234 174 472 149 442
Average Queue (ft) 120 113 38 228 63 188
95th Queue (ft) 186 196 115 395 132 358
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 17 0 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 0 10
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 105 117 52 56
Average Queue (ft) 39 17 15 8
95th Queue (ft) 77 71 43 36
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 212 272 144 165 466 150 418
Average Queue (ft) 124 111 64 66 214 61 182
95th Queue (ft) 208 205 141 162 412 155 353
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 9 0 0 16 0 16
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 1 3 14 0 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 12 78
Average Queue (ft) 0 0 42
95th Queue (ft) 3 6 66
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 135 125 78 92
Average Queue (ft) 64 64 40 43
95th Queue (ft) 108 105 66 72
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 34 21 32 69
Average Queue (ft) 5 1 14 35
95th Queue (ft) 24 10 36 60
Link Distance (ft) 192 2126 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 57 58
Average Queue (ft) 7 24 28
95th Queue (ft) 28 52 50
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 50 40 66 34
Average Queue (ft) 32 16 32 14
95th Queue (ft) 50 42 53 37
Link Distance (ft) 2126 358 1269 229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 9 88
Average Queue (ft) 12 0 41
95th Queue (ft) 46 5 68
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 35 4 28 59 38 31
Average Queue (ft) 6 0 5 18 11 15
95th Queue (ft) 26 3 22 43 29 37
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 520 80 32
Average Queue (ft) 176 36 4
95th Queue (ft) 405 68 21
Link Distance (ft) 872
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR T L
Maximum Queue (ft) 94 4 29
Average Queue (ft) 32 0 1
95th Queue (ft) 66 3 12
Link Distance (ft) 355 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 69
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 114 113 306 113 275
Average Queue (ft) 66 47 18 104 31 109
95th Queue (ft) 122 89 66 224 74 212
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 0 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 4
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 170 174 351 149 419
Average Queue (ft) 66 74 39 195 59 205
95th Queue (ft) 118 139 123 326 140 348
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 14 0 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0 8
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 106 186 81 252
Average Queue (ft) 49 58 18 64
95th Queue (ft) 93 143 53 162
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 207 244 145 165 418 150 475
Average Queue (ft) 112 102 56 46 196 52 227
95th Queue (ft) 193 193 128 135 368 148 417
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 6 0 0 16 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1 1 9 0 14
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 11 17 63
Average Queue (ft) 0 0 34
95th Queue (ft) 8 6 54
Link Distance (ft) 351 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 78 76 65 79
Average Queue (ft) 44 41 34 37
95th Queue (ft) 69 66 57 61
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 55 21 27 63
Average Queue (ft) 6 1 4 28
95th Queue (ft) 29 9 19 50
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 24 30 64
Average Queue (ft) 1 3 24
95th Queue (ft) 9 19 50
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 30 68 35
Average Queue (ft) 24 10 30 14
95th Queue (ft) 47 33 54 38
Link Distance (ft) 2129 356 1269 198
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 61 68
Average Queue (ft) 8 29
95th Queue (ft) 36 55
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 26 11 39 28 40 40
Average Queue (ft) 3 0 4 7 12 17
95th Queue (ft) 15 8 24 25 32 39
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 269 89 4 27
Average Queue (ft) 123 35 0 3
95th Queue (ft) 227 68 3 15
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing Plus Project
Existing Plus Project Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 66 10 35 15
Average Queue (ft) 25 0 4 1
95th Queue (ft) 56 7 22 11
Link Distance (ft) 355 2786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 48
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 216 168 129 359 120 562
Average Queue (ft) 123 83 38 178 78 303
95th Queue (ft) 204 147 102 334 138 590
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%) 12
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 1 14 6 21
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 6 47 25
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 175 185 175 445 149 438
Average Queue (ft) 106 84 58 237 68 230
95th Queue (ft) 168 150 154 387 146 400
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 18 0 20
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 2 14
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 33 54 42
Average Queue (ft) 40 2 13 1
95th Queue (ft) 84 14 42 11
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 221 426 145 165 1092 150 545
Average Queue (ft) 147 230 104 86 694 86 261
95th Queue (ft) 234 385 184 191 1585 183 474
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 31 3 1 36 3 24
Queuing Penalty (veh) 46 8 9 29 13 24
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 10 29 69
Average Queue (ft) 1 2 36
95th Queue (ft) 8 15 58
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 124 77 101 88
Average Queue (ft) 61 38 49 45
95th Queue (ft) 106 61 80 73
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 56 35 45 84
Average Queue (ft) 16 3 17 33
95th Queue (ft) 47 15 41 60
Link Distance (ft) 192 2128 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 27 30 31
Average Queue (ft) 1 9 8
95th Queue (ft) 10 31 29
Link Distance (ft) 334 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 71 61 81 58
Average Queue (ft) 35 27 39 23
95th Queue (ft) 59 54 64 49
Link Distance (ft) 2128 357 1269 268
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 69 112
Average Queue (ft) 6 49
95th Queue (ft) 36 86
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 58 160 68 106 103 67
Average Queue (ft) 6 20 23 45 24 25
95th Queue (ft) 36 139 53 86 76 54
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 0 2
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 841 109 15 34
Average Queue (ft) 546 56 1 7
95th Queue (ft) 926 95 9 26
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7
Queuing Penalty (veh) 15
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout AM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 67 10 30
Average Queue (ft) 26 0 4
95th Queue (ft) 56 7 20
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 50 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 258
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 223 233 129 440 119 387
Average Queue (ft) 120 115 28 193 53 161
95th Queue (ft) 200 197 83 369 107 294
Link Distance (ft) 432 350 998 529
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 16 3 14
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 18 12
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 175 243 174 461 150 437
Average Queue (ft) 121 116 50 237 84 207
95th Queue (ft) 189 217 138 408 166 376
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 15 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 18 1 18
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 7 7 14
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 144 161 56 97
Average Queue (ft) 64 31 15 17
95th Queue (ft) 125 107 45 64
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 210 264 145 165 534 150 478
Average Queue (ft) 153 123 78 84 257 79 222
95th Queue (ft) 233 225 153 189 466 174 422
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 11 1 1 21 1 20
Queuing Penalty (veh) 14 2 4 21 8 23
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 24 85
Average Queue (ft) 0 2 43
95th Queue (ft) 3 13 71
Link Distance (ft) 350 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 146 130 95 93
Average Queue (ft) 69 61 41 48
95th Queue (ft) 115 106 73 79
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 38 40 45 73
Average Queue (ft) 7 4 18 37
95th Queue (ft) 29 24 42 64
Link Distance (ft) 192 2129 404 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 30 4 52 57
Average Queue (ft) 5 0 28 29
95th Queue (ft) 23 3 49 50
Link Distance (ft) 334 195 120 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 72 35 67 56
Average Queue (ft) 40 20 39 17
95th Queue (ft) 63 44 62 45
Link Distance (ft) 2129 356 1269 257
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 384 13 310
Average Queue (ft) 93 1 100
95th Queue (ft) 418 8 314
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1095 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 711 31 86 310 101
Average Queue (ft) 25 382 6 22 96 33
95th Queue (ft) 94 1139 24 68 348 105
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 41 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 45 0 21
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 18 0 8
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 816 93 35
Average Queue (ft) 712 41 6
95th Queue (ft) 1104 72 24
Link Distance (ft) 872
Upstream Blk Time (%) 35
Queuing Penalty (veh) 118
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout PM Peak Hour
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft) 84 31
Average Queue (ft) 38 4
95th Queue (ft) 72 20
Link Distance (ft) 355
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 321
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 1: Main St & Madrona Ave/Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 194 120 114 368 114 365
Average Queue (ft) 82 57 19 124 37 129
95th Queue (ft) 154 106 68 277 87 257
Link Distance (ft) 432 351 998 530
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 105 95
Storage Blk Time (%) 8 0 9
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 3 5
Intersection: 2: Main St & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 158 169 174 392 150 412
Average Queue (ft) 76 80 41 202 56 210
95th Queue (ft) 139 145 127 340 129 375
Link Distance (ft) 147 318 515 998
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 15 0 19
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 4 0 10
Intersection: 3: Main St & Hunt Ave
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR TR L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 186 294 85 200
Average Queue (ft) 70 89 16 70
95th Queue (ft) 154 207 56 165
Link Distance (ft) 192 581 515
Upstream Blk Time (%) 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 4: Main St & Mitchell Dr/Pope Street
Movement EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served R LT R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 205 293 145 165 526 150 491
Average Queue (ft) 117 127 64 54 259 54 269
95th Queue (ft) 188 228 144 156 468 152 446
Link Distance (ft) 195 910 2038 581
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 120 140 125
Storage Blk Time (%) 12 0 22 0 27
Queuing Penalty (veh) 10 0 13 1 19
Intersection: 5: Railroad Ave & Fulton Ln
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 4 56 71
Average Queue (ft) 0 6 37
95th Queue (ft) 3 30 60
Link Distance (ft) 351 172 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: Railroad Ave & Adams St
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 79 74 64 74
Average Queue (ft) 41 42 33 39
95th Queue (ft) 66 67 56 62
Link Distance (ft) 318 334 517 1044
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 7: Railroad Ave & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 59 85 80
Average Queue (ft) 10 8 32
95th Queue (ft) 39 60 66
Link Distance (ft) 192 2128 517
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: Library Ln & Adams St
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 5 44
Average Queue (ft) 0 20
95th Queue (ft) 4 46
Link Distance (ft) 334 488
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Starr Ave/Project Access & Hunt Ave
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 74 40 65 52
Average Queue (ft) 32 14 35 18
95th Queue (ft) 58 39 56 45
Link Distance (ft) 2128 357 1269 202
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 10: Pope Street & Starr Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 120 102
Average Queue (ft) 16 36
95th Queue (ft) 73 81
Link Distance (ft) 1374 1269
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 11: College Ave/Paseo Grand Dr & Pope Street Movement EB EB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 93 787 31 98 302 158
Average Queue (ft) 21 267 4 13 92 50
95th Queue (ft) 90 821 20 59 310 151
Link Distance (ft) 1095 510 612
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 4 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 85 90 110
Storage Blk Time (%) 44 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh) 9 0 4
Intersection: 12: Silverado Trail & Pope Street
Movement EB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 823 105 16 46
Average Queue (ft) 667 48 1 6
95th Queue (ft) 1165 87 9 25
Link Distance (ft) 872 161
Upstream Blk Time (%) 39
Queuing Penalty (veh) 112
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100 225
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3
Agenda Item #6.9.
Queuing and Blocking Report 2040 GP Buildout
2040 GP Buildout Saturday Mid-Day
Hunter Subdivision SimTraffic Report
Intersection: 13: Silverado Trail & Howell Mountain Rd
Movement WB NB SB SB
Directions Served LR T L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 86 4 34 11
Average Queue (ft) 38 0 6 0
95th Queue (ft) 73 3 26 8
Link Distance (ft) 355 161 2786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 203
Agenda Item #6.9.
APPENDIX D
SWITRS Data
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
Agenda Item #6.9.
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
for the
HunterSubdivision Project
SCH no. 2018032014
Prepared for
City of St. Helena
Planning& Community Improvement Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
Contact: Maya DeRosa,
Planning& Building Director
[email protected]
Prepared by
JANUARY 2023
Agenda Item #6.10.
Agenda Item #6.10.
Final Environmental Impact Report
for the
Hunter Subdivision Project
SCH No. 2018032014
Prepared for:
City of St. Helena
Planning and Community Improvement Department
1572 Railroad Avenue
St. Helena, California 94574
Contact: Maya DeRosa
Planning and Building Director
[email protected]
Prepared by:
1102 R Street
Sacramento, California 95811
JANUARY 2023
Agenda Item #6.10.
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
Agenda Item #6.10.
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 TOC-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1-1 2 LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING ........................................................2-1 3 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR..................................................................................3-1 4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.................................................................................4-1
FIGURES
3.12-1 NAPA RIVER LOOP ......................................................................................... 3-7
APPENDICES
A HUNTER SUBDIVISION HYDRAULIC MODELING ANALYSIS
B ATTACHMENTS TO LETTERS 45, 46, 65 AND 84
Agenda Item #6.10.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Hunter Subdivision Project 10839
January 2023 TOC-ii
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) contains the agency and public comments received during the public review comment period for the Hunter Subdivision Project Draft EIR (Proposed Project).
The EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to the City of St. Helena (City), public agencies and the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives to the Project described in the Draft EIR. All written comments received during the public review period (September 23, 2021 through November 30, 20211) on the Draft EIR are addressed in this Final EIR, as are oral comments received at the November 2 and November 30, 2021, Planning Commission hearings on the Draft EIR.
The responses in the Final EIR clarify, correct, and/or amplify text in the Draft EIR, as appropriate. Also included are text changes made at the initiative of the Lead Agency (City of St.
Helena). These changes (summarized in Chapter 2) do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR. This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code (PRC), Sections 21000–21177).
1.1 BACKGROUND
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on March 6, 2018 through April 9, 2018, for the required 30-day review period. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a period of 67 days1from September 23, 2021 through November 30, 2021. Public hearings before the City’s Planning Commission to receive oral comments on the Draft EIR were held on November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021.
The comments and responses that make up the Final EIR, in combination with the Draft EIR, as amended by the text changes, constitute the EIR that will be considered for certification by the decision makers of the City of St. Helena.
1 In response to requests from the public to extend the comment period, the City extended the comment period an additional 22 days closing on November 30, 2021. The City also held another hearing to take oral comments at the November 30, 2021 Planning Commission hearing.
Agenda Item #6.10.
1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-2
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS
Under CEQA, the Lead Agency must prepare and certify a Final EIR prior to approving a proposed project. The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the Final EIR shall consist of:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft.
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency’s response to comments a minimum of 10-days before certifying the Final EIR.
1.3 USE OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR allows commenting agencies and the public and the City an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments received. The Final EIR serves as the environmental document to support approval of the Proposed Project, either in whole or in part, or one of the alternatives to the Project discussed in the Draft EIR.
As required by Section 15090 (a) (1)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:
1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.
3. The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The possible findings set forth in CEQA section 15091 are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Agenda Item #6.10.
1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-3
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. 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.
Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the action. The Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the Lead Agency’s administrative record.
The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are included in a separate document that will be considered for adoption by the City’s decision makers at the time of Project review.
1.4 PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
The Proposed Project is located on a 16.9-acre site in the northeastern portion of the city, at the eastern terminus of Adams Street, three blocks east of downtown and State Route 29, and west of the Napa River. The Proposed Project consists of the following:
• A Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the site into 51 lots (sized for single-family residences), a 3.4-acre parcel, and two lettered lots: a 0.06-acre parcel (Parcel “A”) for an onsite irrigation well and a 0.04-acre parcel (Parcel “B”), as shown in Figure 2-4, Proposed Tentative Map of the Draft EIR. The Project applicant has stated their intent to ultimately develop the 51 lots with 51 single-family, market-rate residences. Additionally, homes on 11 of the 51 lots would be developed with an ADU as part of their initial construction. The applicant intends to ultimately develop the 3.4-acre parcel with 25 attached multifamily residential units.
• An Affordable Housing Agreement, which would require approval by the City Council subsequent to approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. • Design Review of the proposed single-family and multi-family units. • A Conditional Use Permit for the development of multi-family housing. Development of the Proposed Project includes the extension of Adams Street and Starr Avenue to and through the project site and the installation of infrastructure (water, sewer, etc.) to serve the proposed homes.
Agenda Item #6.10.
1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-4
A detailed project description is contained in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description. The environmental impact analysis is included in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR.
1.5 SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES
Chapter 3 in this Final EIR, Changes to the Draft EIR, identifies all changes made to the document by section. These text changes provide additional clarity in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, but do not change the significance of the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.
1.6 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
A list of public agencies and individuals commenting on the Draft EIR is included in Chapter 2 in this Final EIR. A total of 122 written comment letters were received along with oral comments received at the public hearings held before the Planning Commission on November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021. Responses to comments are provided in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR. Each comment letter and each oral comment on the Draft EIR, provided at the public hearings before the Planning Commission, is numbered and presented with brackets indicating how the letter or oral comment has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a binomial with the number of the comment letter appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, comments in Letter 1 are numbered 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and so on. Immediately following the letter or Planning Commission comments are responses, each numbered to correspond to the bracketed comments.
Comments received at the Planning Commission hearings are numbered as PC-1, PC-2, etc. As the subject matter of one topic may overlap between letters, the reader must occasionally refer to one or more responses to review all the information on a given subject. To assist the reader, crossreferences to other comments and also Master Responses are provided. A number of comments received raised the same or similar comments; therefore, Master Responses based on specific issues of concern are provided in Chapter 4.
1.7 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Proposed Project includes all of the mitigation measures required of the Project identified in the Draft EIR, as revised in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. The MMRP is provided as a separate document.
If the City Council chooses to approve the Proposed Project or one of the alternatives described in the Draft EIR, the City Council will be required to adopt the MMRP at the same time it adopts its CEQA Findings, as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.
Agenda Item #6.10.
1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-5
1.8 OVERVIEW OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW PROCESS The City notified all responsible and trustee agencies and all known interested groups, organizations, and individuals that the Draft EIR was available for review. The following list of actions took place during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft EIR:
• The City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) along with copies of the NOP stating the City’s intention to prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project with the State Clearinghouse for the required 30-day public review period on March 6, 2018. • A NOC and copies of the Draft EIR were filed with the State Clearinghouse on September 23, 2021 to start the required 45-day public review period (which was extended to 67 days). The City distributed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to interested groups, organizations, and individuals regarding the availability of the Draft EIR. A public notice was placed in the Napa Valley Register newspaper. A public hearing to take comments on the Draft EIR was held on November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021. • Copies of the Draft EIR were available for review on the City’s website (https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/hunter-draft-eir); at the St. Helena library, and at the City’s offices located at 1572 Railroad Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574.
Agenda Item #6.10.
1 - INTRODUCTION
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 1-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-1
CHAPTER 2
LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
FEDERAL
There were no comments received from any federal agencies by the close of the comment review period (November 30, 2021).
STATE
There were no comments received from any state agencies by the close of the comment review period (November 30, 2021).
LOCAL
There were no comments received from any local agencies by the close of the comment review period (November 30, 2021).
ORGANIZATIONS
There were two comments received from local organizations; Napa Bicycle Coalition and Our Town St. Helena.
INDIVIDUALS
More than 120 comment letters were received from individuals and organizations.
Comments received from organizations and the public are listed in Table 2-1. Comments received from individuals are listed in alphabetical order. In some instances the same commenter submitted more than one letter. To differentiate between the letters, the date the letter was received is provided; however, there are numerous instances where letters from the same commenter are issued on the same day. The number of each letter reflects the order in which responses are provided in Chapter 4.
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
Organizations
1 Napa County Bicycle Coalition
2 Our Town St. Helena
Individuals
3 Ron Amoroso (10/26/21)
4 Ron Amoroso (11/2/21)
5 Bette Antor
Agenda Item #6.10.
2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-2
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
6 Craig and Debra Austin
7 Katie and Jacob Avery
8 Trevor Barlow
9 Thomas and Margot Belt
10 Pierre Birebent
11 Earl and Trudy Bouligny
12 Karen and Kevin Bradley
13 Greg Brown
14 Ethan Brown
15 Andree Bryan
16 Bernerd Buckley (10/26/21)
17 Bernerd Buckley (10/26/21)
18 Bernerd Buckley (10/26/21)
19 Bernerd Buckley (11/2/21)
20 Bernerd Buckley (11/2/21)
21 Bernerd Buckley (11/29/21)
22 Jeff Burton
23 Lynda M. Burton
24 Calie Candia
25 Bert Casten
26 Deanna L. Caudill
27 Bob Childs and Nancy Carlson
28 Robb A. Cohen
29 Joseph Cole
30 Arlene and Richard Corsetti
31 Carroll and Ellen Cotten
32 Richard Crebs
33 Nicole and Scott Dale
34 Gayle Davies
35 Priscilla Dell
36 Nancy Dervin
37 Julie Dickson
38 Chris Echols
Agenda Item #6.10.
2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-3
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
39 Cindy and John Ford
40 Chris Fowler
41 Pat Friday (11/8/21)
42 Pat Friday (11/8/21)
43 Alan Galbraith
44 Dottie Gingerelli
45 Diane Green, Daniel Wheaton, Mark Arnett, Carl Barnes, Gary Oncina, James Pelligri (no date)
46 Diane Green, Daniel Wheaton, Mark Arnett, Carl Barnes, Gary Oncina, James Pelligri (11/2/21)
47 Diane Green, Daniel Wheaton, Mark Arnett, Carl Barnes, Gary Oncina, James Pelligri (11/2/21)
48 Elizabeth Green (11/3/21)
49 Elizabeth Green (11/5/21)
50 Rodney and Elizabeth Green (11/1/21)
51 Rodney and Elizabeth Green (11/3/21)
52 Gale Greisen
53 Henry Gundling (10/12/21)
54 Henry Gundling (10/12/21)
55 Kathleen Guneratne
56 Mariam Hansen
57 Donna Hardy
58 Carla Holm
59 Suzanne James
60 Frank and Tracy Jonelis
61 Sherri Kelly (10/27/21)
62 Sherri Kelly (11/3/21)
63 Patrick Kenealy
64 Susan Kenward
65 Grace D. Kistner (11/23/21)
66 Grace D. Kistner (11/29/21)
67 Pamela Koussa
68 Laurel Krsek
69 Gail Morgan Lane
70 Marina Lavagnino and Jenna Lavagnino
71 Lou Lavigne and Nancy Rothman
72 Sandra Lowry
Agenda Item #6.10.
2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-4
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
73 Isobel Luria (11/2/21)
74 Isobel Luria (11/3/21)
75 Isobel Luria (11/8/21)
76 Isobel Luria (11/30/21)
77 Norm Manzer
78 Beth and David Marks
79 Tracy McBride
80 Sandra McCorkle
81 Kathleen McCreedy
82 Joe McGrath
83 John Milliken (11/2/21)
84 John Milliken (11/30/21)
85 Michael Mills
86 Doris Mosler
87 Janell Myhre
88 Timothy Nieman
89 Indrajit Obeysekere
90 Gabriel and Tishna Pastrama
91 Joann Patton
92 Kathleen Paulus
93 Leslie R. Perry (11/1/21), Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz 94 Leslie R. Perry (11/8/21), Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz 95 Vivian Pirchner
96 Charles Pniower
97 Patrick and Laura Pohlen
98 Charlotte Powell
99 Lisa Redmon
100 Greg Reynolds
101 Ringenberg (via email, unsigned letter)
102 Jim Ritchie
103 Vivian L. Robison
104 Linda Rose
105 A. Venezia Rouas
106 Laurence Schlatter
107 John Schoof
108 Cathy Small
Agenda Item #6.10.
2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-5
Table 2-1. List of Commenters
Letter Number Commenter
109 Patricia Stephens
110 Carolyn Troyan
111 Vineyard Valley Managing Partners (signed by residents) 112 Vineyard Valley Residents
113 Maria Villegas (10/29/21)
114 Maria Villegas (11/29/21)
115 Maria Villegas (no date)
116 Lori Vrabel
117 Ree Whitford
118 Mark and Jeanette Willey
119 Connie Wilson
120 Terry Wood
121 Angela M. Zivkovic, PhD
Comment Letter Received after the Close of the Comment Period 122 Daniel Hale
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING – NOVEMBER 2, 2021 AND NOVEMBER 30, 2021 The transcript and responses to the November 2, 2021 and November 30, 2021 Planning Commission hearings are provided immediately following the comment letters and responses.
There were a total of 12 speakers at the November 2, 2021 hearing and 6 speakers at the November 30, 2021 hearing. Table 2-2 lists all the commenters.
Table 2-2. List of Commenters – Planning Commission Hearings Planning Commission Commenters – November 2, 2021
Angela Zivkovic
Greg Reynolds, Managing Partner Vineyard Valley
Maria Villegas
Patrick Band, Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Tracy McBride
Elizabeth Alderman
Nancy Dervin
Marina Lavagnino
Ben Alderman
Randy Hussong
Michael Mills
Maureen Levandowsky
Planning Commission Commenters – November 30, 2021
Tracy McBride
Marina Lavagnino
Agenda Item #6.10.
2–LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 2-6
Anya Courtney
Greg Reynolds, Managing Partner Vineyard Valley
Jenna Lavagnino
Angela Zivkovic
Agenda Item #6.10.
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-1
CHAPTER 3
CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents minor corrections, additions, and revisions made to the Draft EIR initiated by the Lead Agency (City of St. Helena), reviewing agencies, the public, and/or consultants based on their review. New text is indicated in underline and text to be deleted is reflected by strike through, unless otherwise noted in the introduction preceding the text change. Text changes are presented in the section and page order in which they appear in the Draft EIR.
It should be noted that the changes represent minor clarifications/amplifications of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR and do not constitute significant new information that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft EIR.
Executive Summary
The last sentence on page ES-17 is revised to read:
Of the alternatives evaluated above, Alternative 2 3, the Park/Open Space Preserve alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.
Chapter 1, Introduction
The text on page 1-6 is revised to read:
Alternative 3: Park/Open Space Preserve Alternative. This alternative includes a 1- acre park that would preserve a majority of the on-site wetlands and would include the same number of units as the Proposed Project, including the affordable housing units and accessory dwelling units.
The text on page 1-7 under section 1.5 Organization of the Draft EIR is revised to read:
Chapter 2, Executive Summary—Summarizes the elements of the Proposed Project and the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the Proposed Project and provides a table that lists impacts, describes proposed mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation.
Section 3.3, Air Quality
The text in the last paragraph on page 3.3-2 is revised to read:
Agenda Item #6.10.
3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-2
The greatest precipitation in the City occurs from October November to April March, during which time the rainfall averages 2–7 5 inches per month. The average annual precipitation is 34.6126.09 inches. The City has a mild climate with an annual average temperature of 7563 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). The coolest months of the year are typically December November through February, with an annual average low of 36 41°F.
The warmest months are typically June through September, with an annual average high of 89 90 °F. Prevailing wind direction in the City Project area (as measured at the St.
Helena Napa station, approximately 0.42 22 miles southwest southeast of the Project site) is from the west (WRCC 2016 NOAA 2022)
1 .
Section 3.6, Geology and Soils
The third sentence of the first paragraph on page 3.6-12 is revised to read:
The 1906 earthquake was of a substantial magnitude and the 1969 earthquakes were was of a more moderate magnitude though with an earthquake epicenters located near downtown Santa Rosa.”
Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality
The fourth sentence of the last paragraph on page 4.9-7 is deleted:
During such a flood, the style of flooding onsite would be slow and gradual, since the high velocity flows remain limited to the regulatory floodway.
The first paragraph on page 3.9-12 is revised to read:
Furthermore, in highly unlikely catastrophic situations (< a 0.5% annual chance) where the levee may be overtopped or in a 200+ year flood event, Proposed Project residents would have ample warning to evacuate prior to flooding. Based on a comparison of the base flood elevation to proposed lot pad elevations, flooding of Proposed Project lots would range between 0 and 5 feet in depth, with the deepest flooding occurring on the northern part of the Project site. This level of flooding would leave upper floors or residences available for refuge. Because of this, the risks from a 200+ year flood and/or levee failure are limited to property damage rather than risk of life. As previously indicated, this would be an impact of the pre-existing environment on the Proposed Project rather than the Proposed Project’s impact on the environment.
The first sentence in the second paragraph on page 3.9-19 is revised to read:
1 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022. “NOWData: NOAA Online Weather Data.” Accessed September 2022.https://www.weather.gov/wrh/Climate?wfo=mtr.
Agenda Item #6.10.
3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-3
Given the proximity and similar setting, groundwater levels are expected to be similar or possibly shallower beneath the Project site. According to the findings of the well capacity and sustainability report (Appendix L), the existing agricultural well on the Project site (proposed to be located in Parcel B on the tentative subdivision map) was constructed in 1976 to a depth of 410 feet bgs; with a current (2022) yield of 350 gallons per minute (gpm).
The second sentence in the last paragraph on page 3.9-43 is revised to read:
Therefore, the proposed pumping from this well is not likely to have any a less direct effect on surface flow in the Napa River than if it directly pumped from the alluvial deposits.
Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation
The last paragraph on page 3.12-5 is revised to read2:
Additionally, an approximately 0.6 miles pedestrian path/trail is located parallel to the gravel levee maintenance road located adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project site, as shown in Figure 3.12-1. The levee maintenance road is not a City recreation trail but is used informally as a trail by local residents.
Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems
The last sentence in the third complete paragraph on page 3.13-2 is revised to read:
It is assumed these vineyards have previously been irrigated by the on-site well, which constitutes the only water use on site at present. However, since the well is currently not currently in operation it is likely that if the vineyard is not currently receiving artificial irrigation.
The last paragraph on page 3.13-3 is revised to read:
In total, the City is authorized to divert and store 13,800 acre-feet from Bell Canyon Reservoir each year, and directly divert 1 cubic foot per second between November 15 and April 15 (150 days) of each year. Of the City’s total authorized amount, 2,000 acrefeet can only be diverted and stored between November 15 and April 15 of each year (City of St. Helena 2010).
The last sentence at the top of page 3.13-8 is revised to read:
There is an existing well on the Project site that is presently not in operation (see Section
3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality for more information on the existing well and groundwater resources).
The second sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.13-8 is revised to read:
2 Figure 3.12-1 is included at the end of this chapter.
Agenda Item #6.10.
3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-4
Water from the Bell Canyon Reservoir is treated by three licensed water treatment operators at the Louis Stralla Water Treatment Plant (WTP), located on Crystal Springs Road in the northeastern part of the City (City of St. Helena 2015a, 2019a).
The second sentence of page 3.13-26 is revised to read:
This translates to a wastewater generation rate of 19.88 acre-feet per year, or 0.018 MGD 14,000 gallons per day (0.014 MGD) during average dry weather flows (ADWF) and 23,400 gallons per day (0.0234 MGD) during peak wet weather flows (Appendix J Carollo 2022).
The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 3.13-29 is revised to read:
The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 0.018 0.014 MGD of wastewater during ADWF and 0.0234 MGD during PWWF while in operation (Carollo 2022).
The third and fourth sentences of the fourth paragraph on page 3.13-32 are revised to read:
The Proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 0.018 0.014 MGD of wastewater during ADWF and 0.0234 MGD during PWWF (Carollo 2022). As the WWTP currently treats an average flow of 0.384 MGD, the additional 0.018 0.014 MGD combined with the current average flow of 0.384 MGD would not exceed the plant’s permitted allowable ADWF effluent limit of 0.5 MGD, as specified under its NPDES permit (City of St. Helena 2016).
The second sentence of the second paragraph on page 3.13-36 is revised to read:
The Proposed Project would increase wastewater generation in the City by producing approximately 0.018 0.014 MGD at buildout (Carollo 2022).
Section 3.13.6 References shall include the following additional reference:
Carollo Engineers, Incorporated (Carollo), 2022. Hunter Subdivision Hydraulic Modeling Analysis, June 24, 2022.
Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation
The last sentence in the second paragraph on page 3.14-13 is revised to read:
Weekday service generally occurs every 45 minutes starting at 6:15 a.m. and ending at 10:45 p.m. Weekend service is provided every hour and is truncated during the morning and night periods. Service is not provided on weekends or major holidays.
Agenda Item #6.10.
3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-5
The first sentence in the fourth paragraph on page 3.14-13 is revised to read:
The Napa Valley Wine Train also passes through the city; however, it is mainly used as a tourist attraction and not for commuting or passenger service purposes. Stops are limited and occur on an irregular basis in the city.
Chapter 5, Alternatives
The title of Tables 5-2 and 5-3 on pages 5-10 and 5-11 are revised to read:
Table 5-2
Alternative 2: No Project/No Action General Plan Alternative Projected Solid Waste Generation
Land Use
Generation Rate
(tons/day/unit)
Waste Disposed
(tons per day)
152 Single-family Residential Units 0.0033 0.502
Total 0.502
Source: CalRecycle 2018.
Table 5-3
Alternative 2: No Project/No Action General Plan Alternative Student Generation Grades
Student Generation Rate
(per total number of units) Students Generated
K-2 0.058 8.816
3-5 0.080 12.16
6-8 0.088 13.38
9-12 0.088 15.84
Total 57
Source: SHUSD 2010.
The second sentence in the second paragraph on page 5-11 under the ability of the No Project/General Plan Alternative to meet the Project objectives is revised to read:
However, this alternative would may not achieve the Proposed 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.
Agenda Item #6.10.
3–CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 3-6
Table 5-7 starting on page 5-29 is revised to read:
3.14-6: Under Cumulative conditions,
would the Proposed Project increase
hazards due to a geometric design
feature or incompatible use? This is
considered a less than significant
impact.
LS NI LSSU LSSU LSSU
Appendix K
Table 7 of Appendix K, Traffic Impact Study, page 36, is revised to read:
The change to Table 7 corrects a typographical error. The Existing Plus Project AM Peak Hour for Intersection #12 should read Level of Service (LOS) C, and not E. The analysis in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is based on the delay of 18.5 seconds, which corresponds to LOS C.
Therefore, the project does not result in an unacceptable level of service for the AM peak hour at Intersection No. 12, and this correction does not change the results of the TIS. It should be noted that the TIS was prepared to meet City development requirements and not for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). LOS is not considered an indicator of a significant environmental effect under CEQA.
Agenda Item #6.10.
Walking Path/Trail
Levee Maintenance
Road
128
29 Hollis Ln
Paseo Grand Dr
S tarr Ave
Allison Ave
June Ln
Paulson Ct
GranadaCt
Del Monte Ct
Fulton
Ln
San Lucas Ct
Peppertree Cir
Madrona Ave
Library Ln
Del Campo Ct
Kidd Ranch Rd
Stockton St
Crinella Dr
Church St
Kearney St
Ma riposa Ln
Del Rio Ct
Redondo
Ct
Brown St
Mitchell Dr
Edwards St
Pratt Ave
Money Way
Pine St
Oak Ave
Charter Oak Ave
Laguna SecaCt
Signorelli Cir
Tainter St
McCorkle Ave
Spring St
Meadowcreek Cir
Adams St
Railroad Ave
Chiles Ave
Hunt A ve
Pope St
29 Main St
Napa River Loop
Hunter Subdivision Project
SOURCE: Napa County 2015, Bing 2022
Date: 6/22/2022 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1083901\MAPDOC\FigureX_NapaRiverLoop.mxd 0 305 610Feet
Napa River Loop
Hunter Subdivision Project Boundary
St. Helena City Boundary
101
37 12
221
29 1
116
175
121
12 128
128
16 680
780
5 505
80 Lake County
Sonoma County
Yolo County
Marin County
Solano County
Project Site
FIGURE 3.12-1
Agenda Item #6.10.
Agenda Item #6.10.
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-1
CHAPTER 4
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This chapter contains the comment letters received in response to the Draft EIR during the public comment period (September 23 through November 30, 2021), as well as the transcripts from the November 2 and November 30, 2021, Planning Commission hearings on the Draft EIR. A list of all commenters is provided in Chapter 2. Each comment letter or Planning Commission comment is numbered, each comment is bracketed, and responses are provided to each comment. To assist the reader, a brief summary of the comment has been provided; however, it is only a summary and does not repeat the comment verbatim. Please refer back to the letter for the specific comment.
Master Responses have been provided to respond to the same or similar comments raised in numerous comment letters addressing the following issues:
• Emergency evacuation (Master Response 1),
• Availability of adequate water supply and compliance with the City’s water neutral requirements (Master Response 2),
• Stability of the Napa River levee and flooding concerns (Master Response 3), and • Adequacy of the City’s wastewater conveyance capacity (Master Response 4) are provided on the following pages.
The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the Draft EIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the Draft EIR where the requested information can be found.
Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions on the merits of the project unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record. Where text changes in the Draft EIR are warranted based on comments received, updated project information, or information provided by City of St. Helena staff, those changes are noted in the response to comment, and are listed in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
Any changes to the analysis contained in the Draft EIR represent only minor clarifications/ amplifications and do not constitute significant new information. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-3
MASTER RESPONSE 1: EMERGENCY EVACUATION
Numerous comments were raised regarding emergency evacuation, specifically for residents of the adjacent Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park (Vineyard Valley). Concerns included the addition of vehicles from the Proposed Project and the potential to hinder evacuation of residents in the area, including in the Vineyard Valley development during an emergency.
Commentors asked whether this impact was considered and expressed concern about potential adverse impacts to public safety.
Roads that would provide emergency access near the Project site include Pope Street, Hunt Avenue, Starr Avenue, Adams Street, and Silverado Trail as well as the existing levee maintenance road that borders the northwest boundary of the Project site and the adjacent City detention basin. The Vineyard Valley development currently has only one access to enter/exit the development from Pope Street. Emergency access is provided via the maintenance road adjacent to the northern boundary.
On August 3, 2021, the St. Helena Police Department in conjunction with the St. Helena Fire Department conducted a practice emergency evacuation drill of Vineyard Valley residents. The emergency simulated a major incident, such as a fire, where the residents of Vineyard Valley would be asked to leave in a moment's notice in their vehicles. Residents evacuated in approximately 25 to 30 minutes. The attached “After Action Report,” dated Sept 20, 2021, provides additional detail on the evacuation drill.
Based on the results of the evacuation drill, the St. Helena Police Department has concluded that any additional traffic from the Proposed Project would not significantly impact the ability of Vineyard Valley residents to safely evacuate the development in the event of an emergency. The Police Department also concluded that the proposed extension of Starr Avenue to Adams Street will help facilitate future evacuations by providing additional roadway capacity and additional routing options for emergency traffic (J.Tharp September 2021)1. If, for some reason, the levee maintenance road is closed residents of Vineyard Valley would exit using the access onto Pope Street.
Another concern with regard to the Proposed Project’s potential impact on emergency evaluation concerned construction activities and their potential to block access to the levee maintenance road in the event of an emergency. Construction equipment would be staged on the Project site and would not be allowed to to park or be stored on or block access to the maintenance road. Access to the maintenance road would be maintained during all construction activities, even during construction of the extension of Adams Street, to ensure adequate emergency access would be available. All construction trucks and equipment would access the site from either Starr Avenue or Adams Street. No construction vehicles would be permitted on the levee maintenance road.
Emergency access and public safety is evaluated in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.12, Public Services and Recreation and 3.14, Transportation and 1 City of St. Helena Police Department, After Action Report, Lt. Justin Tharp, September 20, 2021.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-4
Circulation. The St. Helena Fire Department has reviewed the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map and has not identified any issues with the Project’s proposed emergency access.
As discussed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Napa County, in coordination with other jurisdictions including the City, has prepared a Draft 2020 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, which has not yet been adopted (DEIR p. 3.8-11). The plan covers each of the major natural hazards that pose risks to County infrastructure and residents and includes:
• Focusing resources on the greatest risks and vulnerabilities, • Building partnerships by involving citizens, organizations, and businesses, • Increasing education and awareness of threats and hazards, as well as their risks, • Communicating priorities to state and federal officials, and • Aligning risk reduction with other community objectives.
The potential for the Project to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is evaluated under Impact 3.8-3 on page 3.8-20 of the Draft EIR. As noted in the discussion, the Project includes three points of access -- the extension of Starr Avenue, Adams Street, and emergency vehicle access via the levee maintenance road-- to facilitate the ingress and egress of emergency response vehicles, including the City and County Fire Department’s apparatus, Project residents, and Vineyard Valley residents. The emergency vehicle access onto the maintenance road would be designed with bollards or a fence that would be kept locked. In the event of an emergency requiring evacuation, police or fire personnel/vehicles would have access to remove the bollards/unlock the gate through a locked box (e.g., knox box) to enable access to the site and as a third egress option for Project residents to evacuate. The Project has been designed to ensure all streets and roads are adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide multiple points of emergency ingress and egress to ensure a safe evacuation in the event of an emergency.
The ability of the City’s police and fire services to protect future Project homes and residents is addressed in Section 3.12, Public Services and Recreation. As discussed, the Project site would be served by the City’s police and fire departments located at 1480 Main Street, approximately
0.2 miles from the site. Development of the Project site would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency services; however, as discussed on page 3.12-14, the Project is required to comply with Chapter 15.36 of the City’s Municipal Code and the State Building Code, which requires installation of approved automatic sprinkler systems in all single-family and multifamily buildings. The Project would be developed consistent with 1993 General Plan Policy 8.5.6 and 2019 General Plan Policy PS4.D, which requires new development to meet the minimum fire flow rates specified by the City’s Fire Code. In addition, as mentioned above all streets and roads are designed to be adequate in terms of width, turning radius, and grade to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide emergency ingress and egress. The site and construction plans for the proposed single family homes and the multi-family development on Lot 52 would be subject to plan review by the City’s Fire Department to ensure proper access for fire and emergency response is provided and required fire suppression features are included.
Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation also addresses adequate emergency access under Impact 3.14-4 on page 3.14-51. The analysis reiterates what has previously been mentioned:
the Project includes two primary access points, Starr Avenue and Adams Street as well as a Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-5
separate emergency vehicle access. In the event of an emergency there would be three roadways that would enable vehicles to safely enter/exit the Project site and all streets and roads would be designed to facilitate access by City firefighting apparatus, and to provide alternative emergency ingress and egress.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-7
MASTER RESPONSE 2: ST. HELENA WATER SUPPLY AND WATER NEUTRAL
POLICY FOR DEVELOPMENT
Numerous commenters have questioned the ability of the City of St. Helena (City) to meet the water demands of the Hunter Subdivision project (Proposed Project or Project), the viability of relying on the City’s Water Neutral Policy, how the effects of climate change and current drought conditions are considered, and whether implications of the outcome of the City’s Water Audit lawsuit should be included in the analysis. The following responds to these concerns.
Water Demand
The Draft EIR addresses the City’s water supply and availability in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems. The City currently sources its water supply from Bell Canyon Reservoir, extracted groundwater from the Stonebridge Well Complex, and water purchased from the City of Napa (DEIR pp. 3.13-2 and 3). Bell Canyon Reservoir has a physical storage capacity of 2,400 acre-feet (AF) with a safe yield estimated at between 500-1,100 AF. Existing water rights permit the City to divert up to 1,800 AF between November 15 and April 15 of each year. The City owns and operates two active groundwater wells, collectively known as the Stonebridge Well Complex, that have a combined capacity of approximately 595 gallons per minute (gpm). These wells have the potential to provide 960 acre-feet of potable water per year if both are operated continuously (DEIR p. 3.13-7).
However, the City limits groundwater production to a long-term average not to exceed 450 AF per year. As stated on page 3.9-19 of the Draft EIR, groundwater pumping at these two wells has averaged 350 AFY between 2006 and 2019, with a range of 182 acre-feet in 2012 to a high of 526 acre-feet in 2013. This period captures multi-year drought conditions and according to monitoring data of a groundwater monitoring well located approximately 600 feet from the Project site, the groundwater level trend has been stable through this period (DEIR p. 3.9-42).
The City of Napa is contracted to provide the City with a minimum of 600 AF of water with an option for an additional 200 AF when feasible (DEIR p. 4.13-4). In the 2019 watershed report for Bell Canyon, the reservoir provided 43.6% of the City’s water supply, the City of Napa supplied
42.5%, and the Stonebridge Wells the remaining 13.8% in 2018. However, the share of water from each source can change from year to year as the three sources of water supply allow for flexibility in order to adapt to changing conditions.
As shown in Table 3.13-1 on page 3.13-3 of the Draft EIR, the City’s water deliveries have varied from year to year but overall have shown a decreasing trend from 1,882 AF in 2013 to 1,629 AF in 2020. The City’s Safe Yield Committee determined that the potable water system can provide a total supply of up to 1,950 AF per year as a sustainable rate on a long-term basis (DEIR p. 3.13-11). This safe yield value recognizes that drought periods will be experienced and that circumstances may require the implementation of water restrictions (Phase III) during a dry year, but that these restrictions do not represent “undue hardships” (St. Helena Municipal Code Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter 13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation). The Committee considered “undue hardship” to be Phase IV or V restrictions, or three or more consecutive months of Phase III restrictions.
The domestic water demand for the Project at 19.88 AF per year is based on the Water Neutral Report prepared for the Project (Appendix J). The Water Neutral Report also estimates Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-8
outdoor/landscaping uses, which would be served by the onsite agricultural well and is therefore separate from the analysis of domestic water use.
The Water Neutral Report conservatively assumes the Proposed Project will include eight persons per single family residence which is much higher than the City’s average of 2.45 persons per household (DEIR p. 3.13-24),
2 and therefore likely overstates actual water use. However, assuming this conservative estimate of 19.88 AF of domestic water use per year, the additional demand of the Project in combination with the recent total deliveries (1,629 + 19.88 = 1,648.88 AF) would still be far below the City’s adopted safe yield of 1,950. Therefore, the new water demand associated with the Proposed Project could be met by the City’s potable water system even without the water offset requirements of the City’s Water Neutral Policy, as discussed further below.
Water Neutral Policy
The City’s Water Neutral Policy included in Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency, of the Municipal Code requires that new development be water-neutral (from the City-delivered water system) through any combination of on-site water conservation measures and/or off-site retrofitting and/or use of well water (DEIR p. 3.13-21). For the Proposed Project, there are no opportunities for on-site water conservation since the site has no current water demand.
Therefore, the Project must demonstrate water neutrality through off-site retrofitting and system improvements which must be demonstrated in a quantitative water analysis of the Project.
Per Municipal Code Section 13.12.050, the developer is responsible for identifying residential or nonresidential properties eligible for retrofitting and verify to the Department of Public Works that the required number of retrofits have been completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Appendix J of the Draft EIR includes the quantitative water analysis completed for the Project as required by the Water Neutral Policy. The report concluded that the offset of the Project water demands could be met through financial assistance with existing system improvements (e.g., payment of required fee) commensurate with the cost of retrofitting existing residences with low flow fixtures, but also includes a variety of suggested methods to increase domestic water supply or reduce demand to offset the Project’s domestic water use.
As detailed in the Water Neutral Policy, the water demand of the Project would equate to retrofitting 333 residences with water conservation fixtures, but this is not to say that the policy can only be met through residential retrofits. For example, the Water Neutral Report referenced the potential for assisting the City in repairs to the transmission line between the City and Rutherford where a substantial amount of water is lost due to the current condition of the old pipeline. Reducing water losses is a gain for the supply system.
As part of the Project’s proposed Conditions of Approval it states that no building permits may be issued until the developer has identified and implemented 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, 2 Exterior water demand (landscape irrigation, etc.) would be met by an onsite well and is not included in this estimate, which includes interior domestic uses only.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-9
or a combination of these. Therefore, with adherence to this regulatory requirement and the required Conditions of Approval, occupancy of the Proposed Project would not occur until the City’s Public Works Department has verified completion of these retrofits or system improvements that meet the City’s construction standards to offset the Project’s new water demand. As a result, the City would be able to meet the Project’s water supply demand and result in a less-than-significant impact.
Climate Change
One of the effects of global climate change is an increase in variabilities of weather patterns and an increased probability to experience periods of drought. While climate change can create drier years in which precipitation is below annual averages, it can also result in very wet years.
The City recognizes that future periods of drought conditions are likely and may become more frequent. The establishment of the safe yield of 1,950 AF per year completed by the City’s Safe Yield Committee provides the parameters for long term management of water supply resources.
As discussed above, the new water demands for the Proposed Project would be offset through adherence to the City’s Water Neutral Policy where retrofits or system improvements equivalent to the proposed new demands would be in place prior to issuance of building permits for development of the Project.
However, as mentioned above, the City may still be forced to enact water conservation and/or water rationing requirements during drought periods because of strains on the system that would be due to the effects of climate change. The City’s Municipal Code (Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter
13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation) establishes the thresholds and requirements for water emergency phases, water conservation, and regulations that can adapt to changing conditions and enact emergency requirements for users as appropriate for long term water supply planning.
Therefore, the Draft EIR does consider the effects of climate change in Project impacts related to water supplies. The EIR determines that the Project can be adequately served based on existing water supplies. Compliance with the City’s Water Neutral Policy would further ensure that the Project does not adversely effect the City’s future water supplies.
Water Audit Lawsuit
Several comments have referenced the Water Audit lawsuit and have suggested that the outcome of that lawsuit should be considered as part of the analysis of water supply and hydrologic resources related to the Project. The lawsuit claims the City has violated its public trust in its management of water resources. The plaintiffs seek to increase monitoring and oversight of groundwater and surface water resources. The lawsuit claims poor documentation of water uses, including pumping at the City’s Stonebridge Well Complex, and water deliveries to vineyards, wineries, and the Meadowood resort.
The Water Audit’s complaint does not ask for changes to existing water uses. Instead, it seeks an injunction to stop the City from issuing new groundwater well drilling permits until enough Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-10
information is available to make informed water allocation decisions. The Proposed Project does not include a requirement for a new groundwater well drilling permit and so a potential injunction on new well drilling permits would not affect the Project.
As discussed on page 3.9-15 of the Draft EIR, there is an inactive groundwater well located in the northern portion of the Project site that may have been historically used to provide construction water for the City’s Flood Protection Project and was used in the past for agricultural irrigation. The Project proposes to use this well for the irrigation of public and private landscaping and all other outdoor uses, which are estimated to require 17.16 AF per year (DEIR p. 3.13-32).
Regarding concerns about hydraulic conductivity with the adjacent Napa River, a site-specific well capacity and sustainability report was prepared that included conducting a 24-hour pump test as part of evaluating the hydrogeologic characteristics of the existing on-site well (Appendix L of the Draft EIR). The pump test ran at a rate of 40 gpm, which was nearly four times as high as the proposed rate for the Project (10.6 gpm). The study concluded that the onsite well draws from an aquifer with high transmissivity (i.e., ability of the water bearing unit to transmit water flow) and that the proposed pumping would not likely adversely affect either local water levels or Napa River flows. The onsite well is screened from 80 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 410 feet bgs, which is within the deeper volcanic aquifer and below the Napa Valley alluvium (the shallow water bearing unit that is considered hydraulically connected to the Napa River).
Therefore, whereas the Water Audit lawsuit is primarily concerned with the management of water resources that would affect the water levels of the Napa River, the well capacity and sustainability report determined that the pumping of the onsite well to supply the Project’s public and private landscaping would not adversely affect flows in the Napa River. The analysis under Impact 3.9-2 starting on page 3.9-40 of the Draft EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with using the on-site well.
Considering that the Project does not require obtaining a well drilling permit and that a sitespecific hydrogeologic study has demonstrated that the Project would not adversely affect water levels, the outcome of the Water Audit lawsuit would not alter the findings of the Draft EIR.
CEQA requires that the determination of significant effects be based on substantial evidence that include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, expert opinion supported by facts, and not speculation (CEQA Guidelines § 21082.2). Therefore, the final outcome of the Water Audit lawsuit may have ramifications for the City in its long-term management of water resources but would not affect the analysis or impact significance determinations that were made in the Draft EIR.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-11
MASTER RESPONSE 3: NAPA RIVER FLOOD PROTECTION/LEVEE
The Hunter Subdivision Project (Project or Proposed Project) was in the past in a flood zone but is now protected from a 200-year flood event (equivalent to less than a 0.5% annual chance) by the St. Helena Comprehensive Flood Protection Project (Flood Protection Project). The Project does not have an impact on the Flood Protection Project’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly.
Many commenters have raised concerns that the Project would put people and property at unreasonable risk if a major flood event overtops the levee3(i.e., greater than 200-year flood) and/or if the levee fails. These concerns generally revolve around the Project’s perceived physical impacts on the levee; the levee’s current condition, inspections, and maintenance; a perception that the project would increase existing flood risks for neighboring communities (e.g., Vineyard Valley and Hunt’s Grove); confusion over levee certification/accreditation; and legal, liability, and insurance questions.
Comments that raised concerns about growth inducement (due to the levee reducing SFHAs in the City) are comments on the Flood Protection Project, not the Project.
As a general matter, the bulk of the comments received do not question the accuracy of the information contained in the Draft EIR or the adequacy of the analysis presented. Rather, they express differing opinions about levels of acceptable risk and a lack of trust in the design, construction, and maintenance of the Flood Protection Project. The Draft EIR includes a detailed description of the flood hazards present; the engineering, design, and maintenance of the Flood Protection Project; and the City’s emergency management procedures in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality (Draft EIR pp. 3.9-6 through 3.9-13). This information was provided for reference purposes and addresses a majority of the comments received that relate to flooding and levee protection. The reason this information was included in the Environmental Setting section of Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality), rather than being addressed as an impact, is because impacts of the environment on a project or plan (as opposed to impacts of a project or plan on the environment) are beyond the scope of required CEQA review. 4 Flood Risks
The Project does not have an impact on the levee’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly. California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” but they must analyze hazards the project might risk exacerbating. For example, if a project proposes development on a site with existing subsurface hazards, then grading/development of the project may exacerbate the risk of those existing subsurface hazards. 3 Note that references to the levee are inclusive of the floodwall component of the Flood Protection Project. 4 “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473.)
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-12
Accordingly, the State Office of Planning and Research’s 2018 revisions to the CEQA Guidelines—which the City uses as its CEQA thresholds of significance—removed reference to property damage, personal injury, or loss of life due to flooding or levee failure (i.e., pre-existing hazards) from Appendix G (included in the CEQA Guidelines).
Placement of the Project within an area protected from the 200-year flood does not substantially increase public exposure to flood risk, even though the risk is not zero. The Draft EIR acknowledges that there is residual risk to residents which is why the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA encourages the purchase of optional flood insurance (i.e., FEMA preferred risk policy) (Draft EIR p. 3.9-8, first paragraph). The Project’s Conditions of Approval require that prior to issuance of building permits, all future occupants will be provided information which describes the flood risk and notifies the buyer of the availability of low-cost Preferred Risk Policy flood insurance. Comments that address legal, liability, and/or insurance issues fall outside the scope of CEQA review, because they are not related to impacts of the project on the environment.
It is not the role of the Draft EIR to guarantee that there would be zero risk to life or property in the event of an extreme (i.e., greater than 200-year) or catastrophic flood event. The level of risk to the Project and its residents is reasonably and acceptably low due to the 200-year level of protection afforded by the Flood Protection Project. The description of flood emergency stages, preparedness, and response (Draft EIR pp. 3.9-11 and 3.9-12) remains accurate and indicates a reasonable plan for alerting and protecting residents from major flood events.
In the last paragraph on page 3.9-7, the Draft EIR speculates as to the style of flooding that would occur in the Project site based on its position outside of the regulatory floodway, if there were a levee overtopping event. The style of flooding would be dependent on the location, speed of water level rise, and levee response to an overtopping event. No portion of the Project site is located within the FEMA regulatory floodway. Therefore, the text on page 3.9-7 is revised to remove the reference to flooding being “slow and gradual.” Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for the revised text.
For the same reasons, the text on page 3.9-12 is also revised to remove the characterization of what could happen in the event of a flood. As previously indicated, this would be an impact of the pre-existing environment on the Proposed Project rather than the Proposed Project’s impact on the environment. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for the revised text.
Clarification on Terminology/Concepts
Many commenters have expressed concern about the levee’s design and construction, because it was not designed and built by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and is maintained by the City. As noted above, the Project does not have an impact on the levee’s effectiveness or on flood hazards for surrounding communities, either directly or indirectly. California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents” but they must analyze hazards the project might risk exacerbating. Accordingly, comments Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-13
regarding existing structures, such as the levee, that will not be directly or indirectly impacted the Project, are outside the scope of CEQA review for this Project.
However, for strictly informational purposes the City provides the following: there are numerous nonfederal levees throughout the United States that are safely built and maintained by local and/or state entities. The City of St. Helena Department of Public Works oversees inspection, maintenance and repairs of the levee, and has confirmed that the levee was designed and built by qualified contractors in accordance with ACOE engineering and safety standards (Draft EIR p. 3.9-8).
Levee certification is the process that deals specifically with the design and physical condition of the levee and is the responsibility of the levee owner or community in charge of the levee’s operations and maintenance. Certification must be completed for the levee to be eligible for accreditation by FEMA. Certification consists of documentation, signed and sealed by a registered Professional Engineer, as defined in Chapter 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Section 65.2. By virtue of FEMA’s approval of the City’s application for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and subsequent revision of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the levee is a FEMA-accredited levee system5that has undergone the certification process. While FEMA does not design, build, maintain, inspect, or certify levees, it uses the best available data about flood hazards and levee conditions to create FIRMs and Flood Risk Products (FRPs). These FIRMs and FRPs are tools that provide a more precise, up-to-date picture of the flood hazards facing levee-impacted areas, which is important given that the flood risks change over time.
The modern construction of the levee makes it more secure than other accredited levee systems that may have received accreditation decades ago, and the 200-year level of protection provides substantial additional protection against flooding that takes into consideration increased rainfall and runoff due to climate change.
Levee Condition and Maintenance/Inspections and City Detention Basin Several concerns were raised that the levee has not been properly maintained and may be subject to reduced performance due to animal burrows, erosion, and/or pump malfunctions. As discussed below, these issues are outside the scope of CEQA review of the Project, because the Project does not physically infringe upon or otherwise affect the levee. (See California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369.) However, for strictly informational purposes, the City provides the following: the City employs qualified individuals to inspect the levee on a monthly basis to detect any potential issues and take action on them as they arise. For example, in the past issues were found with the operation/startup of the detention basin’s pump and it will be repaired by a qualified contractor.
Further, it is up to the professional judgement of the City’s engineer as to when any animal burrows may compromise the levee’s safety. Per the inspection reports, the City has an animal 5 A FEMA-Accredited Levee System is levee system that FEMA has shown on a FIRM that is recognized as reducing the flood hazards posed by a 1-percent-annual-chance flood. This determination is based on the submittal of data and documentation as required by 44CFR§65.10 of the NFIP regulations. The area landward of an accredited levee system is shown as Zone X (shaded) on the FIRM except for areas of residual flooding, such as ponding areas, which are shown as Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-14
burrow control program in place and conducts burrow control activities as needed. The City also makes its levee inspection reports and summary reports available online here:
https://www.cityofsthelena.org/publicworks/page/flood-control-and-river-restoration-project.
Several commenters referred to erosion or runoff from the Project affecting the City’s detention basin. These commenters are referred to Draft EIR pages 3.9-44 and 3.9-45, which explains that the detention basin was designed assuming the Project would consist of 70% impervious (developed) area, when in fact it would consist of about 58% impervious area. The estimate of the Project’s impervious surface coverage was calculated based on design drawings of the Project. Accordingly, as discussed in the Draft EIR on page 3.9-45, the Project would not contribute increase flows or erosion to off-site properties because the detention basin has been adequately sized and designed.
Commenters also requested information on what funds were used to construct the levee (Flood Control Project), what funds the City uses for repair and maintenance of the levee, what funds would be available to repair homes in the event of a levee breach, would the City be held liable in the event of a levee breach, and is the City non-compliant with the terms of Measure A.6 Concerns regarding the financing of the levee, ongoing repairs and maintenance, financing to address damages in the event of a catastrophic flood, and liability are outside the scope of CEQA review, because they are not related to impacts of the project on the environment. In addition, economic effects of a project are not considered significant effects on the environment unless the economic changes are connected to physical environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131(a)).
Regarding the comment suggesting that the City could be non-compliant with the County’s Measure A ordinance, it is assumed the commenter is referencing subsection G, which states “none of the projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth in the County.” To clarify, the Project site has been designated and zoned for residential development since the City’s 1975 General Plan. The City’s Flood Protection Project was designed consistent with the intent of Measure A to provide flood protection to residents and businesses in the County.
Development of this site with residential uses would not be considered encouraging new population growth in the City because this site has been planned for future development for over 45 years.
6 Measure A is an ordinance of the Napa County Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Authority that adopted by Napa County residents in 1998. It is used to finance the Napa River Flood Protection Project. Each City and Town in Napa County receives a portion of Measure A revenues to fund flood protection projects. Subsection G states “none of the projects are intended or designed to encourage population growth in the County.” Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-15
MASTER RESPONSE 4: WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE CAPACITY
Numerous commenters raised concerns that the additional wastewater flows from the Hunter Subdivision project (Proposed Project or Project) would significantly exacerbate an existing capacity issue in the vicinity of the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. The concerns include the issue of potential increased backflow incidents that affect the Vineyard Valley mobile home community. Commenters also questioned the assumptions that were used to estimate the flows that would originate from the Project, which they assert underestimate the wastewater flows that would occur with the Project. Capacity of the City’s wastewater infrastructure to accommodate the Project was another concern raised in numerous comment letters. The following responds to these concerns.
Wastewater Flow Assessment
The Draft EIR addresses the Project’s wastewater flows in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems. To support the findings of the Draft EIR, a hydraulic modeling analysis was recently conducted by Carollo Engineers who prepared the citywide Integrated Utility Master Plan (Carollo 2022). As part of their work for the Master Plan, Carollo had constructed a hydraulic model of the entire wastewater collection system for the City. The purpose of the model was to identify capacity deficiencies within the collection system under both average dry weather flows (ADWF) and peak wet weather flow (PWWF) conditions.
To identify the potential effects of the Project, the model was updated by adding the wastewater loads that would be coming from the Project to the point of connection to the sewer system, which is at the intersection of Del Rio Court and Paseo Grand Drive, upstream of the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. The evaluation criteria for the Project specific analysis was the same used for the Master Plan analysis and included conservative assumptions on surcharge depth7, maximum flow depth, and peak dry weather flow conditions (i.e., no surcharging is allowed). A copy of the memorandum prepared by Carollo is included as Appendix A to this Final EIR.
For the Proposed Project, the estimated ADWF flows would be 14,000 gallons per day (gpd) (Carollo 2022). The ADWF flows are calculated by multiplying the projected increase in residential units by the residential density of 2.45 persons per household and multiplying the result by the per capita flowrate of 66 gallons per capita per day, consistent with standards used for the citywide Master Plan. The Project’s PWWF flows were also calculated based on methods used for the Master Plan and were estimated at 23,400 gpd (Carollo 2022).
The findings of the hydraulic analysis determined that under existing conditions, there is sufficient capacity within the existing sewer system for all ADWF flows. However, under PWWF conditions, there is an existing deficiency upstream of what would be the Project’s point of connection that is creating a bottleneck. This bottleneck was identified in the Master Plan as a future upgrade project (Project WWGM-6) that would replace approximately 450 feet of 15-inch and 18-inch diameter pipelines along Del Campo Court, between Hunt Avenue and Paseo 7 Sewers are surcharged when the supply of water to be carried is greater than the capacity of the pipes to carry the flow. The surface of the wastewater in manholes rises above the top of the sewer pipe, and the sewer is under pressure or a head, rather than at atmospheric pressure.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-16
Grand drive with a 21-inch diameter pipe. In addition, 910 feet of 18-inch diameter pipeline along Paseo Drive, between Del Campo Court and Los Robles Court, would also be upgraded to a 21-inch diameter pipeline under Project WWGM-6.
With the additional wastewater flows that would be attributed to the Proposed Project (14,000 gpd), the hydraulic modeling still shows that under ADWF there would be sufficient capacity within the existing sewer system. Under PWWF conditions, there are deficiencies in the capacity of the system, however the addition of the Project flows (23,400 gpd) did not identify any additional deficiencies that are not already present downstream of the Project site (Carollo 2022). The Project’s contribution represents only 0.5% of the PWWF flows, which is not considered to substantively exacerbate this existing deficiency (Carollo 2022).
Once the proposed Master Plan improvements are completed, and the upsizing of the pipes between Hunt Avenue and Los Robles Court is completed, there would be adequate capacity for both PWWF including flows from the Project (Carollo 2022). The hydraulic analysis verified that the recommended improvements provided in the Master Plan would still be valid and appropriate as stated in the plan.
Therefore, according to the hydraulic modeling which is consistent with the modeling being used for the citywide Master Plan, there is adequate capacity for the Project’s ADWF under existing conditions. During PWWF, the Project would not create any new deficiencies and would represent only a very small portion (0.5%) of total flows.
The City’s Master Plan already identifies existing deficiencies and have targeted projects like WWGM-6, which would upsize segments of the system, to alleviate current constraints such that the impacts would be considered less than significant, consistent with the findings of the Draft EIR.
Wastewater Flow Estimates
As noted above, according to the recent hydraulic analysis of projected wastewater flows from the Proposed Project prepared by Carollo Engineers (see Appendix A to this Final EIR), the Project is estimated to contribute 14,000 gpd during ADWF and 23,400 gpd during PWWF conditions. The PWWF were based on what is known as “peak rain derived inflow and infiltration (RDII)” which were estimated for the Project based on a peak RDII rate of 500 gpd per acre, consistent with the Master Plan.
The Project’s ADWF flows were calculated by multiplying the projected increase in residential units by the residential density of 2.45 persons per household and multiplying the result by a per capita flowrate of 66 gallons per capita per day, consistent with standards used for the citywide Master Plan.
The Draft EIR states that wastewater flows would be 18,000 gpd which is in between the ADWF and PWWF calculated in the memorandum. The figures and data from the memorandum are more recent and were calculated by the same engineering firm that is responsible for Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-17
developing the citywide Master Plan. As a result, the Draft EIR has been modified to be more consistent with the memorandum and the changes are provided in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR.
The updated estimates for the Project’s flows under both ADWF and PWWF, do not change the findings of the Draft EIR’s impact assessment, and the wastewater flows attributed to the Project would still be considered less than significant as concluded in the Draft EIR.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-18
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-19
COMMENT LETTER 1
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-21
Response to Letter 1
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Patrick Band, Executive Director
November 2, 2021
1-1 The comment is requesting a 30-day extension to the Draft EIR public review period.
The Draft EIR was released for the required 45-day public review period on September 23, 2021 through November 8, 2021. In response to numerous requests, the City extended the comment period through November 30, 2021 for a total of 67 days. 1-2 The comment asserts the Draft has numerous shortcomings but does not provide any substantial evidence as to the basis for this assertion with the exception of stating the Draft EIR failed to include the 2019 Countywide Bicycle Plan and associated bicycle and multi-use facilities.
Information on existing bicycle facilities, specifically Class II bike lanes on area roadways is provided starting on page 3.14-2 in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation of the Draft EIR. Existing pedestrian facilities is described on page 3.14-7 and provided on Figure 3.14-3. A discussion of existing bicycle facilities and the transit system in the area is described on page 3.14-8. Figure 3.14-4 provides a graphic of the existing bicycle network in the City of St. Helena. As noted on page
3.14-8 (when the analysis was drafted), “The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) adopted the Countywide Bicycle Plan in October 2019, but the City has not yet adopted the plan.” Because the Countywide Bicycle Plan had not been adopted by the City it was not included under section 3.14.3, Regulatory Setting. In addition, a Condition of Approval has been included to require installation of bicycle facilities along the extension of Starr Avennue. The potential for the Project to adversely impact bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities is addressed under Impact 3.14-1 starting on page 3.14-39.
1-3 The comment reiterates a request to extend the Draft EIR comment period an additional 30 days.
Please see Response to Comment 1-1 that addresses this concern.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-22
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-23
COMMENT LETTER 2
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-24
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-25
Response to Letter 2
Our Town St. Helena
Our Town St. Helena Board of Directors
November 26, 2021
2-1 The comment notes Our Town St. Helena (OTSH) is a non-profit organization focused on creating and preserving affordable housing and the Hunter project has been under discussion by OTSH for the past 12 years.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-2 The comment references the need to advocate for housing that benefits the community and notes the need for affordable housing has expanded to include a much broader range of incomes.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-3 The comment refers to the City’s Inclusionary/In-Lieu Fee Requirements (Municipal Code Chapter 17.146) and questions if the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s requirements.
As noted in the Draft EIR Project Description on pages 2-18 and 2-32, review of an Affordable Housing Agreement by the City Council will be a subsequent discretionary process and is not part of the Tentative Map being considered by the City at this time. A determination of consistency with the City’s Inclusionary/In-Lieu Fee Requirements will be made at the time that subsequent Final Map application is submitted and reviewed.
2-4 The comment is addressing the proposed future cost of the houses.
The CEQA Guidelines do not require the fiscal or economic costs of a project to be evaluated. An EIR evaluates physical changes to the environment attributed to a project. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15358, subd. (b) [“[e]ffects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a physical change”].) Physical changes result from land disturbance due to project construction and development of the overall project “footprint.” In addition, physical changes can also include an increase in demand for services and/or increased traffic associated with generating a new population.
However, economic considerations are not required to be analyzed or addressed.
Therefore, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-26
consideration. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. 2-5 The comment offers an opinion that the affordable housing component would have little community benefit and that the Project homes may be purchased as second homes instead of primary residences.
The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. 2-6 The comment indicates the Project could be detrimental to the community by increasing demand on city services by people that commute into the city to work.
The Draft EIR evaluated the increase in demand for public services assuming the Project would be fully occupied by full-time residences. The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-7 The comment expresses a desire for the City to develop a housing strategy that meets the needs of the community and is supported by the community and addresses the need to provide workforce housing for a range of income brackets.
The comment also notes that people commuting into the City to work create traffic and congestion.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
The commentor is also invited to review the Housing Element of the St. Helena General Plan, which addresses local housing needs and includes policies and actions the City will undertake to help meet these needs. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
2-8 The comment supports the City providing incentives to developers and increasing density for new development projects.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-27
Comment Letter 3
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-28
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-29
Response to Letter 3
Ron Amoroso
October 26, 2021
3-1 The comment references a movie “Kiss the Ground” that addresses carbon recapture to reduce CO2. The comment goes on to state that removal of the onsite vineyards and developing homes will increase heat and reduce the recapture of carbon back into the soil through photosynthesis. Lastly, the comment asks if the purchase of open space elsewhere would be “prime agricultural land”.
The Draft EIR addresses climate change in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The Project proposes developing the 16.9-acre site, including approximately 6 acres in existing vineyards, with 87 residential units. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed landscape plan includes planting approximately 185 trees, including scarlet maple (Acer Rubrum), Chinese pistache (Pistacia Chinensis) and tulip tree (Liriodendron Tulipifera). Furthermore, an approximately one-acre portion of the existing vineyard within the project site would remain. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) includes carbon content values, which are based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, to estimate the loss of sequestered carbon (release of CO2). Using the factor for “cropland,” the closest land use associated with the existing vineyards, removal of the vines would result in a rate of 6.2 MT CO2/acre. Regarding carbon sequestration from the planting of a variety of tree species, the Project would result in a sequestration rate of 0.0354 MT CO2/tree/year assuming growth over 20 years. Therefore, based on these considerations, the Project would result in an overall gain in sequestered carbon, reducing the Project’s GHG emissions presented in Table 3.7-6 of the Draft EIR.
As stated on page 3.2-2 in Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the state’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) categorizes the eastern portion of the Project site as Farmland of Local Importance (9.0 acres). The western portion of the Project site is predominantly designated as Prime Farmland (5.8 acres), with portions of Farmland of Statewide Importance (0.6 acres) and Urban and Built-Up Land (0.8 acres) in the westernmost area of the Project site. To assess Project impacts the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model was used. The model returned a Land Elevaluation or LE score of 35 and a Site Assessemnt or SA score of 13.8 for a total score of 48.8 (see DEIR pp. 3.2-9 – 3.2-10 and Appendix B). As shown in Table 3.2-3 on page 3.2-10, the loss of agricultural resources would be considered significant only if the individual LE and SA subscores are each greater than or equal to 20 points. Therefore, impacts associated with the removal of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance were found to be less than significant.
If the applicant were to purchase undeveloped land there would be no requirement
5.8 acres would need to be Prime Farmland.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-30
3-2 The commenter requests the City vote no on the Project.
The comment’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
3-3 The comment is addressing concerns regarding the levee and raises FEMA certification of the levee. The comment also notes levees can fail and alleges the levee has never been inspected or approved by FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers and if the levee were to fail or be breached the City would be liable.
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses all concerns associated with the levee. 3-4 The comment is stating the Project applicant needs to provide additional security to cover any risks that may occur due to developing a former floodplain.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Master Response 3 that addresses concerns associated with the levee and flooding. 3-5 The comment i addresses the availability of water to supply the Project and questions the viability of retrofitting existing fixtures to offset the project’s increase in water demand.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the issue of water supply. 3-6 The commenter does not support this Project and is recommending the Project not be approved.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-31
COMMENT LETTER 4
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-32
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-33
Response to Letter 4
Ron Amoroso
November 2, 2021
4-1 The comment indicates that the overall effects of the Project should be considered.
The Draft EIR prepared for the Project evaluates both the project-specific direct and indirect effects associated with construction and operation as well as the cumulative effects of conversion of the land from its existing undeveloped condition to a developed environment. The comment does not specify what overall effects the commentor believes were not addressed in the Draft EIR or why the analysis was inaccurate or inadequate. Therefore, no further response is required. 4-2 The comment refers to the practice of “regenerative agriculture” as a way to limit carbon and CO2 from entering the atmosphere and to “cleanse” the environment.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Response to Comment 3-1. 4-3 The comment is requesting the City not approve the Project.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-34
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-35
COMMENT LETTER 5
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-36
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-37
Response to Letter 5
Bette Antor
November 29, 2021
5-1 The commenter states she lives in the adjacent Vineyard Valley mobile home park and is opposed to the Project because it would affect the health and welfare of the residents of Vineyard Valley.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate or how the Project would affect the health and welfare of Vineyard Valley residents; therefore, no further response is required. 5-2 The comment states that there would be a greater chance of flooding if the Project site would be converted from undeveloped land to “high-density building and paving”.
Conversion of the site from undeveloped to developed would not increase flood risks to the adjacent Vineyard Valley residents. Please see Master Response 3, which addresses concerns associated with flooding.
The use of the term “high density” may reflect the commentor’s opinion. However, based on the proposed residential density of 5.1 units per acres, the proposed development would be “medium density” as defined in the General Plan, not “high density” as the term is used in the General Plan.
5-3 The comment suggests that the City does not have adequate water supplies to serve current City residents.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses water availability to serve the Project in addition to existing City residences and businesses. 5-4 The comment states that Project construction would block the emergency evacuation access for Vineyard Valley residents along the existing levee maintenance road resulting in an increase in traffic that could be a “life or death” situation for Vineyard Valley residents.
Project construction activities would not be allowed to block access to the levee maintenance road, as explained in Master Response 1. Access to the levee maintenance road would be maintained during all construction activities and in the event of an emergency access would be available. All construction trucks and equipment would access the site from either Starr Avenue or Adams Street. No truck access would be permitted on the levee maintenance road. Please see Master Response 1 that addresses emergency evacuation concerns for Vineyard Valley residents.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-38
5-5 The comment raises concerns that the Project would tie into the City’s existing water and sewer lines that also serve Vineyard Valley and that adequate capacity is not available in the existing water and sewer infrastructure to serve the Project.
The ability of the City’s existing water and wastewater infrastructure to serve the Project is addressed in the Draft EIR in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems.
An existing 10-foot wide public water line easement containing an active 12-inch water line bisects the north/northeast portion of the Project site. This easement is proposed to be abandoned as part of the Project and the water line relocated within the site. The Project would tie into this new water line with a looped 8-inch water main that would serve all the residences.
Wastewater flows from the western portion of the Project site are proposed to drain into an existing public manhole at the corner of Starr Avenue and Hunt Avenue via new 8- inch sewer pipes. The area east of Starr Avenue, lower in elevation, is proposed to drain east through the Project site via new 8-inch sewer pipes within a public easement and into an existing public manhole in the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. All new sewer mains and lines are sized to accommodate Project flows, per City standards. Please see also Master Response 4 that provides more details regarding the Project’s wastewater infrastructure and the ability of the City to convey and treat the Project’s wastewater. 5-6 The comment states Vineyard Valley would be affected by noise, dirt, and dust associated with Project construction.
As described in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project applicant is only requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map at this time. If the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved, the Project applicant would need approval from the City on an Affordable Housing Agreement; Design Review; Final Subdivision Map; and a Use Permit to construct the multi-family units before any grading or construction could begin.
If the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved and the applicant seeks and obtains all other required approvals, the first phase of construction would require site clearing, grading, and trenching for utilities followed by construction of the roadways and residences. For the purposes of the EIR it is assumed construction would occur over a 6+ year period, with the exception of the multi-family units, which the applicant proposes to build within a year of approval of all remaining required discretionary requirements (listed above). The secondary impacts of construction activities resulting in noise, dirt and dust are addressed in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Section
3.11, Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR.
5-7 The comment notes that access to open space is good for peoples’ health and wellbeing and for the City of St. Helena.
The Project site is not publicly-owned and is therefore not a public open space for the local community to enjoy. The commenter’s general comments regarding the value of open space is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-39
consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for a copy of the trails map. As shown in the map existing trails will still allow access to the Napa River. 5-8 The commenter is stating opposition to the Project.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-40
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-41
COMMENT LETTER 6
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-42
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-43
Response to Letter 6
Craig and Debra Austin
November 2, 2021
6-1 The comment states that they oppose the Project due to potential traffic congestion and emergency access.
The commenters’ opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, in response to the comment’s concern related to traffic congestion impacts on emergency access, please see Master Response 1 for further information on emergency access and evacuation. 6-2 The comment raises a concern that the City does not have a sufficient water supply to support the Project.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. In response to the commenter’s concern related to the City’s water supply, please see Master Response 2 that addresses water supply.
6-3 The commenters state an opinion that no one in the City supports the Project.
The commenters’ opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-44
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-45
COMMENT LETTER 7
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-46
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-47
Response to Letter 7
Katie and Jacob Avery
November 30, 2021
7-1 The comment states general opposition to this type of Project type in this location.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. As noted in the Draft EIR on page 2-12 in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project site has been designated for residential development since the 1975 General Plan and is currently designated for Medium Density Residential in the City’s recently adopted General Plan Update 2040. 7-2 The comment states that the commenter and other City residents have undergone water saving measures and have been subject to fines for water use. The comment brings up concerns related to the City’s water supply and its ability to serve the Project. Specifically, the comment argues that expanded capacity and additional water storage are needed to serve the Project and that water efficiency requirements for plumbing and bathroom fixtures per the building code are not adequate to meet the City’s water neutrality requirements.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water to the Project and also addresses concerns regarding the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code. 7-3 The comment questions if the City’s person per household (PPH) rate of 2.45 is outdated and is an underestimation; the comment suggests that the Project will create a population increase of 326 new occupants. The comment disputes that the PPH rate and estimates Project occupancy should be higher based on anecdotal evidence.
Population changes alone, do not, in and of themselves, constitute a physical effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2, subd. (d) [CEQA does not assume that “growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment”].) The population estimate cited in the Draft EIR is based on the City’s PPH rate used for planning purposes and has little bearing, if any, on the evaluation of physical environmental effects. The projection of the number of people a project would generate is only an estimate and has limited utility because environmental impacts are primarily evaluated using a different metric based on the specific issue being evaluated.
The City’s rate of 2.45 PPH for determining population is a blended rate used by the City to determine increases in population per unit for medium/higher density residential land uses. This PPH rate is also consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR population assumptions (see Draft EIR p. ES-4).
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-48
Other rates are used to evaluate impacts for different purposes. For example, as stated on page 3.13-24 of the Draft EIR, a Water Neutral Report was prepared for the Project that assumes a higher PPH rate, as compared to the City’s PPH, to ensure a conservative calculation of water demand. It is not uncommon for an EIR to include different assumptions depending on the issue area to be evaluated. 7-4 The comment states that the Project would result in more new residents than what is analyzed in the EIR. The comment requests that the EIR evaluate impacts related to utilities, public services, and traffic based on higher population estimates.
Please see Response to Comment 7-3. Physical impacts associated with an increase in population are evaluated by analyzing increased demand for services.
The Draft EIR properly evaluated the increase in demand for each potentially impacted resource based on industry standard demand rates provided either by the City or the service provider based on the specific land use to analyze potential environmental impacts caused by the Project.
For the purposes of public services analysis, Section 3.12 of the Draft EIR uses a household size of 2.45 PPH, which as discussed above is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR population assumptions.
For the purposes of traffic and transportation analysis, Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR does not rely on a population growth estimate, but rather daily trip rates according to the types of residential land use proposed by the Project. 7-5 This comment notes the commentor’s concern over the Project’s construction timeline.
Specifically, the commenter disputes that, because of the anticipated length of the construction timeline, effects related to dust, noise, and traffic would be greater to current residents over time; the commenter also argues that standards for these environmental considerations will be made more stringent as construction progresses.
As described in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description, buildout of the Project would occur based on market conditions and timeliness of obtaining future approvals and construction permits. At this time the Project is only requesting approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map which does not include the issuance of construction permits. As noted in the Project Description, while the timeline of future construction is not finalized, the Draft EIR conservatively relies on a 6+ year construction period for analysis purposes. The associated air quality, noise and traffic impacts associated with short-term construction activities on both adjacent residences as well as phases of the Project are evaluated in the respective sections. 7-6 The comment states concern about the Project’s aesthetic impact on scenic views around St. Helena. The comment also states the Project will have a negative impact on open space in the community and generally result in undesirable aesthetic impacts.
The Project’s impacts on views and change in visual character of the Project site is addressed in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR, Aesthetics/Visual Resources. The analysis Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-49
in Section 3.1 reviews Project compliance with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Design Review requirements and also provides visual simulations of the Proposed Project to illustrate how development of the Project would change views of the Project site. As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, if the Project is approved the City would require additional subsequent discretionary approvals, including Design Review.
Based on the analysis in the Draft EIR, all Aesthetic impacts would be less than significant with the exception of an increase in lighting that would result in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires lighting design guidelines be developed for the Project to minimize glare and light spillover would reduce that impact to less than significant.
The commenter’s opinion that the Project would result in undesirable impacts is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. 7-7 The comment summarizes other comments described above (see comments 7-2 through 7-6), involving open space, the proposed construction timeline, and estimations related to population growth.
Please see Responses to Comments 7-2 through 7-6.
7-8 The comment expresses general opposition to the Project as currently proposed.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-50
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-51
COMMENT LETTER 8
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-52
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-53
Response to Letter 8
Trevor Barlow
November 6, 2021
8-1 The comment states general opposition to the Project and asks that the Project be denied.
The comment’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
8-2 The comment raises concerns related to emergency evacuation and access in the event of a fire or earthquake.
Please see Master Response 1 that addresses concerns associated with emergency evacuation.
8-3 The comment raises concerns regarding the City’s water supply and Project’s tax revenue generation. The commenter is concerned that the Project will worsen current drought conditions and that tax revenue generated by the Project would not cover future City expenses.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, in response to the comment’s concern related to the City’s water supply, please see Master Response 2. 8-4 The comment states general opposition to the Project and asks that the Project be denied.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-54
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-55
COMMENT LETTER 9
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-56
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-57
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-58
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-59
Response to Letter 9
Thomas and Margot Belt
October 28, 2021
9-1 The comment expresses opposition to the Project. The commenter asserts a lack of available water to serve the Project and existing water customers.
The commenter’s opposition to the Project is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Regarding available water supplies to serve the Project, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the ability of the City to serve the Project as well as existing water customers.
9-2 The comment is referencing the City’s Capital Improvement Projects specific to water projects to be undertaken by the City and states that absent these improvements the City will not be able to supply the Project’s water needs.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. No further response is required; however, please see Master Response 2 that addresses City water infrastructure projects. 9-3 The comment notes that the City has plans to build a new sewage treatment plant to provide tertiary treated water for landscaping, but completion of this project is “years away.”
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. No further response is required; however, please see Master Response 2 that addresses water supply.
9-4 The comment clarifies opposition to the Project is due to reliance on information from past general plans and expressed concern that the Draft EIR does not address climate change.
The Draft EIR explains on page 2-12 in Chapter 2, Project Description that the Project site was designated for residential development starting in the 1975 General Plan, as Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the 1993 General Plan and is designated MDR in the City’s recently adopted General Plan Update 2040. Because the Project’s Tentative Subdivision Map application was first submitted in September 2010 and deemed complete by the City in 2011, this EIR is required to reference the 1993 General Plan as the applicable general plan for the purposes of evaluating the Proposed Project, since this version of the plan was in effect in 2011. This EIR also evaluates consistency with the City’s current General Plan (adopted 2019) for informational and consistency purposes.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-60
It is important to note that the EIR only references applicable goals and policies from the 1993 General Plan. The analysis of Project impacts is based on current technical reports, planning documents, and applicable federal, state and local requirements and laws aimed at addressing pre-and post-development impacts. In addition, changes to the existing environmental condition are also evaluated to determine potential Project impacts.
The effects of climate change are evaluated in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases and the analysis references current state and local plans and not the 1993 General Plan (which does not address climate change). As noted in the section, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are evaluated on a cumulative level because it is not possible to evaluate GHG impacts on an individual project basis. Global climate change is inherently a cumulative impact; a project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of GHGs. The Draft EIR addresses the Project’s contribution to GHGs which is a leading factor contributing to global climate change.
9-5 The comment is referring to requirements the City imposed in 2020 to conserve water for residential uses and notes the City may impose even stricter water restrictions in the future.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to provide water to serve the Project as well as existing City residences.
9-6 The comment notes that the City of St. Helena is the only jurisdiction that has imposed mandatory water conservation within Napa County and infers this is because the City does not have adequate water supplies during critically dry years.
The comment goes on to state the City does not have adequate water to serve its current residents or the Project.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the ability of the City to provide water to serve the Project as well as existing City residences. 9-7 The comment asks where the agricultural water well is located on the Project site, stating that if a well does not exist, a new well could not be drilled for residential or commercial use.
The location of the existing well is described on page 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description and also shown as Parcel B on the proposed Tentative Map. The location of the existing well is also noted on page 3.9-19 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality and on page 3.13-1 in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems. The Project does not include drilling a new well.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-61
9-8 The comment is citing sections of the City’s Municipal Code that address requirements for drilling a new well in the City.
The Project is not proposing to drill a new well to serve the water needs of new residential units. The Project is proposing to use the existing agricultural well to irrigate the Project’s public and private landscaping. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. 9-9 The comment notes water to serve the Project would come, in part, from the City’s Stone Bridge Complex groundwater wells which is currently being litigated by Water Audit California. The comment goes on to state if the existing onsite well is reactivated to serve the Project it could add to further loss of water in the Napa River.
The Project’s onsite well would draw from the deeper volcanic aquifer, below the Napa Valley alluvium, which is not considered hydraulically connected to the Napa River (see Appendix L of the Draft EIR). Therefore, the proposed pumping from this well is not likely to have any direct effect on surface flow in Napa River. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
9-10 The comment ssuggests that the outcome of the Water Audit litigation could limit the amount of water the City receives from the Stonebridge Complex wells because of potential impacts from the well’s (assuming the commenter is referring the Stonebridge Complex wells) on protected species.
The comment is speculating what the outcome of the Water Audit litigation could be on the City and the Project. The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. 9-11 The comment expresses an opinion that the Project’s water demand is significantly underestimated because the analysis relied on compliance with the State’s Green Building Guidelines or CalGreen.
The City requires all new development projects to comply with its Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code that establishes the process to follow to quantify the amount of water a project would require and how this increase in demand would be offset. Because all new development in the state is required to comply with CalGreen water demand is reduced due to the installation of low flow fixtures and other water-conserving requirements. The City has worked with the Project applicant’s engineers to ensure the Project’s water demand is reasonable, accurate and supported by substantial evidence.
9-12 The comment indicates that there is no follow up by City staff to ensure ongoing compliance with California’s Green Building Guidelines to ensure occupants comply with the requirements.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-62
The California Green Building Guidelines or CalGreen (Title 24) includes mandatory requirements for new residential construction including allowable flow rate for faucets and showerheads. The City requires all new development to install water meters, which allows the City to track water usage. The City will ensure compliance with the CalGreen Building Code through inspections that occur throughout Project construction. 9-13 The comment addresses the requirement of the City’s Water Neutral Policy (Chapter
13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code) for an applicant to either pay a fee or retrofit existing residences to offset the increase in demand for water and asks how long it would take to retrofit homes or if there are even enough homes left that need water upgrades.
Please see Master Response 2, which describes options available to retrofit existing residences or facilities to achieve water neutrality.
9-14 The comment questions if the City’s Water Neutral Policy (Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code) requirements can work without the City’s enforcement of the policy and goes on to say the “term falls significantly short of accomplishing its intended purpose.”
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
9-15 The comment notes the Project is proposed within a flood zone where water damage is possible and requests that if the Project is approved the City require, as a condition of approval, that the City be indemnified for any future losses to the Project in the event of a flood event.
Flooding and flood hazards are addressed in detail in the Draft EIR in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. As shown on Figure 3.9-2, the Project site is not within a Special Flood Hazard Areas but is mapped as being in an area with reduced flood risk due to a levee (FEMA 2012). By being within an area of reduced risk due to levee, the Project site is considered mapped within the 500-year flood zone (FEMA 2012).
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses concerns regarding the levee.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-63
COMMENT LETTER 10
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-64
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-65
Response to Letter 10
Pierre Birebent
November 13, 2021
10-1 The comment states a general concern regarding potential development of the property.
The comment’s concern is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
10-2 The commenter states that the Project will involve major construction and states general concerns related to traffic congestion and water shortage.
The comment raises a concern related to traffic congestion. Transportation impacts are analyzed in Section 3.14 of the Draft EIR. The operational aspects of the Proposed Project that contribute to delay and congestion on local roadways is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The Transportation section analyzes transportation impacts related to consistency with plans or policies addressing the City’s circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), any potential hazardous design elements, and emergency access. Please see Master Response 1 that addresses emergency access.
The Draft EIR concludes that the Project would have less-than-significant impacts to these areas except for an increase in VMT. As described in Section 3.14, the Project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on VMT because the Project’s VMT would be 15.2% higher than the Citywide VMT per capita rate and because there are no feasible mitigation measures available to substantially reduce or lessen the impact. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project is currently only requesting approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map at this time. Therefore, as noted on page 2-30, the applicant has not yet prepared a construction phasing plan. It is assumed once the applicant obtains all the remaining approvals site clearing, grading and installation of the backbone infrastructure would be the first phase.
Absent specific construction phasing plans the Draft EIR analysis assumed buildout of the Project would occur over a 6-year period. However, buildout could take longer dependent on market conditions and a host of other factors.
The comment also raises concern related to water supply; please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water. 10-3 The comment expresses general opposition to the Project.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-66
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-67
COMMENT LETTER 11
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-68
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-69
Response to Letter 11
Earl and Trudy Bouligny
October 10, 2021
11-1 The comment claims that the Project was “soundly rejected six years ago,” and that it should not be approved. The comment also notes general concerns related to potential flooding, water supply, and traffic.
The comment is noted and has also been forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code and Master Response 3 that addresses concerns associated with the levee and flooding.
Traffic concerns are addressed in Responses to Comment 10-2.
Regarding the earlier public review of the Project, it is noted that the Project was considered by the St. Helena Planning Commission on September 17, 2013, at which time the hearing was continued to a date not certain. The Project was neither approved nor denied, and remains an active application. 11-2 The comment expresses general opposition to the Project and asks that the Project be denied.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-70
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-71
COMMENT LETTER 12
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-72
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-73
Response to Letter 12
Karen and Kevin Bradley
November 30, 2021
12-1 The comment requests the commenters’ names to be added to the Vineyard Valley comment letter for the Project.
It is not clear from the comment, but it is assumed the commenter is requesting their names be added to the letter submitted by the Vineyard Valley Managing Partners, see Letter 111. The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-74
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-75
COMMENT LETTER 13
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-76
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-77
Response to Letter 13
Greg Brown
November 2, 2021
13-1 The comment states that the Project could cause water use and traffic impacts; the comment also asserts that the Project should not be approved given the condition of the City’s streets and water supply.
The commenter’s general concerns regarding water and traffic is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter
13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-78
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-79
COMMENT LETTER 14
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-80
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-81
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-82
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-83
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-84
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-85
Response to Letter 14
Ethan Brown
November 29, 2021
14-1 The commenter notes that they live near the Project site and frequently uses the trail adjacent to the site.
This comment is an introduction to comments that follow. The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
14-2 The comment notes that the Draft EIR focuses on impacts to special-status wildlife and describes their observations of common wildlife species using the Project site, notably bats, hawks, great blue heron, and black-crowned night heron. The comment requests analysis of cumulative effects of development on birds and other animals that use the Project site and vicinity.
The Draft EIR analyzes impacts to biological resources using the thresholds of significance listed on page 3.4-42. These thresholds, which are taken from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, do focus the analysis on special-status species due to their sensitivity to impacts. However, the thresholds do include interference with movement of native resident wildlife species and migratory corridors, regardless of the species status. The Draft EIR identifies a significant impact to migratory corridors and potential nursery sites within the adjacent riparian corridor and provides mitigation (BIO-5 and AES-1) to reduce the impact to less than significant. The thresholds also consider any conflicts with any local policies; however, there are no local policies that provide protections for non-special-status wildlife.
The Draft EIR analyzes impacts to bat and bird species (DEIR pp. 3.4-46 through
3.4-47) and includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to bat species (BIO-1) and bird species (BIO-2). These analyses and mitigation measures apply to both special-status and non-special-status species. The Draft EIR also analyzes cumulative impacts of the project (DEIR p. 3.4-51), finding that the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant due to the relatively low habitat value of the Project site and the availability of similar or better habitat in the vicinity.
14-3 The comment describes observations of Canada geese foraging on the Project site within the remnant grassland. The comment asserts that the Napa Valley is a significant migratory corridor for Canada geese.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-86
Although Canada geese may periodically forage on the Project site, it is unlikely that the approximately 9.7 acres of mowed annual grassland without a nearby open water area represents critical foraging habitat for this highly adaptable species. This species is not a federal or state protected species but they are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as are all migratory birds. Canadian geese are regionally abundant and have become resident in many areas (Mowbray et al. 2020)8. 14-4 The comment asserts that the Project would remove habitat and that reducing glare would only be valid mitigation measure for areas that retain habitat value.
The comment is correct and mitigation measure BIO-3 requires wetland permits (e.g., 404 Nationwide Permit, 401 Water Quality Certification, and 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively) be obtained prior to any grading work to ensure no net loss of wetlands or other protected waters. This mitigation focuses on reducing operational indirect impacts to the riparian corridor such that it will continue to provide habitat after Project development. Refer to Response to Comment 14-3 regarding impacts to Canada geese.
14-5 The comment notes again that the Project would adversely affect Canada geese that may stopover to forage on the Project site.
Please refer to Response to Comment 14-3.
14-6 The comment summarizes the points raised in Comments 14-2 through 14-4.
Please refer to Responses to Comments 14-2 through 14-4. 14-7 The comment states the analysis of water impacts is long and difficult to follow and requests the City consider how to make future EIRs easier to understand.
The commenter’s request is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. 14-8 The comment refers to data presented in Table 3.13-8 of Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR that references the City’s water supply and demand usage.
The comment provides an introduction to the following comments. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. Please refer to Response to Comment 14-9 that addresses water supply and demand.
8 Mowbray, T. B., C. R. Ely, J. S. Sedinger, and R. E. Trost (2020). Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), version
1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.cangoo.01
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-87
14-9 The comment suggests that the City’s 2010 Water Supply Plan is inadequate and that the referenced long-term safe yield of 1,950 acre-feet does not consider climate changes since that plan was completed.
The City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code requires that "new development" shall be contingent upon the ability of the City to provide water without exceeding safe yield. In December 2010, the City Council appointed the Safe Yield Committee to determine the annual safe yield of the City’s potable water system. The ultimate goal of the Committee was to determine whether, at the present time, potable water usage was below, above, or equal to the safe yield of the potable water supply system. The Safe Yield Committee analyzed the reliability of the City’s water supplies in a 2010 study and determined that providing a total supply of up to 1,950 acre-feet was sustainable and has been adopted by the City as a policy limit. While climate change can create drier years in which precipitation is below annual averages, it can also result in very wet years.
The purpose of establishing a safe yield considers that precipitation can and likely will vary considerable from year to year and periods of extended droughts will occur.
Note that St. Helena Municipal Code (SHMC) Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter 13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation regulate the establishment of water emergency phases, water conservation, and regulations that can adapt to changing conditions and enact emergency requirements for users as appropriate. However, the main purpose for providing this information (i.e., the safe yield) is provided as part of establishing existing conditions and background for the City water supplies and policy limits adopted by the City. The Draft EIR analyzes the potential effects of the Proposed Project including its specific water demand and whether there would be a significant impact due to the effects of the Project. This analysis is included beginning on page 3.13-31 as well as on page 3.9-40 and compares the proposed demand by the Project against the past actual demand numbers for the City compared to the adopted policy limits. Please see also Master Response 2 that addresses water issues.
14-10 The comment challenges the conclusion made in the Draft EIR that water demands for the City are on a downward trend.
The commenter suggests that viewing data from between 2015 and 2020 instead of between 2013 and 2020, as presented in Table 3.13-1 in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR would change the conclusion of the recent trend.
As shown in Table 3.13-1 of the Draft EIR, the City’s water deliveries have varied from year to year but overall have decreased from 1,882 acre-feet in 2013 to 1,629 acre-feet in 2020. Looking at the longer trend from 2013 to 2020, instead of just from 2016 to 2020, reflects a downward trend in water deliveries. Please see also Master Response 2 that addresses water issues.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-88
14-11 The comment suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that water offsets or in-lieu payments would help limit water demands below 1,950 acre-feet.
The analysis on page 3.13-24 of the Draft EIR shows how the Proposed Project’s indoor water demands of 19.88 acre-feet would not combine with the highest City demand over the last 8 years (1,882 acre-feet) to be above the policy limit of 1,950 acre-feet. The 1,950 acre-feet figure represents what the City considers to be the safe yield for the water supply system and is not a “supply limit”. Note that St. Helena Municipal Code Title 13 - Public Services, Chapter 13.04 Water Service System, Article 2 Water Shortage Emergencies, Drought and Water Conservation regulate the establishment of water emergency phases, water conservation, and regulations that can adapt to changing conditions and enact emergency requirements for users as appropriate.
14-12 The comment concerns the validity of the City’s use of a safe yield of 1,950 acre-feet in the face of climate change.
As discussed in Response to Comment 14-9, the City is currently using the safe yield of 1,950 acre-feet developed by the Safe Yield Committee as a guideline policy but can also impose emergency measures (St. Helena Municipal Code Title 13, Chapter
13.04, Article 2) that can be used to emplace water conservation and regulations as necessary. The Project is also required to adhere to the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code. As discussed in more detail on page 3.13-31 of the Draft EIR, a Water Neutral Report (Appendix J) was prepared for the Proposed Project (required by the City) to demonstrate compliance with the City’s Water Neutral Policy by providing in-lieu fees to fund conservations measures that offset the water demands of the Project. Therefore, the City’s safe yield value of 1,950 acre-feet is not the sole basis of the analysis as to whether the Proposed Project would have a significant effect on water supply during dry and critically dry years.
Please see also Master Response 2 that addresses water issues. 14-13 The comment takes issue with the effectiveness of the City’s Water Neutral Policy and how it is used in the analysis of the Project’s water demand.
Adherence to the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code to fund such measures as fixing an existing leaking water conveyance pipe does offset demand by increasing water supplies compared to the existing conditions of water losses due to the leak. As a result, compliance with the Water Neutral Policy offsets new water demand with measures that reduce demand elsewhere or otherwise increase water supplies. Therefore, the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Municipal Code requirements is an appropriate and effective measure to include in the analysis of the Draft EIR. Please see also Master Response 2 that addresses water issues.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-89
14-14 The comment suggests that the offset program [Water Neutral Policy] does not work as evidenced by an increase in the water demands in 2016 (1,465 acre-feet) as compared to 2020 (1,629 acre-feet).
As shown in Table 3.13-1 of the Draft EIR, the City’s water deliveries have varied from year to year but overall have decreased from 1,882 acre-feet in 2013 to 1,629 acre-feet in 2020. Looking at the longer trend from 2013 to 2020, instead of just from 2016 to 2020, indicates a downward trend in water deliveries. See also Master Response 2 that addresses concerns associated with available water supplies. 14-15 The comment suggests that "reasonably foreseeable future development” was not adequately considered in the analysis of Impact 3.13-2.
The analysis of Impact 3.13-2 beginning on page 3.13-31 of the Draft EIR, includes discussion of the long-term safe yield that was adopted by the City in 2011 that would apply to all future development. The analysis also discusses how future development is required to adhere to the state’s CalGreen requirements, as well as the City’s MWELO irrigation requirements for landscaping. In addition, all reasonably foreseeable future development would be required to adhere to the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code and any emergency water conservation phases that may be enacted. In particular, the Water Neutral Policy requires that the Project, as well as reasonably foreseeable future development, must demonstrate a quantitative analysis of the Project’s water demand. For offsite improvements, the required number of retrofits have to be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new development. Inclusion of these regulatory requirements demonstrates how the Project, along with reasonably foreseeable future development would not significantly impact water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. 14-16 The comment claims that the water supply and demand analysis is insufficient, does not consider climate change, and that the water offsets required for the Project to be water neutral will not be realized.
As referenced in Response to Comment 14-9, the City adopted the safe yield as policy but also included conservation measures that can be employed during drought periods. The safe yield considers that multiple dry years are likely due to climate change and the additional measures as well as the Water Neutral Policy and Municipal Code requirements can be effective tools to adapt to variances in precipitation that is expected under normal conditions as well as what can be anticipated with climate change. Data documenting the City’s water deliveries since 2013, not long after adopting the Safe Yield Committee’s report as policy, indicates that a downward trend has occurred despite covering some very dry years during that timeframe. See also Master Response 2 that addresses water supply.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-90
14-17 The comment recommends that the City re-evaluate the safe yield policy and get past the current emergency restrictions prior to approval of the Project.
The comment does not directly address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but rather makes suggestions for the City related to its policies regarding water supply management. As detailed in the Draft EIR on page 3.13-3 in Table 3.13-1, the City’s water deliveries have been on a downward trend from 2013-2020. Through this period, the water deliveries have been below the safe yield and as noted on page 3.19-40 of the Draft EIR, the groundwater Subbasin, one of the sources of water supply, was recently found to be exhibit stable groundwater levels. The emergency restrictions have been enacted in order to continue effectively manage the water supply system during periods of low rainfall and combined with the Water Neutral Policy and Municipal Code requirements ensures that water supplies will meet demand.
14-18 The comment addresses cumulative traffic conditions in the City and notes that because the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to Vehicle Miles Traveled, the City should delay consideration of the Project until the underlying traffic and infrastructure issues are addressed.
The commenter’s opinion that approval of the Project should be delayed is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their review.
14-19 The comment provides the commenter’s perspective on the City’s decision to construct a levee and floodwall along a portion of the Napa River.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses the history of the levee and floodwall. 14-20 The comment states that a scientific analysis of the effects of climate change on water supply need to be addressed along with an assessment of future development on water supply and traffic and the City’s Water Neutral Policy needs to ensure projects offset their water demand and not just pay a fee.
The comment does not identify any specific issues with the accuracy or adequacy of information provided in the Draft EIR. Regarding climate change, the Draft EIR evaluates the Project’s increase in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) which contribute to global climate change in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gases. The analysis reflects what the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA requires be evaluated which includes quantifying the Project’s GHG emissions to determine if the Project exceeds adopted thresholds. The Project’s increase in demand for water is evaluated in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems and traffic is evaluated in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation. The commenter’s opinion that the City’s Water Neutral Policy including Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-91
Municipal Code needs to be reconfigured is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
14-21 The comment expresses an opinion that EIRs should not rely on old or incomplete data and residents of the City versus out of town developers need to be considered when making land use decisions.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-92
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-93
COMMENT LETTER 15
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-94
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-95
Response to Letter 15
Andree Bryan
October 30, 2021
15-1 The comment states a concern related to water availability. The comment also states opposition against the Project’s proposed water sharing component with Vineyard Valley.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
15-2 The comment expresses concern over the Project’s impact on traffic.
Please see Response to Comment 10-2 that addresses traffic concerns. 15-3 The comment expresses concern regarding the Project's impact on the adjacent walking trail.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. Please see Response to Comment 106-3.
In addition, please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR, for a new figure that shows the adjacent trails.
15-4 The comment states that the commenter has not obtained access to the Project’s “environmental impact study.”
The City sent notices to all residences within 300 feet of the Project site that an EIR was available for review, per City requirements and will also send notices for future public hearings.
The City also sent a Notice of Availability on September 23, 2021, to public agencies and interested parties that the City had released the Draft EIR for review and comment. Based on requests from the public, the City extended the public comment period from the required 45-days to 67-days to provide more time for review and comment. During this review period, the Draft EIR for the Project was available for review at (1) the St. Helena Public Library, 1492 Library Lane, St. Helena, CA 94574; (2) St. Helena Planning Department, 1572 Railroad Avenue, St. Helena, CA 94574; and (3) on the City’s website at https://www.cityofsthelena.org/planning/page/ ceqa-document-center.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-96
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-97
COMMENT LETTER 16
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-98
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-99
Response to Letter 16
Bernerd Buckley
October 26, 2021
16-1 The comment expresses concern over the Project’s water neutrality and the City’s water supply. The commenter requests that the Project be monitored for a year to ensure water neutrality is met.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-100
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-101
COMMENT LETTER 17
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-102
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-103
Response to Letter 17
Bernerd Buckley
October 26, 2021
17-1 The comment raises concerns related to potential levee failure. Specifically, the commenter is concerned with emergency evacuation in the event of levee failure for those with a disability and the cost of levee failure. The comment also states that future homeowners should be notified of potential liabilities related to the levee. is addressing concerns regarding the levee and raises FEMA certification of the levee.
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses concerns associated with the levee and Master Response 1 that addresses emergency evacuation.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-104
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-105
COMMENT LETTER 18
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-106
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-107
Response to Letter 18
Bernerd Buckley
October 26, 2021
18-1 The comment expresses a concern regarding Project’s impact to parking availability.
The adequacy of parking supply is not an environmental impact under CEQA; therefore, the commenter’s concern is noted for the decision makers and no further response is required. However, at the time building permits are requested, as required by the Municipal Code, the City will confirm the Project complies with Section 17.124.030.A.1 of the City’s Zoning Code that addresses residential parking requirements.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-108
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-109
COMMENT LETTER 19
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-110
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-111
Response to Letter 19
Bernerd Buckley
November 2, 2021
19-1 The comment expresses concern related to the proposed location of low-income housing. The commenter questions the appropriateness of the proposed location of these residential units.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, prior to any development on the site occurring, additional discretionary approvals including a requirement that the Project applicant have an Affordable Housing Agreement approved by the City Council prior to Final Map recordation.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-112
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-113
COMMENT LETTER 20
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-114
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-115
Response to Letter 20
Bernerd Buckley
November 2, 2021
20-1 The comment letter expresses concerns related to the levee, including the event of a breach, water damage from a breach, the condition and material of the levee, and experience of levee maintenance professionals.
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses all concerns associated with the levee, including the event of a breach and the condition, material, and maintenance of the levee.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-116
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-117
COMMENT LETTER 21
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-118
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-119
Response to Letter 21
Bernerd Buckley
November 29, 2021
21-1 The comment expresses concern over the City’s water supply and the effectiveness of the City’s Water Neutral Policy. The commenter questions the number of new residents assumed for the Project and asks if there are other projects that have implemented similar water-saving measures.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code. As stated on page 3.13-24 of the Draft EIR, a Water Neutral Report was prepared for the Project that assumes a higher persons per household or PPH rate as compared to the City’s PPH assumptions to conservatively estimate Project population to calculate water demand. See Responses to Comments 7-3 and 7-4 that address the PPH assumptions to evaluate Project impacts.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-120
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-121
COMMENT LETTER 22
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-122
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-123
Response to Letter 22
Jeff Burton
November 8, 2021
22-1 The comment expresses opposition to the Project due to their opinion that affordable housing should not be confined to the east side of the City and in a flood zone.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
As noted elsewhere in these Responses, the Project site is not located in a flood zone which would preclude residential development.
22-2 The comment states that the City is limited on water resources and inquires about the source of water to serve the Project.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the issue of water supply. 22-3 The comment states that the Project would result in additional traffic congestion and that the parking situation in the City is inadequate.
The adequacy of parking supply and traffic congestion is not an environmental impact under CEQA; therefore, the commenter’s concern is noted for the decision makers and no further response is required. However, at the time building permits are requested, as required by the Municipal Code, the City will confirm the Project complies with Section 17.124.030.A.1 of the City’s Zoning Code that addresses residential parking requirements.
22-4 The comment states that a popular walking path would be terminated by the Project without establishment of an alternate path.
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. The comment does not identify specific areas where the commentor believes the Draft EIR is inadequate; therefore, no further response is required. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for a copy of a trails map that shows the existing trails near the Project site.
22-5 The comment asks who would be held liable for damage and injury in the event of a 100- year flood.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-124
Determining legal liability for a potential future event is not within the scope of CEQA review; therefore, no further response is necessary
22-6 The comment states that approval of the Project would attract other proposals to develop the Adams Street property and expresses concern about the future of the City.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
22-7 The comment urges the City to consider the issues raised in the comment letter and to reject the Project.
The comment’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-125
COMMENT LETTER 23
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-126
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-127
Response to Letter 23
Lynda Burton
October 31, 2021
23-1 The comment states general opposition to the Project.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
23-2 The comment raises concerns related to the Project’s impact on the City’s water supply and generally challenges the Draft EIR’s proposed mitigation measures.
The comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
23-3 The comment acknowledges the need for affordable housing and calls for smallerscale projects that are aimed to serve senior citizens and low-income families.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-128
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-129
COMMENT LETTER 24
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-130
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-131
Response to Letter 24
Calie Candia
November 1, 2021
24-1 The comment expresses general concern over the property being developed. More specifically, the commenter is concerned about potential impacts to the floodplain in the event of a flood and stability of the levee.
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses City liability in the event of a flood and concerns related to the levee.
24-2 The comment raises concerns regarding traffic along roadways within the City.
Please see Response to Comment 10-2 that address general traffic concerns. 24-3 The comment states general opposition to the Project.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-132
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-133
COMMENT LETTER 25
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-134
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-135
Response to Letter 25
Bret Casten
October 30, 2021
25-1 The comment states that the commenter frequently uses the adjacent trail and expresses concerns over trail and open space access.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. Regarding the trail, as noted in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description, there is an existing City trail located in the northside of the levee maintenance road. A small portion of the levee maintenance road would be paved to accommodate construction of the Adams Street extension, but sidewalks would be provided along the extension of Adams Street to provide a safe connection to the remainder of the maintenance road and the pedestrian trail, which would remain unaltered by the Proposed Project. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for a new figure showing the adjancent trails.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-136
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-137
COMMENT LETTER 26
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-138
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-139
Response to Letter 26
Deanna Caudill
November 6, 2021
26-1 The comment expresses a desire to keep the City safe and small.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-140
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-141
COMMENT LETTER 27
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-142
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-143
Response to Letter 27
Bob Childs and Nancy Carlson
November 6, 2021
27-1 This comment expresses general opposition over the Project, while acknowledging the need for additional affordable housing.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
27-2 The comment states a concern over Project’s water usage and impact on water availability.
The commenter’s concern is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s ability to supply water and the requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
27-3 The comment expresses concern over the Project’s impact on the City’s sewer capacity.
The commenter’s concern is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. As described in Section 3.13 of the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would not exceed the City’s current permitted wastewater treatment plant capacity; also, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 3.32.020, the City collects development impact fees on new development to pay for public improvements related to sewer projects. The Project applicant would be required to pay these fees, which would help fund upgrades and improvement to the City’s sewer system.
See also Master Response 4 that addresses concerns regarding the City’s sewer system. 27-4 The comment expresses a concern regarding the current condition of the levee and the impact the Project would have on it related to the floodplain and emergency evacuation.
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses City liability in the event of a flood and concerns related to the levee and Master Response 1 for further information on emergency evacuation.
27-5 The comment requests that the commenter be added to the list of public members opposed to the Project.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-144
The commenter has been added to a list of interested public members to receive notices regarding the Project; however, this list does not distinguish those who support or oppose the Project.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-145
COMMENT LETTER 28
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-146
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-147
Response to Letter 28
Robb Cohen
November 1, 2021
28-1 The comment expresses general opposition to the Project.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
28-2 The comment states that the Project would exacerbate existing water supply problems in the City.
Please see Master Response 2 that addresses concerns associated with the adequacy of water supplies.
28-3 The comment states that the risk of building on a flood plain will subject the City to numerous lawsuits.
Determining legal liability for a potential future event is beyond the scope of CEQA and is not required to be evaluated in an EIR; therefore, no further response is necessary. 28-4 The comment states that the Project should not be approved and suggests that approval of the Project would subject the City to legal challenges.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-148
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-149
COMMENT LETTER 29
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-150
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-151
Response to Letter 29
Joseph Cole
October 30, 2021
29-1 The comment letter expresses general opposition to the project and provides anecdotes about the commenter’s experience as a resident of St. Helena.
The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-152
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-153
COMMENT LETTER 30
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-154
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-155
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-156
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-157
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-158
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-159
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-160
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-161
Response to Letter 30
Arlene and Richard Corsetti
October 25, 2021
30-1 The comment references a 2016 article written about flooding and water issues in the City and flood-loss damages in the event of a catastrophic flood event.
The comment does not identify any specific issues with the accuracy or adequacy of information provided in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses the levee and flood concerns. 30-2 The commenter states their opinion on current issues including the lack of a second bridge across the Napa River, traffic problems, and the Project’s compliance with the City’s Water Neutral Policy.
The commenter’s opinion does not identify any specific issues with the accuracy or adequacy of information provided in the Draft EIR. The Project’s increase in demand for water is evaluated in Section 3.13, Utilities and Service Systems and traffic is evaluated in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation. The commenter’s opinion on the need for another bridge across the Napa River is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s Water Neutral requirements.
30-3 The commenter states that the City Council and Planning Commission must review and refute the article referenced in Comment 30-1 (above), receive a letter from FEMA guaranteeing that another flood in the area would be covered, and guarantee that the City would not be liable for further flood issues if housing is built in the area.
The comment does not identify any specific issues with the accuracy or adequacy of information provided in the Draft EIR. Regarding the referenced article, please see Response to Comment 30-1 above. This comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
Determining legal liability for a potential future event is beyond the scope of CEQA and is not required to be evaluated in an EIR.
30-4 The comment raises general concerns for the City to consider specific to traffic congestion absent another bridge across the Napa River.
The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-162
30-5 The comment opines that the Project should have a better water mitigation plan because current City residents should not be asked to save more water than they currently are.
Please see Master Response 2 regarding City water supply and requirements of the Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code.
30-6 The comment states an opinion that the Project is too risky to be left to the vote of Planning Commission and City Council. The commenter opines that the Project needs in-person debate rather than using the Zoom platform.
The City has recently returned to in-person Planning Commission and City Council meetings. During the COVID-19 pandemic, holding meetings virtually was consistent with Government Code Section 54953, as amended by AB 361, which authorizes teleconference meetings under the Brown Act during proclaimed states of emergency. The commenter’s opinion is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-163
COMMENT LETTER 31
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-164
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-165
Response to Letter 31
Carroll and Ellen Cotten
31-1 Without providing specific examples, the comment challenges the Draft EIR analysis of potential flood impacts due to climate change dynamics.
Because this comment does not provides specific criticism of the analysis, no response is possible. Please see Master Response 3 which provides a general response to concerns related to flooding and the levee near the Project site. 31-2 The comment takes issue with the effectiveness of the City’s Water Neutral Policy and how it is used in the analysis of the proposed Project’s water demand.
Adherence to the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code to fund such measures as fixing an existing leaking water conveyance pipe does offset demand by increasing water supplies compared to the existing conditions of water losses due to the leak. As a result, the Water Neutral Policy does offset new demands with measures that reduce demand elsewhere or otherwise increase water supplies. Therefore, compliance with the City requirements is an appropriate and effective measure to include in the analysis of the Draft EIR. See also Master Response 2.
31-3 The comment generally asserts that the Project would negatively impact the City’s sewer system.
The comment does not identify any specific areas where the Draft EIR analysis is inadequate. Therefore, no response is required. Please see also Master Response 4 that addresses concerns regarding the City’s wastewater system. 31-4 The comment expresses concern that the Project would negatively impact the emergency evacuation plans within the area.
Please see Master Response 1 that addresses concerns associated with emergency evacuation.
31-5 The comment expresses general concerns regarding traffic congestion in the City and along the Pope Street Bridge.
The comment does not identify any specific issues with the accuracy or adequacy of information provided in the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
However, the comment is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. The operational aspects of the Proposed Project that contribute to Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-166
delay and congestion on local roadways is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA. Please also see Response to Comment 10-2.
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-167
COMMENT LETTER 32
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-168
Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-169
Response to Letter 32
Richard Crebs
November 2, 2021
32-1 The commenter states the Project is flawed because it is proposed on fill placed on the site as part of the City’s Flood Protection Project; would be subject to seismic events and flooding; would increase demand for water; and would increase traffic congestion. The comment recommends the site be left as open space.
Consistent with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, the existing fill/soils on the site would be removed, re-compacted and returned to the site along with additional fill. The site would be graded and leveled to ensure a stable base for new development (DEIR p. 2-31).
Potential hazards associated with seismic events is addressed in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils. As noted on page 3.6-12, the Project site is not crossed by an active earthquake fault zone, nor is it crossed by any potentially active faults. The closest earthquake fault zones are the Rodgers Creek Fault, located about 15 miles to the southwest of the Project site and the southern part of the West Napa Fault, located approximately 17 miles southeast of the Project site. Development would be required to comply with the California Building Code which sets forth structural design requirements associated with seismic loads. As part of this process, a designlevel geotechnical investigation would be completed (in addition to the existing geotechnical investigation already completed) to assess site conditions at a greater level of detail and make geotechnical recommendations to be incorporated into the site development plan, grading plan and building plan. The City requires that such geotechnical recommendations be verified at time of grading and building construction prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. In addition, mitigation measure GEO-1 is imposed to ensure preparation of a design-level geotechnical report that includes specific design criteria to ensure the Project is designed to meet all current seismic safety standards (DEIR pp. 3.6-22 and 3.6-23).
Please see Master Response 3 that addresses flooding concerns and Master Response 2 that addresses water supply concerns and Response to Comment 10-2 regarding traffic.
The Project site is not owned by the City and is not public open space but designated by the General Plan and zoned for Medium Density Residential development. The commenter’s desire to see the site left undeveloped is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
32-2 The comment references the analysis of potential flooding due to a levee failure and suggests residents should purchase flood insurance in the event of a flood event and Agenda Item #6.10.
4 – Response to Comments
Hunter Subdivision Project EIR 10839
January 2023 4-170
the City should require the Project applicant post a bond to “hold the City harmless” in the event of a flood.
The Draft EIR evaluates flood risks due to a 200-year flood event as well as due to failure of the levee starting on page 3.9-8 in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. As noted on page 3.9-8, The City’s Flood Protection Project, specifically the levee and floodwall along the Napa River and Sulphur Creek, was constructed to provide protection from a 200-year flood event. The levee was designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Manuals and has been reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or FEMA. The flood control system was also evaluated for stability during a seismic event and was found to be stable by two engineering firms. The Project site is outside of a FEMA special flood hazard area; therefore, purchase of flood insurance would be required. However, because there remains residual risk of flooding from catastrophically large floods (such as a 500-year flood) or levee failures, residents in flood-prone areas, even if outside of a regulatory flood zone, have the option to purchase optional flood insurance. Regarding the applicant’s liability in the event of a flood and purchase of a bond to absolve the City of any responsibility to residents in the event of a catastrophic flood event, please see Master Response 3. 32-3 The comment opines that the EIR ignores issues associated with availability of water and believes the Project should not use groundwater for landscape irrigation in lieu of capturing and treating all domestic wastewater or “grey water” for irrigation and goes on to state a grey water system should be mandated for every residence.
The Project is required to off-set its water demand, per the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code. In compliance with these requirements the Project applicant prepared a Water Neutral Report (see Appendix J). The City requires all new projects to be water neutral and not consume water without offsetting the demand. Please see Master Response 2 that addresses the City’s Water Neutral Policy and Chapter 13.12, Water Use and Efficiency of the Municipal Code requirements.
32-4 The comment is referring to the City’s wastewater system and whether the Project would increase wastewater conveyance in the same infrastructure that also serve the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park and states if the Project is approved the applicant should be required to fund any improvements to the City’s wastewater system.
The Project’s connection to the City’s wastewater (or sewer) system is described on page 2-29 in Chapter 2, Project Description. Wastewater flows from the western end of the Project site are proposed to drain into an existing public manhole at the corner of Starr and Hunt Avenue via new 8-inch sewer pipes. The area east of Starr Avenue is proposed to drain east through the Project site via new 8-inch sewer pipes into an existing public manhole on the adjacent parcel in the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. The City’s system is sized to accommodate wastewater flows from the Project and there is adequate conveyance capacity within the existing lines. The Project Agenda Item #6.10.