Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Napa Junction Phase III Project State Clearinghouse No.

Transcription

1 Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Napa Junction Phase III Project State Clearinghouse No City of American Canyon September 29, 2011 Bishop Ranch Camino Ramon, Suite 460 San Ramon, CA 94583

2

3 FINAL Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Napa Junction Phase III Project City of American Canyon, Napa County, California State Clearinghouse No Prepared for: City of American Canyon Community Development Department 4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201 American Canyon, CA Contact: Brent Cooper, AICP, Director of Community Development Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Bishop Ranch Camino Ramon, Suite 460 San Ramon, CA Contact: Jason Brandman, Project Director September 29, 2011

4

5 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report List of Commentors Written Comments Verbal Comments from American Canyon Planning Commission Meeting Responses to Comments Introduction Comments and Responses Section 3: Errata Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program List of Tables Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix Table 1: Napa Junction Phase III Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program...A-3 List of Exhibits Exhibit : Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Michael Brandman Associates H\:Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec00-02 TOC.doc iii

6

7 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Introduction SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of American Canyon, as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Napa Junction Phase III Project. The responses to the comments and other documents, which are included in this document, together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, comprise the Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR and Final EIR) for use by the American Canyon City Council in its review. This document is organized into these sections: Section 1 - Introduction. Section 2 - Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of all of the letters and verbal comments received regarding the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section. Section 3 - Errata. Includes refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR, which have been incorporated. Because of its length, the text of the Draft EIR is not included with these written responses; however, it is included by reference in this Final EIR. None of the corrections or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in this document constitutes significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section As a result, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. The specific documents constituting the Final EIR for the proposed Napa Junction Phase III project include the following: Draft EIR (2011). Final EIR (2011). The City, acting through its City Council, will review and consider the Final EIR at a noticed public hearing on October 18, If the City finds that the Final EIR is adequate and complete under CEQA, the City may certify the Final EIR after the close of the public hearing. Any decision to certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections and Public Resources Code Section and CEQA Guidelines Section also require that the City adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that identifies measures that have been adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The draft MMRP is included in Appendix A. Michael Brandman Associates 1-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec01_Introduction.doc

8

9 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR SECTION 2: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT List of Commentors Written Comments A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Author Author Code State Agencies State Clearinghouse... SCH California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)... CALTRANS Organizations David Gold, Morrison Foerster (On behalf of Union Pacific)... GOLD Verbal Comments from American Canyon Planning Commission Meeting Katharine Bourrassa, Planning Commissioner... BOURRASSA Joseph Meck, Planning Commissioner...MECK Eric Altman, Planning Commissioner... ALTMAN Responses to Comments Introduction In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of American Canyon, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No ) for the Napa Junction Phase III Project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section Comments and Responses The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Commentors. Michael Brandman Associates 2-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

10 SCH Page 1 of 2 SCH-1

11 SCH Page 2 of 2

12 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR State Agencies State Clearinghouse (SCH) Response to SCH-1 The commentor stated that the state agency public review period ended on September 6, 2011 and comments submitted by a state agency, Caltrans, were enclosed. The commentor also noted that the City complied with the State Clearinghouse requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA. The comment is acknowledged and requires no further response. 2-4 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

13 CALTRANS Page 1 of 3 CALTRANS-1 CALTRANS-2 CALTRANS-3 CALTRANS-4

14 CALTRANS Page 2 of 3 CALTRANS-5 CALTRANS-6 CALTRANS-7 CALTRANS-8

15 CALTRANS Page 3 of 3 CALTRANS-9 CALTRANS-10 CALTRANS-11 CALTRANS-12 CALTRANS-13 CALTRANS-14

16

17

18 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Response to CALTRANS-1 The commentor recommended the project adopt the AM and PM peak hour trip rates and their directional splits of the drive-in bank based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook 8 th Edition. Trip generation rates for the drive-in bank uses contained in Area A require use of rates obtained from the San Diego Municipal Code as the 8,500 square foot building size is larger than the square foot descriptor range found in the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8 th Edition for these uses (maximum of 6,000 square feet). Use of the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8 th Edition would not provide valid trip generation rates given the fact that the proposed drive-in bank is 42 percent larger than the largest drive-in bank referenced in the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8 th Edition. The AM and PM inbound and outbound peak hour vehicular splits were also obtained from the San Diego Municipal Code rather than the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8 th Edition for the same reasons given above. Use of the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8 th Edition would not provide valid peak hour vehicular inbound and outbound splits given the fact that the proposed drive-in bank is 42 percent larger than the largest drive-in bank referenced in the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8 th Edition. Response to CALTRANS-2 The commentor stated that Exhibit Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes is missing traffic diagrams for intersections 13 and 14. Figure 12 (page 39) contained with the Omni-Means TIAR Final Report (July 2011) contains both intersection 13 and 14 peak hour vehicular turning movements. This Final EIR contains the correct Exhibit in Section 3, Errata. Response to CALTRANS-3 The commentor asked how the traffic study can account for a 41 percent pass-by rate as shown in Table when the ITE Trip Generation Handbook does not include AM peak hour pass-by rates for a drive-in bank. Pass-by data contained within the ITE Trip Generation Handbook provides a 41 percent pass-by rate for drive-in banks for the PM peak hour only. These rates were also applied to the AM peak hour to account for pass-by conditions occurring during this time period. In the City s traffic expert s opinion, it is appropriate to assume that similar pass-by rates documented in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook would also occur during the AM peak commute hour since incorporation of a short banking stop makes an efficient multi-purpose trip out of a standard home to work commute trip, be it in the morning or afternoon, in today s busy lives. The ITE Trip Generational Handbook has a limited number of studies quantifying pass-by rates for various development types and for drive-in banks, only provides pass-by rates for the PM peak hour. Studies during the AM peak are not included only because they were not available at the time of publication Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

19 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response to CALTRANS-4 The commentor requested that the reference to SR-99 in the first paragraph of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report Introduction be changed to reflect SR-29. The lead agency acknowledges the comment and notes that the reference to SR-99 in the TIA should appear as SR-29 as stated in the Draft EIR Transportation/Traffic section. Response to CALTRANS-5 The commentor asserted that pursuant to the queuing analysis the existing eastbound left-turn lane at the Napa Junction Road/SR-29 intersection and the southbound left-turn lane at the SR-29/Napa Junction intersection cannot accommodate the queue generated by the project s traffic. The commentor requested that the left-turn be extended to accommodate the queue. Queuing analysis is not required under CEQA and is also not included in either Caltrans or the City of American Canyon traffic impact study guidelines. However, Caltrans comment 1 contained in the March 3, 2011 comment letter requested that the study provide the southbound left-turn vehicular queuing under all plus project conditions at the intersection of SR-29/Napa Junction Road. Consequently, a vehicular peak hour queuing analysis was completed at this select location. Acceptable peak hour queuing has been quantified in the report at this location. The existing southbound left-turn lane has a vehicular storage length of 370 feet, with worse case peak hour queues as follows: Short-Term Plus Project (Area A) queue of 306 feet and Cumulative Plus Project (Area A, B, and C) queue of 359 feet. Peak hour vehicular queuing analysis was also completed at westbound approaches to the SR 29/Donaldson Way and SR-29/American Canyon intersections (selected locations) to determine potential impacts to the existing Union Pacific railroad crossings. Acceptable peak hour queuing, where queues are not projected to extend across the railroad tracks, has been quantified in the report at these locations. Because queuing analysis was not required under CEQA and was only requested for the southbound left-turn approach at SR-29/Napa Junction Road, analysis was not conducted for the eastbound approach to the SR-29/Napa Junction Road intersection. An EIR need not conduct the additional analyses requested in comments on the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the following analysis has been provided: This approach has a very short left-turn pocket (50 feet) and an existing queue of 369 feet for all eastbound movements through this intersection. Adequate storage for this queue exists within the through travel lane and does not significantly affect the capacity or safety operations at this intersection. Additionally, the proposed project does not add any traffic to the eastbound left-turn movement at this location. Michael Brandman Associates 2-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

20 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Response to CALTRANS-6 The commentor recommended providing direct pedestrian access at the northwest and southwest corners of the project site and a pedestrian crosswalk across Napa Junction Road west of Main Street to improve pedestrian access by reducing travel distance and providing a direct link from the state highway. Pedestrian facilities to be provided by the proposed project include pathways along both the north and south side of Napa Junction Road. Pedestrian crossing facilities on Napa Junction Road are proposed at the existing crosswalk located on the east leg of the SR 29/Napa Junction Road intersection and also at all approaches to the Napa Junction Road/WalMart Driveway roundabout. A mid-block pedestrian crossing west of Main Street as proposed by Caltrans is not required given the two crosswalks on Napa Junction Road mentioned above. In addition, a mid-block pedestrian crossing at this location is also not recommended for safety reasons. Response to CALTRANS-7 The commentor stated that the proposed transportation mitigation measures will result in secondary impacts to pedestrians, such as increased crossing distances for pedestrians and additional exposure to vehicles, and asked for a description of how these secondary impacts to pedestrians will be minimized and mitigated. Mitigation measures proposed in the TIAR affecting SR-29 intersections, including widening to six lanes, would increase the pedestrian crossing distances. These mitigation measures also include the required intersection traffic signal modifications required when the roadway is widened. Improvements to the traffic signals would include either modification of existing pedestrian phases or addition of new pedestrian signal phases. These modifications would also include changes to the pedestrian traffic signal walk and don t walk phase timings to accommodate the longer crosswalks. These improvements would provide safe pedestrian crossings associated with all mitigation measures proposed on SR-29. No secondary impacts will result to pedestrians as a result of these mitigations. Response to CALTRANS-8 The commentor stated that it cannot be assumed the proposed road improvements will be constructed because the project applicant is providing funds to construct them. The commentor also stated that the proposed modifications may not be possible due to other factors and requested a list of alternative mitigation measures to be considered in case these mitigation measures prove to be infeasible. Mitigation measures contained in the TIAR that require the project to make a fair-share payment are not assumed to be built. The Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures section of the TIAR Final Report (July 2011) starting on page 40 include three separate subsections for each mitigation measure as follows: Impacts, Mitigation Measure, Significance After Mitigation. For those mitigation measures that are cumulative impacts (the project worsens an already 2-12 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

21 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR unacceptable no project base condition), the project is required to make a fair share payment. Under the Significance After Mitigation subsections for each mitigation measure that requires a fair share payment the following description is provided in the TIAR: Since these improvements are not included within the current City traffic impact fee program nor any other funding program, the full funding and construction of this improvement cannot be assumed before construction of the proposed project. Therefore the project impact after mitigation will be significant and unavoidable. Transportation improvements contained in the Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures section of the Omni-Means TIAR Final Report (July 2011) are consistent with those circulation improvements that have been presented and accepted in the City of American Canyon Citywide Circulation Study (2008) and are the only feasible improvements at this time. Response to CALTRANS-9 The commentor requested clarification regarding the statement in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would contribute vehicle trips to intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels under short-term and long-term conditions. Mitigation is proposed which would require the project to pay its fair share towards the cost of the improvements; however, it would not reduce this impact to a level of less than significant because the improvements are not included in the current fee program. Therefore, this is a significant unavoidable impact. The statement is correct. As contained in Response to CALTRANS-1, above payment of fair share does not assume the mitigation measure will be built. Other funding programs will be required to provide full funding and programming of the mitigation measures. Therefore, until these programs are adopted, the project impact after mitigation remains significant and unavoidable. Response to CALTRANS-10 The commentor requested that the executive summary mitigation matrix be expanded to include the fair share fee dollar amount for each mitigation measure, the timeline for implementation of each measure, and the agency responsible for implementation of each measure. The commentor also asked for an explanation of the enforcement procedures for implementation of the mitigation plan and decision-making process if a mitigation measure becomes infeasible. The project s fair share contributions to traffic improvements will be determined prior to building permit issuance. Such a determination is not required by CEQA at this time because to do so would be speculative as the cost of the traffic improvements is not known and will change prior to time of building permit issuance. The mitigation measure information requested by the commentor, such as timeline for implementation and agency responsible for implementation, is included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Appendix A of this Final EIR. Michael Brandman Associates 2-13 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

22 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Response to CALTRANS-11 The commentor requested a statement regarding how long fair share funds will be held for all mitigation measures and what will become of the funds if these mitigation projects are delayed. All fair share mitigation funds are segregated and held for application as mitigation to the particular identified impact of the project as it is implemented. These segregated mitigation funds cannot be used for any other purpose other than as mitigation for the specific impact of the project which is identified. To the extent that the Comment raises the economic state of governmental agencies it is an issue that is irrelevant to the analysis of required, segregated mitigation funds, which again, may only be used for application to the impacts of a specific project as it is implemented or carried out over time. Response to CALTRANS-12 The commentor requested that any secondary impacts of the mitigation measures be identified and how they will be mitigated be described. Potential secondary impacts of the proposed mitigation measures are identified and fully analyzed within the Draft EIR. No further response is required. Response to CALTRANS-13 A response to previous comments submitted by the commentor to the lead agency on March 3, 2011 is requested. Responses to the Caltrans comment letter of March 3, 2011 are as follows: CALTRANS-13.A Please refer to Response to Comment CALTRANS-5 for information responsive to this comment. CALTRANS-13.B Synchro files were provided as requested as part of the Draft TIAR review. CALTRANS-13.C Traffic engineering analysis contained with the TIAR fully documents the effects of the proposed roundabout on traffic operations at the SR-29/Napa Junction Road intersection. Acceptable LOS and vehicular queuing conditions are expected under all analyzed conditions. CALTRANS-13.D Implementation of all mitigation measures contained in the TIAR will be subject to all City and Caltrans approval processes Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

23 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR CALTRANS-13.E Inconsistencies contained in the Draft TIAR between the level of service data contained in Table 3B and the Synchro output in the report appendix have been corrected in the TIAR Final Report (July 2011). CALTRANS-13.F Please refer to Response to Comment CALTRANS-8 for information responsive to this comment. Response to CALTRANS-14 The commentor stated that a maintenance agreement between Caltrans and the City may be required for the maintenance of any roadside improvements. The comment is acknowledged and requires no further response. Michael Brandman Associates 2-15 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

24 GOLD Page 1 of 5 GOLD-1

25 GOLD Page 2 of 5 GOLD-1 cont.

26 GOLD Page 3 of 5 GOLD-2 GOLD-3

27 GOLD Page 4 of 5 GOLD-3 cont. GOLD-4

28 GOLD Page 5 of 5 GOLD-4 cont. GOLD-5

29 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Organizations David Gold, Morrison Foerster (On Behalf of Union Pacific) (GOLD) Response to GOLD-1 The commentor asserted that the lead agency cannot use the Draft EIR as project-level EIR for Areas B and C because it omits a definition of the site improvements and a site plan for these areas. The commentor also asserted that the Draft EIR s traffic analysis did not evaluate impacts caused by the Area B and Area C trips. Lastly, the commentor requested that the Draft EIR be revised to state that it is a program-level Draft EIR as to Areas B and C and that additional CEQA review will be completed in the future when development plans for these phases are available. The Draft EIR provides a project-level analysis of the entirety of the proposed project, including Areas A, B, and C. The Draft EIR clearly describes the detailed planning that has been completed for Area A (including a site plan and building elevations), and provides a comprehensive assessment of potential environmental effects. While Areas B and C have not been planned to same degree of specificity as Area A, the Draft EIR describes the parameters of ultimate development and performance standards to which Areas A and B are subject, and the EIR provides an analysis of potential impacts commensurate with the level of detail provided for Areas B and C. Detailed plans for Areas B and C will be prepared in accordance with the performance standards and mitigation measures described in the Draft EIR. At the time of submittal of plans, as is standard practice, City staff will determine whether or not those plans are within the scope of the project described and analyzed in the EIR so that no further environmental documents are required. Absent the circumstances showing the impacts created by development of the plans are not within the scope of the EIR, the EIR will be the environmental document for those plans. Additionally, the commentor s statement, No analysis of the impacts caused by the Area B and Area C trips is provided is incorrect as this analysis is included within the Cumulative (2030) Plus Project Intersection and Roadways impact analysis of the Draft EIR beginning on page The commentor suggests that the prior litigation involving a former project (Union Pacific Railroad v. City of American Canyon, 2009) provides a basis for concluding that the approach to environmental analysis in this Draft EIR is inadequate. This is incorrect. In fact, the Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the Writ of Mandate issued by First Appellate District Court. In conclusion, the City believes that the Draft EIR provides an appropriate level of environmental analysis for the entire project, in accordance with the level of detail provided for each of the planning areas and that lack of detailed plans for Areas B and C does not result in an inadequate project-level analysis of those areas. Michael Brandman Associates 2-21 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

30 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Response to GOLD-2 The commentor stated that the private driveway identified in the Draft EIR must be dedicated as an easement or roadway to provide assurances of adequate public access to the Union Pacific property. The Draft EIR appropriately describes how access would be provided to the Union Pacific property and the City will ensure access via a condition of approval. Whether the commentor believes that a condition of approval or easement is the preferred instrument is a non-ceqa issue. Accordingly, no further response is required. Response to GOLD-3 The commentor stated that the Draft EIR must identify the project s fair share contributions to traffic impacts and commit the lead agency to implementing the traffic improvements. The commentor further stated that the Draft EIR must include mitigation measures that will actually be funded and implemented prior to occupancy of the project and it must identify the project s fair share fee amount. Please refer to Response to Comment CALTRANS-10 for information responsive to this comment. Response to GOLD-4 The commentor requested that the Draft EIR analyze impacts to truck circulation caused by the roundabout. Specifically, the commentor stated that the Draft EIR must analyze the circulation impacts that could result from potential incompatibility of the roundabout with the truck traffic generated from adjacent industrial land. Detailed engineering analysis of truck movements through the proposed roundabout at Napa Junction Road/WalMart driveway have been completed and are included in the TIAR. Figure 6 and 7 contained in the TIAR are 50 scale engineering drawings of the proposed roundabout. The roundabout illustrated in these figures has been specifically designed to provide adequate truck turning clearance for a California Legal truck. The dimensions of a California Legal truck are as follows: 2-22 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

31 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response to GOLD-5 The commentor asserted that the Draft EIR does not comply with the requirements of CEQA and must be revised. The lead agency has determined that the Draft EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA based upon the responses to the comments above. Further, it has been determined that no substantial revisions are required. Michael Brandman Associates 2-23 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

32 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Verbal Comments Planning Commission Katharine Bourassa (BOURASSA) Response to BOURASSA-1 Commissioner Bourassa expressed concerns regarding the methodology used to develop Mitigation Measure GHG-1 (Greenhouse Gas Emission). Specifically, Commissioner Bourassa stated that this requirement might be too onerous and set precedent for future projects. Additional methodology information was requested. While the lead agency acknowledges the commentor s concerns, it has determined that Mitigation Measure GHG-1 is consistent with the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Further, the mitigation includes flexibility in achieving the project s emissions reductions via on-site design measures and/or the purchase of greenhouse gas offsets. As stated on page 4-12 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines May 2010, for projects that are not able to mitigate onsite to a level below significance, offsite mitigation measures serve as a feasible alternative. Recent State s CEQA Guidelines amendments allow for offsite measures to mitigate a project s emissions, (Section (c)(4)). Planning Commission Joseph Meck (MECK) Response to MECK-1 Commissioner Meck commented regarding project site ingress and egress, stacking, and left-turns onto SR-29 from Napa Junction Road. The concerns expressed by the commentor are addressed in Section 3.12, Transportation/Traffic of the Draft EIR. Specifically, proposed interim and ultimate improvement concepts for Napa Junction Road, intended to address the issues identified above, are shown in Exhibit and Exhibit , respectively. Response to MECK-2 Commissioner Meck expressed concerns regarding the roundabout design as it relates to truck circulation and access. Please refer to Response to Comment GOLD-4 for information responsive to this comment. Response to MECK-3 Commissioner Meck expressed concerns regarding the project s potential traffic impacts on SR-29. As shown in Table ES-1, the Draft EIR includes transportation mitigation measures to pay its fair share of traffic impact fees for the specified road improvements. However, with the exception of Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a and TRANS 2i, the mitigation measures require the project to pay its fair share of the traffic impact fees in effect at the time towards the cost of the improvements. Since the improvements are not included within the current fee program, the project impact after mitigation would be significant and unavoidable Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

33 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response to MECK-4 Commissioner Meck commented regarding potential security concerns behind the project s proposed buildings. Mitigation Measure PSU-2 in the Draft EIR would require the project applicant to prepare a security plan in consultation with the American Canyon Police Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each building. The security plan would address the potential security concerns behind the project s buildings identified by the commentor. Response to MECK-5 Commissioner Meck commented regarding the selection of quality tenants for the proposed retail center. While the lead agency acknowledges the importance of quality tenants throughout the City s retail areas and will review such information as part of the Design Permit submittal, this comment did not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. Accordingly, no further response is required. Planning Commission Eric Altman (ALTMAN) Response to ALTMAN-1 Commissioner Altman expressed concerns regarding the proposed project exacerbating existing traffic impacts from Napa Junction Phases I and II on SR-29. The Transportation Impact Analysis Report prepared for the Draft EIR included an analysis of existing (2010) conditions, which included the existing Napa Junction Phase I and II projects. Transportation mitigation measures are included in the Draft EIR, as shown in Table ES-1, which would address the proposed project s impact on SR-29. Response to ALTMAN-2 Commissioner Altman commented on air emissions impacts related to traffic idling. The project s potential to contribute to local carbon monoxide hotspots was analyzed and found to be less than significant as it meets the screening criteria outlined on page of the Draft EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRANS-1a through TRANS-1d, TRANS-2a through TRANS-2h and AIR-2 would reduce potential air emissions related to traffic idling to a less than significant level. Michael Brandman Associates 2-25 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec02_Responses to Comments.doc

34

35 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Errata SECTION 3: ERRATA The following are revisions to the Draft EIR. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to this document and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken). Section 3.3, Biological Resources Page Mitigation Measures BIO-3c and BIO-3d have been modified as follows: MM BIO-3c The project applicant shall inspect and clear the 36-inch pipe located at the northwest corner of parcel four that drains lot four the property, as needed, after final building occupancy. MM BIO-3d Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the preliminary grading and drainage plan shall reflect a sediment treatment ditch or similar facility to limit potential sedimentation of new wetlands. located on the southeasterly portion of the project site. Section 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Page Mitigation Measure GEO-1 has been modified as follows: MM GEO-1 Prior to issuance of grading, encroachment, or building permits, the applicant s geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction and grading plans to ensure that the recommendations of the 2005 Kleinfelder Geotechnical Investigation Report and any subsequent reports have been complied with, specifically, the application of a layer of non-expansive compacted fill. Results of this plan review shall be summarized in a letter prepared by the applicant s geotechnical consultant and transmitted to the City Engineer Building Official. Page Mitigation Measure GEO-4b has been modified as follows: MM GEO-4b Prior to the issuance of grading, encroachment, or building permits, the foundations shall be designed in accordance with the recommendations of the applicant s geotechnical consultant to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Building Official. Michael Brandman Associates 3-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

36 Errata City of American Canyon Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Section 3-11, Public Services and Utilities Page The first paragraph, second sentence has been modified as follows: Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on information provided by the City of American Canyon General Plan, the City of American Canyon website, the City of American Canyon 2010 Draft Urban Water Management Plan, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) website, and responses to questionnaires sent to public service and utility providers. Pages through Modifications to narrative and text on pages through are shown below. Reliability The City s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan projects that the City would have an ample supply of water for normal year conditions, but would experience shortfalls under single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. Additionally, water supply for a single-dry water year is generally sufficient until sometime after For the multiple-dry water year scenario, the supply is sufficient through The Urban Water Management Plan identified demand management measures, water shortage contingency plans, and water supply projects that address the supply shortfalls during drought conditions. Table through Table present summaries of water supply sources for future year conditions under normal water years, single dry water years, and multiple dry water years. The tables are based upon the State Water Project contract of 5,200 Acre-Feet per year (AFY) with a reliability of 60 percent for normal, 22 percent for single-dry, and 38 percent for multiple-dry water year conditions. Supply Source Table : Projected City Water Supplies Normal Water Year Planned Supplies (Acre-Feet per Year) State Water Project 3,7963,120 3,1203,900 4,0043,120 Vallejo Permit Water Vallejo Treated Water 2,075 2,6412,641 3,207 Vallejo Raw WaterEmergency Water City Recycled Water 8581,000 1, ,000 Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water Total 7,8796,695 8,6257,561 9,2958,127 Source: City of American Canyon, Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

37 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Errata Table : Projected City Water Supplies Single Dry Year Supply Source Planned Supplies (Acre-Feet per Year) State Water Project 1,4561,144 1,1441,456 1,1441,508 Vallejo Permit Water Vallejo Treated Water 1,8681,764 2,2452,377 2,7262,886 Vallejo Emergency WaterVallejo Raw Water City Recycled Water 1, , , Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water Total 5,1314,833 5,6145,708 6,0956,269 Source: City of American Canyon, Table : Projected City Water Supplies Multiple Dry Water Years Supply Source Planned Supplies (Acre-Feet per Year) State Water Project 1,976 1,976 1,976 Vallejo Permit Water Vallejo Treated Water 1,8681,660 2,3772,113 2,8862,566 Vallejo Raw Water Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water City Recycled Water 7721, , ,000 Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water Total 5,6515,536 6,2286,289 6,7376,742 Source: City of American Canyon, These values are averages of the three years presented in Tables 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 of the Urban Water Management Plan Table through Table summarizes the supply and demand comparisons under normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions. As shown in the tables, the City has surplus supplies in normal water years, but has a deficit in single dry and multiple dry years. The deficit decreases in the later years for both the single dry and multiple dry for all conditions. Michael Brandman Associates 3-3 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

38 Errata City of American Canyon Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Table : Projected Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison Category Year (acre-feet) Supply 7,8796,698 8,6257,561 9,2958,127 Demand 6,6883,863 6,8554,646 7,0265,712 Difference +1,191+2,282 +1,770+2,915 +2,269+2,949 Percentage Difference (Surplus or Shortfall)Difference as % of Supply Source: City of American Canyon, %+42% +26%+39% +32%+36% Table : Projected Single Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison Category Year (acre-feet) Supply 5,131 4,833 5,708 5,614 6,269 6,095 Demand 6,688 3,863 6,855 4,646 7,026 5,178 Difference -1, , Difference as % of Supply Percentage Difference (Surplus or Shortfall) Source: City of American Canyon, % +20% -17% +17% -11% +15% Table : Projected Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison Category Year (acre-feet) Supply 5,6515,665 6,228 6,446 6,737 6,927 Demand 6,6883,863 6,885 4,646 7,026 5,178 Difference -1,037+1, , ,749 Difference as % of SupplyPercentage Difference (Surplus or Shortfall) Source: City of American Canyon, %+32% -9% +28% -4% +25% The actual water used by the City of American Canyon as reported in the State Water Project Accounting is summarized in Table Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

39 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Errata Table : Comparison of Actual Water Supply and Demand from State Water Project Year Actual Water Demand (AC-FT) Actual Water Supply (AC-FT) Guaranteed Water Supply (AC-FT) Source: BkF, According to the City of American Canyon s Urban Water Management Plan, in 2010 the water supply was to range from 6,800 AFY, 4,343 AFY, and 5,455 AFY for normal, single dry year, and multiple dry years respectively. Additionally, the anticipated water demand was to be 5,455 AFY. While the water supply noted in the Urban Water Management Plan is consistent with actual values as reported by the State Water Project and shown in Table , the actual demand was approximately 46 percent less. This is consistent with a general tendency in the City of American Canyon to consume less water as found in a reduction in water sales as shown in Exhibit The reduction in water consumption is likely the result of the City s efforts to implement Demand Management Measures as noted in Section 7 of the Urban Water Management Plan. This includes thirteen measures, which were to be implemented by As previously noted, the City of American Canyon receives water from various sources. However, the only guaranteed sources are the State Water Project Table A and Permit Water. In the years 2008 to 2010, these sources provided over 60 percent of the total water supply. The Guaranteed Water Supply is summarized in Table Page Mitigation Measure PSU-5a has been modified as follows: MM PSU-5a As required, by the City, pprior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall prepare and submit improvement plans to the City of American Canyon that demonstrate that recycled water service main will be extended to Area A the project site by the project applicant from the northern property line of Parcel 4. Recycled water shall be used for non-potable irrigation use in lieu of potable water when available. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project. Michael Brandman Associates 3-5 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

40 Errata City of American Canyon Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Section 3.12, Transportation/Traffic Page Exhibit , Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, has been modified to include traffic diagrams for intersections 13 and 14. The updated exhibit is included on the following page of this Final EIR. 3-6 Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

41

42

43 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Errata Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Section Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impact AES-2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the introduction of new sources of substantial light and glare. Section 3.2 Air Quality Impact AIR-1: The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impact AIR-2: The project would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. No mitigation is necessary. No mitigation is necessary. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measures PSU-5a through PSU-5d, and: MM AIR-1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall prepare and submit plans to the City of American Canyon demonstrating that project buildings would achieve a 10-percent reduction in energy usage when compared to the State s mandatory energy efficiency standards (Title 24). Implement TRANS-1a through TRANS-1d, TRANS-2a through TRANS- 2h and: MM AIR-2: During construction activities, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or more as needed. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite shall be covered All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads and surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. Level of Significance After Mitigation Michael Brandman Associates 3-9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

44 City of American Canyon Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Errata Table ES-1 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Impact AIR-3: The project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Impact AIR-4: The project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of American Canyon regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The BAAQMD s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2. MM AIR-4: A site investigation shall be performed to determine whether and where naturally occurring asbestos is present in the soil and rock on the project site and/or areas that would be disturbed by the project. The site investigation shall include the collection of soil and rock samples by a California Registered geologist. If the site investigation determines that naturally occurring asbestos is not present on the project site then the project applicant shall submit a Geologic Exemption as allowed under Title 17, Section 93105, Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining (Asbestos ATCM). If the site investigation determines that naturally occurring asbestos is present on the project site, then the project applicant shall submit an Asbestos Dust Control Plan including but not limited to control measures required by the Asbestos ATCM for approval by the BAAQMD. The project applicant shall submit the plan to the BAAQMD for review and approval before beginning any ground disturbance activity. BAAQMD approval of the plan must be received before ground disturbance occurs. Upon approval of the Asbestos Dust Control Plan by the BAAQMD, the applicant shall ensure that construction contractors implement the terms of the plan throughout the construction period. This measure shall be fully funded by the project applicant. Level of Significance After Mitigation Michael Brandman Associates 3-10 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc

45 City of American Canyon - Napa Junction Phase III Project Final EIR Errata Table ES-1 (cont.): Executive Summary Matrix Impacts Impact AIR-5: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Section 3.3 Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Development activities would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special-status species. Impact BIO-2: Development activities would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat. Impact BIO-3: Development activities would have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands. No mitigation is necessary. Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1: If vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season (February through August), a pre-construction nesting bird survey will be conducted in all suitable nesting areas within 250 feet of the proposed project site. Surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance. If an active nest is located, a 250-foot buffer shall be delineated and maintained around the nest until a qualified biologist has determined that the fledgling(s) have fledged the nest. Construction activity may proceed within the established buffer area only at the discretion of the monitoring biologist. This mitigation measure does not apply if ground clearing or vegetation removal activities occur outside of the nesting season (September through January). No mitigation is necessary. MM BIO-3a: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared for the project and included within Appendix D shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the USACE and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). MM BIO-3b: Prior to the issuance of grading permits within any impacted resource area, the project applicant shall obtain all required authorization from appropriate regulatory agencies. MM BIO-3c: The project applicant shall inspect and clear the 36-inch pipe located at the northwest corner of parcel four that drains lot four the property, as needed, after final building occupancy. MM BIO-3d: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the preliminary grading and drainage plan shall reflect a sediment treatment ditch or similar facility to limit potential sedimentation of new wetlands. located on the southeasterly portion of the project site. Level of Significance After Mitigation Michael Brandman Associates 3-11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\3814\ \FEIR\ Sec03_Errata.doc