resolution no. 98-238 resolution of the …...whereas, on october 4, 1996 the draft general plan...

RESOLUTION NO. 98-238

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR ENVISION NAPA 2020, THE CITY OF NAPA GENERAL PLAN, MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ISSUING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN

WHEREAS, in 1991, the City Council of the City of Napa ("City Council"), determined the need for a comprehensive update of the City's General Plan due to conflicts over the principal strategy of the 1982 General Plan, changed conditions and regulations, new state and federal requirements having a bearing on the City's long-range decisions, the need to address congestion management issues, new air quality standards, jobs/housing balance and other issues; and

WHEREAS, in October 1991 the City Council appointed a 19 member Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) to provide informed citizen input to the city staff charged with the preparation of the General Plan, and selected committee members from neighborhoods throughout Napa representing a wide range of interests and points of view for the community's visioning process; and

WHEREAS, the CAC held weekly meetings over an 18 month period to formulate fundamental objectives and land use concepts for the General Plan and then continued the community outreach by holding a series of neighborhood meetings for four months before presenting their General Plan concept recommendations to the City Council in July 1993; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held four worksessions to review the CAC's recommendation and refine the vision for the new General Plan culminating in the approval of the March 1994 Concept Report for the City of Napa General Plan Update and direction to staff to begin drafting the General Plan Documents and an Environmental Impact Report; and

WHEREAS, the City Council requested that a Fiscal Analysis of the General Plan be prepared to provide additional information regarding the economic feasibility of the alternative land use scenarios contained in the Concept Report; and

WHEREAS, on March 15, 1995, in accordance with CEQA requirements, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP), informing public agencies of the City of Napa's intent to prepare an El R for the comprehensive update to its 1982 General Plan and solicited input from Federal, State, regional, and local agencies as well as interested organizations; and

WHEREAS, comments on the NOP were received from three agencies: the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the State Department of Transportation (contained in RDEIR Appendix A); and

WHEREAS, based on the information in the Concept Report the City prepared a Draft General Plan in the form of two bound reports: a Background Report and a Policy Document; and prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report to examine the potential environmental impacts that might occur with the adoption and implementation of the policies and programs identified in the draft General Plan; and

WHEREAS, during the preparation of the draft General Plan, a conscious effort was made to develop policies and programs that would serve as effective mitigations for the potential impacts that might result from the implementation of the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on October 4, 1996, the City released the Draft General Plan (Policy Document and Background Report) and Draft EIR for a 45 day public review period and made available for review the Fiscal Analysis prepared for the Draft General Plan; and

98-238

1

WHEREAS, on October 4, 1996 the Draft General Plan documents and Draft EIR were sent to 30 organizations and local, state and federal agencies either directly or through the State Clearinghouse, additional document sets were provided to local organizations, a "Notice of Completion and Availability" of the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR documents was mailed to 409 individuals who had requested written notice of the General Plan availability and proceedings, and said notice was published as a display ad in the Napa Register; and

WHEREAS, on October 17 and 24, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive input on the Draft EIR and decided to extend the 45 day public comment period to allow additional time for public review and input on the document; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a series of study sessions on the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan documents in November and December of 1996; and

WHEREAS, on November 18, 1996, a notice of extension of the public review period to December 2, 1996, was sent to all agencies and parties previously noticed and advertised as described above; and

WHEREAS, by the close of the extended review period the written communications and hearing record constituted a total of 344 separate comments on both the Draft EIR and the Draft General Plan; and

WHEREAS, after further analysis of issues during the Draft EIR response to comment process, the City decided to prepare and recirculate a Revised Draft EIR in order to expand the background information concerning several categories of impacts, provide more detailed explanation of environmental conclusions, reexamine findings of significance for several impacts, and provide an opportunity for public comment on this additional information; and

WHEREAS, on December 8, 1997, the City released, and recirculated for a 45 day public review period, a Revised Draft EIR (RDEIR), a Response to Comments made on the 1996 Draft EIR, and a series of Addenda that modified text of the Draft Policy document to reflect revisions contained in the RDEIR; and

WHEREAS, by the close of the comment period on January 21, 1998, the written communications constituted a total of 72 separate comments on Revised Draft EIR, the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR and the Addenda; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared a response to the comments received on the Revised Draft EIR and released the RDEIR Response to Comments on April 24, 1998, circulating the document to local, state and federal agencies, to the State Clearinghouse according the process used for the DEIR and RDEIR; and

WHEREAS, on January 29, February 26, March 12 and 26, and April 2, 1998, the Planning Commission held study sessions on the RDEIR and Draft General Plan in order to familiarize themselves with the documents and to develop a preliminary list of issues for further consideration during their hearings; and

WHEREAS, on April 24, 1998 a "Notice of Planning Commission Hearings on the Draft General Plan and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report and Response to Comments (Final EIR)", including a Notice of Availability of the RDEIR Response to Comments, was mailed to individual citizens who had requested written notice of the General Plan availability and proceedings and was published as a display ad in the Napa Valley Register; and

WHEREAS, on May 7, 8 and 9, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft General Plan, Interim Administrative Policies & Zoning Crosswalk, and Final EIR and took testimony from 63 different speakers during the three day hearing and continued to accept written communications from the public; and

98-238 2

WHEREAS, on May 28, 29,30, and June 4, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted deliberations on the Draft General Plan and Final El R and drafted recommendations to the City Council using a Topic Matrix and straw vote process; and

WHEREAS, on June 25 and 26, 1998, the Planning Commission completed their deliberations on the Draft General Plan documents and the Final EIR and made certain recommendations to modify policies and programs, to clarify text, to reduce the overall impact of the General Plan and to improve the mitigating ability of the policies and programs in the document as set forth in the Planning Commission Topic Matrix and meeting record; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved the Topic Matrix as representing a summary of their deliberations including the findings made for their decision regarding each issue of discussion; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 98-068-CQ recommending certification of the Draft Final EIR for Envision Napa 2020, finding that it was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines, and that the Draft Final EIR meets the standards for adequacy outlined in Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines and is sufficient not only for approval of the General Plan, but also for the rezones, prezones, sphere of influence revisions, annexations and modifications to the Napa Municipal Code and other mechanisms needed to carry out the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 98-068-GP recommending adoption of the General Plan with text revisions as specified and included in the resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of Interim Administrative Policies and a Zoning Crosswalk on August 6, 1998; and

WHEREAS, after holding a study session with the Planning Commission on September 24, 1998, the Council held a noticed public hearing on the Draft Final EIR, the General Plan and the Interim Administrative Policies and Zoning Crosswalk on September 28 and 29, 1998 and took testimony from 53 speakers, closing the hearing on September 29; and

WHEREAS, The City Council conducted and concluded deliberations on the General Plan, Interim Administrative Policies & Zoning Crosswalk, and Final EIR on October 13 and gave direction to staff using a straw vote process; and

WHEREAS, the city Council on September 20, 1994, approved Policy Resolution No. 27, imposing standardized mitigation measures applicable to all development projects approved in the City; and

WHEREAS, various provisions of the Napa Municipal Code ("NMC") relating to development approvals have the effect, when applied to such approvals, of mitigating the significant environmental effects of the development authorized by such development approvals; and

WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (b), provides that, where the "project" being approved by the lead agency is a plan, the mitigation measures or conditions of approval necessary to substantially lessen or avoid the environmental effects of development authorized by the plan can be directly incorporated into the plan itself rather than set forth in a separate document; and

WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Final EIR, dated December 1, 1998, has been prepared to document the final direction of the City Council in certifying the Final EIR for the General Plan and to specify the revisions to the text of the FEIR that are adopted and to provide summary discussion and analysis of the final direction given by the City Council for the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, as the Findings of Fact adopted as Exhibit A to this Resolution demonstrate, most of the significant effects on the environment associated with the adoption of Envision Napa 2020, the City of Napa

98-238 3

General Plan, and related approvals, can be either substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of the General Plan policies and programs and imposition of the standard mitigation measures from Policy Resolution No. 27, or the imposition of requirements from various NMC provisions, although four environmental effects will remain significant and unavoidable; and

WHEREAS, because these four significant unavoidable environmental effects cannot be rendered less than significant through the adoption of feasible new General Plan mitigating policies, the imposition of standard mitigation measures, or the imposition of NMC requirements, the City cannot approve the General Plan or any related approvals until it first considers the feasibility of alternatives, as set forth in the Final EIR, that will be less environmentally damaging than the General Plan with respect to those four unavoidable significant effects; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined, as set forth in Exhibit A, that the proposed project is environmentally superior to any of the alternatives, including the no project alternative, and that none of the alternatives set forth in the FEIR effectively or feasibly mitigate the four unavoidable significant effects; and

WHEREAS, because the General Plan, in its final form, along with related approvals, will cause or contribute to four unavoidable significant environmental effects, the City cannot take action on the General Plan or related approvals without first adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

WHEREAS, Section XI of Exhibit A attached hereto contains a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the specific economic, social, and other benefits that, in the City Council's judgment, outweigh the four unavoidable environmental effects.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Napa as follows;

1. The City Council hereby certifies that:

a. the Final EIR for Envision Napa 2020, the City of Napa General Plan and related approvals has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

b. the Final EIR is legally sufficient, not only for approval of the General Plan, but also for subsequent actions such as rezones, prezones, sphere of influence revisions, annexations, and revisions to the Napa Municipal Code and regulations as necessary to implement the provisions of the General Plan;

C. the Final EIR has been presented to the City Council, which has reviewed and considered the information and analysis contained therein; and

d. the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Napa.

2. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. The City Council hereby finds and determines:

a. By adopting this resolution, which includes Exhibit A attached hereto, the City Council has satisfied its obligations pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, in that Exhibit A, 1) identifies all of the significant effects associated with the General Plan and related approvals (in the absence of mitigation); 2) identifies the changes made to the General Plan to mitigate such effects to the extent feasible, along with all pertinent provisions of Policy Resolution No. 27 and the NMC, which will also have the effect of mitigating significant effects; and 3) explains why the alternatives described in the FEIR are not environmentally superior to the General Plan in its final form with respect to the four unavoidable significant effects.

98-238 4

b. By adopting this Resolution, and later adopting the General Plan itself, the City will satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (a) in that the General Plan itself will provide for monitoring of the implementation of those General Plan policies and programs, standard mitigation measures, and NMC requirements that have the effect of mitigating the otherwise significant effects associated with development authorized by the General Plan;

c. By adopting this Resolution, including Section XI of Exhibit A attached hereto, the City Council has satisfied its obligation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines section 15093, which require the issuance of a Statement of Overriding Considerations whenever a project's significant environmental effects cannot be at least substantially mitigated by the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures (or mitigating policies) or the approval of a feasible, environmentally superior alternative.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Napa at a regular meeting of said City Council, held on the 1st day of December, 1998, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

Wagenknecht, Techel, Busenbark, Martin and Henderson

NOES:

None

ABSENT:

None

ATTESt: \t1s7) CITY CLERK OF T CI OF NAPA

Attachment: Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

98-238 5

Exhibit A To

City Council Resolution # 98-238

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE

CITY OF NAPA GENERAL PLAN ENVISION NAPA 2020

ADOPTED BY

CITY OF NAPA CITY COUNCIL

DECEMBER 1, 1998

I. INTRODUCTION

Under California law (Gov. Code, § 65300 et seq.), the City of Napa ("City" or "Napa") must prepare and adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the City and any land outside its boundaries that, in the City's judgment, bears relation to its planning. Envision Napa 2020, The City of Napa General Plan ("General Plan," "Plan," or "Project"), is a comprehensive update of the 1982 General Plan. It formalizes a long-term vision for the physical evolution of Napa, and outlines policies and programs to guide day-to-day decisions concerning Napa's development through the year 2020. The General Plan consists of the following two documents, in addition to Land Use Maps: the Policy Document, which presents the City's formal statements of General Plan policy in the form of goals, policies, and implementation programs; and a Background Report, which provides a detailed description of the existing physical and regulatory environment under which the General Plan was prepared. The Policy Document is divided into chapters that correspond generally with the organization of the Background Report. The chapters or "elements" and organization of the City of Napa General Plan reflect local planning needs, but also contain the information required by state law to address the seven specific categories of issues: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Safety, and Noise. (See Gov. Code, §§ 65302, 65560-65564, 65580-65584.)

Each chapter of the General Plan includes goal statements relating to different sub-issues or aspects of the topic addressed in the chapter. For each goal statement, there are several corresponding policies. Implementation programs are listed at the end of each section, and describe briefly the proposed action, the City agencies or departments with primary responsibility for carrying out the programs, and the time frames for accomplishing the programs. Implementation programs generally address the actions that the City can reasonably undertake within a five-year time frame.

The Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") prepared for General Plan addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Plan. These Findings, which build upon information in the Final EIR, have been prepared to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.). (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) More specifically, these Findings explain how the General Plan in its final form has been fashioned to fully satisfy the City's obligation under CEQA to mitigate significant environmental effects to the extent feasible. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

1

DEFINITIONS

"ABAG" means Association of Bay Area Governments.

"Addendum to the Final EIR" refers to the Addendum to the Final EIR dated December 1, 1998.

"BAAQMD" means Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

"BMPs" means best management practices.

"Board of Supervisors" or "Board" refers to the Napa County Board of Supervisors.

"CEQA" means California Environmental Quality Act.

"City" means the City of Napa.

"City Council" means the City Council of the City of Napa.

"CNEL" means community noise level equivalent.

"CO" means carbon monoxide.

"Commission" means the Planning Commission of the City of Napa.

"Council" means the City Council of the City of Napa.

"dBA" means A-weighted decibels.

"Draft EIR" means the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Napa General Plan (October 2, 1996).

"du/acre" means dwelling units per acre.

"EIR" means environmental impact report.

"Final EIR" means the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Napa General Plan, which consists of the following documents: the Revised Draft EIR and Responses to Comments on the Draft UR, both dated December 8, 1997; the 1996 Draft Policy Document, dated August 16, 1996; the Draft Background Report for the General Plan, dated September 30, 1996; the Responses to Comments on the Revised Draft EIR, dated April 24, 1998; and the Addendum to the Final EIR, dated December 1, 1998. (See RDEIR, p. 1-2.)

"LOS" means level of service.

Findings ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City ofNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

2

"NBA" means North Bay Aqueduct.

"NO." means nitrogen oxide.

"NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

"NPD" means Napa Police Department.

"NR" means Natural Resource Element.

"NSD" means Napa Sanitation District.

"OPR" means Office of Planning and Research.

"Planning Commission" refers to the Planning Commission of the City of Napa.

"PMic," means particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less.

"RDEIR" means Revised Draft EIR for the City of Napa General Plan (December 8, 1997).

"ROG" means reactive organic gases.

"RUL" means Rural Urban Limit.

"SHPO" means State Historic Preservation Office.

"SO." means sulfur dioxide.

"SOI" means sphere of influence.

"SWP" means State Water Project.

"TCM" means Transportation Control Measures.

"TPA" or "NCTPA" means Napa County Transportation Planning Agency.

"VMT" means vehicle miles traveled.

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The City of Napa is a community of approximately 66,900 people located along the Napa River in the southern portion of the Napa Valley, 52 miles northeast of San Francisco and 61 miles southwest of Sacramento. Most of the City is on relatively level terrain, except for the eastern


3

and western edges, which extend into brush and oak-covered foothills. The City abuts agricultural lands, predominantly vineyards, to the north. To the south lie agricultural and marshlands and the Napa County Airport. Regional access to Napa is primarily via State Highways 12, 29, 121, and 221, which connect with interstates to the south and north.

The incorporated area of Napa is approximately 18.2 square miles. The Napa sphere of influence ("son includes incorporated City lands plus unincorporated lands that may be considered for future annexation by the City. Slightly larger than, and encompassing, the SOI is the City's Rural Urban Limit ("RUL"), which defines the maximum extent of urban development for the City at the year 2020. Unincorporated County islands may continue to exist within the RUL; but City policy is to support the annexation of such islands whenever possible. The General Plan addresses development and land management within the RUL.

The City is currently close to being built-out, as there are only a limited number of larger parcels within the RUL available for future development projects. Infill opportunities exist on smaller vacant and underused sites throughout the City. In 1992, the City conducted a detailed land use and land availability inventory as the basis for the General Plan update. This study confirmed that residential development is the predominant use in Napa. Commercial areas, including retail and service uses and various types of other commercial uses, occupy only approximately 963 acres, or 8 percent of the RUL. Industrial areas, primarily in the southern part of the City, take up about 454 acres, or 4 percent of the RUL. Public, quasi-public, and public open space uses, including parks, City and County buildings, schools, transportation facilities, hospitals, and utilities, make up another 1,343 acres. Undeveloped land includes vacant land and underused sites within the RUL. When combined, this acreage totals approximately 1,037 acres. Due to environmental constraints, however, only about half of this land is considered suitable for development. When these factors are taken into consideration, usable land within the RUL is reduced to approximately five percent of the City's land area. (RDE1R, p. 2-1; Policy Document pp. 2, 7, 1-1 through 1-4.)

Envision Napa 2020, General Plan Objectives

The community-based planning process for Envision Napa 2020 resulted in the formulation of seven key goals for the new General Plan:

1) contain growth within the Rural Urban Limit;

2) conserve the character of existing neighborhoods;

3) improve the City's jobs/housing balance;

4) protect natural resources;


4

5) promote a sustainable economy;

6) maintain a vital and healthy Downtown; and

7) consider flood control opportunities.

The General Plan Elements and their goals, policies, and programs have been developed to help the City achieve these objectives. In its discussion of Project Objectives, the RDEIR reiterated these goals and added details to some of them. Project Objective 4, building on Goal 4, was to "Mecognize the fragility of Napa's precious natural resources and focus protection on wetlands, other scarce habitats, hillsides and agricultural lands adjacent to but outside the RUL." Objective 5, echoing Goal 5, equated a "sustainable economy" with "a healthy economy with jobs that 'fit' the needs of residents." Objective 7, refining Goal 7, was to "[c]onsider the environmental and financial costs of flood control along the Napa River and encourage appropriate development." (RDEIR, p. 2-4.)

Implementation of the General Plan

Implementation of the General Plan will require a multitude of individual actions and ongoing programs involving the City, other public agencies, and private individuals and organizations. The effectiveness of the General Plan will ultimately depend on how it is implemented and maintained over time. State law requires that most actions of local governments affecting the physical environment be consistent with the General plan. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 65401 (public works projects), 65454 (specific plans), 65860 (zoning), 65867.5 (development agreements), and 66473.5 (tentative subdivision maps).) Although Napa, as a charter city, could choose not to require that its zoning actions be consistent with the General Plan, the City has opted to require such consistency, though it need not be precise in all instances, as is explained below. (See Napa Municipal Code, § 17.02.060; City of Napa 2020 General Plan, Policy Document, Introduction, p. 16; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.3d 704, 717-718, 719 [29 Cal.Rptr.182].) State law also sets forth guidelines for the monitoring, updating, and amendment of General Plans. (See Gov. Code, §§ 65358, 65400.) In the transitional period following the City's adoption of the General Plan but before the City, where necessary, takes action to bring existing zoning designations into conformity with the new Plan, zoning consistency issues will be governed by the "Interim Administrative Policies" and "Zoning Crosswalk" adopted concurrently with the new Plan. (See Council Agenda Summary Report, September 28, 1998, p. 5, and Attachment 4.)

The Administration Chapter (Chap. 9) of the Policy Document provides for the ongoing administration and implementation of the General Plan by establishing annual and five-year reviews, and by requiring the review and amendment of local ordinances and regulations to ensure consistency with the Plan.

The General Plan is a long-term document with a planning horizon to the year 2020. To achieve its purposes, the Plan must be both sufficiently flexible to adjust to changing conditions and specific enough to guide day-to-day land use and development decisions. From time to time, the


5

City will consider proposals for amendments to the Plan in order to adjust to future circumstances not known at the time the Plan was adopted. Any future General Plan amendments, however, will be subject to environmental review, public notice, and hearing requirements, and cannot be approved if they will create internal inconsistencies within the Plan.

The goals and policies of the General Plan are not strict, rigid standards, but instead are general guidelines for the City to consider in its overall decision making. The City Council retains considerable flexibility in subsequently determining consistency with the General Plan. In determining the meaning and purpose of the Plan, and whether future development proposals will be consistent with the Plan, the City Council will have to read the individual elements, goals, policies, and provisions together, and in relation to one another, rather than in isolation. The General Plan must be viewed and interpreted in its entirety, with all the Plan's various elements, goals, policies, and programs reconciled and harmonized. (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 244 [242 Cal.Rptr. 237].)

The Draft General Plan has been designed to be a self-mitigating plan; that is, the Plan promotes a land use pattern but simultaneously contains policy statements that will mitigate the environmental impacts associated with growth and development consistent with that pattern. Potential limitations to development, which were identified in the Background Report, include sensitive biological resources, prime agricultural soils, geotechnical hazards, excessive noise exposure areas, and flood/inundation areas. Policies to mitigate these development constraints address the preservation of Napa's natural resources, the protection of the public and property from natural and man-made hazards, and the attainment of desired service levels. These mitigation policies will apply to future projects regardless of the land use pattern and intensity that take shape.

In these Findings, where relevant, such policies are acknowledged as mitigation measures included in the General Plan in its final form. (RDEIR, p. S-3; see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (b) (mitigation measures can be incorporated into an adopted plan).) Because the RDE1R addressed the impacts of the Draft Policy Document and proposed land use pattern as they existed in late 1996, however, the Findings will sometimes focus primarily on the additional policy changes that had to be made to render the final General Plan fully self-mitigating (except with respect to the handful of significant unavoidable effects of the Plan). To the extent that the 1996 Draft Policy Document was already largely self-mitigating, the RDEIR found no need to recommend new policies to address impacts already adequately addressed by the Draft Policy Document. Where relevant below, the mitigating policies already proposed in 1996 will be identified as having the effect of providing mitigation.

IV. BACKGROUND

In 1982, the City adopted an update to the 1975 General Plan; and in 1986 the City incorporated further minor revisions. By 1989, however, City leaders determined that a comprehensive General Plan update was desirable due to, among other things, conflicts created by several of the principal infill strategies in the 1982 Plan. Thus, in January 1990, City Staff published the "City


6

of Napa Futures Report," an initial analysis of baseline conditions. In 1991, the City Council initiated a community-based planning effort for Envision Napa 2020 by forming a 19-member Citizen's Advisory Committee ("CAC").

Beginning with an extensive review of issues affecting future growth and change, the CAC met during an 18-month period, and in July 1993 completed a Concept Report. During the summer and fall of that year, the City held a series of neighborhood and community meetings to obtain public comment on that document. Between November 1993 and March 1994, the City Council held a series of work sessions to discuss the land use alternatives and fundamental goals of the new General Plan. The Concept Report was revised to reflect community input and to incorporate the City Council's vision, and was finalized in March 1994. This document laid the foundation for the preparation of the draft General Plan documents.

Most of the major themes that resulted from the concept development process were consistent with those found in prior General Plans dating back to 1975, when the City established an urban-centered growth policy, adopted the RUL, and identified a greenbelt outside of the City.

Environmental Review Process

On October 4, 1996, after having previously issued a Draft Policy Document and Draft Background Report, the City released the Draft EIR for public review, thereby commencing a 45-day mandatory review period for the latter document, which was to end on November 18, 1996. In response to requests made at hearings on the Draft EIR held on October 17 and 24, 1996, the Planning Commission extended the review period to December 2,1996, resulting in a total public review period of 60 days. During that period, the Commission also held six study sessions on the General Plan Documents, all of which were noticed and open to the public.

On October 4, 1996, the City had sent copies of the Draft EIR and other Draft General Plan Documents to 30 organizations and local, state, and federal agencies, either directly or through the State Clearinghouse. The City had also provided additional document sets to local organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors, and had mailed a "Notice of Completion and Availability" of the Draft General Plan and DEW documents to 409 individuals who had requested written notice of General Plan availability and proceedings. In addition, at the City's request, the local newspaper had published a display advertisement notifying the public of document availability and of the public review and comment process. Copies of the Draft EIR and General Plan documents were also made available for review at the City of Napa Planning Department and at the City/County Library. Copies of all documents were also provided for check-out or purchase at the Planning Department.

On November 18, 1996, the City sent a notice of extension of the public review period to December 2, 1996, to all agencies and parties previously noticed, and published in the local newspaper another display advertisement regarding the extension. On November 25, 1996, the City published in the newspaper still another notice regarding the availability of Addenda to the General Plan Policy Document, all of which had been distributed to the Commission and informally made available to the public in late October 1996. (Subsequently, the City released


7

additional Addenda and Errata in order to document corrections and new Staff-recommended revisions relating to the draft General Plan.)

By the close of the extended review period on December 2, 1996, the City had received 38 written communications. During the two public hearings on the Draft EIR held on October 17th and October 24th, the City received oral testimony from seven individuals. After the close of the public comment period on December 2nd, the City received three additional written communications. The communications and hearing record constituted a total of 344 separate comments. In light of the volume and content of these comments, the City decided to prepare a "Revised Draft EIR" ("RDEIR") in order (i) to expand the background information concerning several categories of impacts; (ii) to provide more detailed explanation of environmental conclusions; (iii) to reexamine findings of significance for several impacts; and (iv) to provide an opportunity for public comment on this additional information.

The Draft EIR was revised in the following ways:

1. The Draft EIR was expanded to include a verbatim copy and a summary of all comments received on the Draft General Plan and the Draft EIR during the public review period in the Fall of 1996, and to include detailed written responses to those comments.

2. The Project Description was revised as follows:

a. The proposed expanded RUL was adjusted to include a 5-acre parcel at the northeast corner of Trancas and Silverado Trail, and to designate the affected property TC - Tourist Commercial. The subject parcel has been within the City's boundaries since March 1973 and is inside the City's Sphere of Influence. (See Addendum #1.)

b. Land outside the proposed RUL was designated as "G" - Greenbelt. This modification represented a continuation of this designation in the existing General Plan. (See Addendum #2.)

c. The proposed General Plan was revised to reflect the City's October 1996 adoption of the Big Ranch Specific Plan. These changes involved land use designations, circulation adjustments, and minor text references to the status of the Big Ranch Specific Plan. (See Addendum #3.)

d. The Sousa Lane roadway connection was eliminated from the transportation project list. (See Addendum #4.)

3. The text of the Draft EIR was revised to add or correct descriptive information based on comments on the Draft EIR.

4. Significance criteria for some types of impacts were revised based on reconsideration and review of other related environmental documents.


8

5. Findings of significance for several types of impacts were revised based on reconsideration and review of other related environmental documents.

The RDEIR showed changes made to the October 1996 Draft EIR through underline and strike-out.

The RDEIR, along with the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, were subject to a 45-day noticed comment period from December 8, 1997, through January 21, 1998. The City sent document sets to various public agencies, both directly and through the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), according to the process previously used for circulation of the Draft EIR and Draft General Plan documents.

During this review period, the City received sixteen written communications containing a total of 72 individual comments on the RDEIR and Draft General Plan documents. The City prepared written responses to these comments, and on April 24, 1998, published a document entitled, "RDEIR Responses to Comments," which was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies and to the State Clearinghouse, according to the process used for the DEIR and RDEIR. On that same date, the City also issued a "Notice of Planning Commission Hearings on the Draft General Plan and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report and Response to Comments (draft Final EIR)." The City also mailed and published in the newspaper a "Notice of Availability of the RDEIR. Response to Comments" to individual citizens who had requested written notice of the General Plan availability and proceedings.

Reflecting the extensive environmental review described above, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for Envision Napa 2020 consists of the Revised Draft EIR and Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, both dated December 8 1997; the 1996 Draft Policy Document, dated August 16, 1996; the Draft Background Report for the General Plan, dated September 30, 1996; the Responses to Comments on the Revised Draft EIR, dated April 24, 1998; and the Addendum to the Final EIR, dated December 1, 1998. (See RDEIR, p. 1-2.)

The Final EIR evaluates the environmental effects associated with the adoption and implementation of the City's new General Plan. Adoption of the Plan, by itself, will not directly result in land development, additional traffic, loss of natural resources, or other impacts; however, the Plan, which will guide the City's future discretionary land use decisions, will enable such development or actions to occur over the next 20 years. The General Plan Final EIR is a "Program EIR" or "first tier EIR" because it evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a series of future actions based on an understanding of the overall setting in which the City is located. Because, unlike a project-specific EIR, the General Plan EIR does not document precise, location-specific impacts, the level of analysis is less detailed than would be expected in an EIR focused on an individual development project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15146.)

The Final EIR will provide baseline environmental information to be used in the future by the City when it makes future discretionary decisions that implement the policies and programs of

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City ofNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

9

the General Plan. In using the Final EIR in the future, the City may rely solely on the Final ElR or may prepare additional environmental documents, depending on the nature of the proposed activity, the level of site-specific information required for the decision in question, the form of the proposed approval, and the circumstances existing at the time of the proposed approval.

Plannin2 Commission Review, Hearin2s, and Recommendations

The Planning Commission held five study sessions from January to April 1998 to address key issues, and in doing so invited public participation in the discussion and development of a topic list for consideration during the hearings. On May 7, 8, and 9, 1998, the Commission held a noticed public hearing on the Draft General Plan and Draft Final EIR, the Zoning Crosswalk, and the Interim Administrative Policies, and took testimony from 63 speakers while continuing to accept written communication from the public. The Commission gave careful consideration to all of the issues raised during these study sessions and the public hearing at six subsequent special meetings held on May 28, 29, 30 and June 4, 25, and 26, 1998. The Commission continued to receive and consider written comments on the General Plan and Draft Final EIR, and included General Plan Communications # 1 through # 120 in the Planning Commission Record.

The Commission modified proposed policy text and implementation programs in the Draft General Plan in order to better achieve the vision articulated by the community and to respond to concerns about environmental impacts. The Commission concluded its deliberations on June 26, 1998, by recommending that the Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the General Plan with certain revisions. (Planning Commission Resolutions 98-068-CQ & 98-068-GP.)

On September 1, 1998, City Staff transmitted the following documents to the Council: a revised Draft Policy Document, reflecting the Planning Commission's June 26th recommendation; the Draft Final EIR; the General Plan Background Report; the Zoning Crosswalk and Interim Administrative Policies; and other items constituting the Planning Commission Record.

The Planning Commission's recommendations included the following key proposals to address environmental concerns raised in the EIR and public testimony and correspondence:

• The RUL line should not be moved to include the expansion areas proposed in the 1996 Draft General Plan, but instead should be maintained to remain as it appears in the 1986 General Plan.

• The new Plan should carry forward the SA-Study Area land use category from the 1982 General Plan and allow it to remain as the designation for the Stanly Ranch property, so that City decisionmakers could use the more detailed environmental information in the pending proposed specific plan and the accompanying project EIR to determine the most appropriate land use designations for this portion of the City's planning area.

• The new Plan should carry forward the Greenbelt designation from the 1982 General Plan for lands adjacent to the City but outside of the RUL, and should create a continuous


10

Greenbelt around the RUL by adding lands to the east and west of the City. (6/26/98 Planning Commission ("PC") Policy Document, pp. 1-1, 1-11, 1-31, Figure 1-16 (p. 1- 44).)

• In order to further conservation and resource protection goals, the Plan should include another land use category called "RA-Resource Area," to be applied to sensitive lands inside the RUL that require special standards due to viewshed, resource, habitat, geotechnical, or other considerations. The City should conduct a study of lands that may require special standards due to these environmental constraints, and should apply the RA designation where appropriate. As proposed by the Planning Commission, the designation would allow up to one dwelling unit per existing parcel. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, pp. 1-24 (LU-10.A, LU-10.B), 1-30.)

The Council should enhance Open Space policy language throughout the text of the General Plan in order to clarify the City's desire to coordinate open space objectives with the protection of resources, the preservation of agricultural land outside the RUL, the maintenance of outdoor recreation areas, and the furtherance of public safety with respect to seismic, flood, fire, and other risks. The Council should also strengthen references to the Open Space Action Program. (Appendix F of the Policy Document.)

• The Council should add to the Land Use Element a "Napa River" section that includes policies recognizing the considerations identified and created by the Napa River Flood Management Project, and committing the City to strengthening watershed protections in making future decisions. (Goal LU-9 and related policies in 6/26/98 PC Policy Document.)

• The Council should adopt revisions to policies in the Community Service Element to specify how the City will implement the Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements for storm water run-off (Implementation Program CS-11.A.)

• The Council should revise policies in the Natural Resource Element to support the use of the Napa County Resource Conservation District "Owners Manual" as a valuable educational resource to guide the design of project grading and drainage in sensitive areas. (NR-3.1)

• The Council should revise policies and implementation programs in the Natural Resource Element to encourage new development to protect and enhance on-site habitat; to incorporate such habitat into project design; and to use sensitive construction practices that minimize erosion, sedimentation, and damage to important features to be protected. (NR-1.6, NR-1.C, NR-1.E.)

• The Council should revise policy language and implementation programs in the Land Use Element to allow for further evaluation of City gateways and their location and components, and to support the preparation of guidelines for private and public development to protect scenic resources in gateway areas. (LU-1.A, LU-1.5.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovetriding Considerations City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

11

• The Council should strengthen the Plan by including language requiring the development of a program for the mitigation for tree removal in viewshed areas both during and after project development. (LU-10.C.)

• The Council should strengthen the language of various policies and programs in the Transportation Element in order to provide further support for non-automobile modes of transportation. (T-9.9, T-9.10, T-5.17, T-5.1, T-5.8.)

• The Council should add policies and implementation language to the Transportation Element in order to strengthen and clarify certain traffic mitigating policies and to address the potentially significant impact related to regional traffic. (Addenda #9 & #13, T-1.1, T-1.D, T-1.E, T-2.4, T-2.7.)

• The Council should revise certain policies and programs in the Land Use Element to protect neighborhoods from potentially harmful and incompatible land uses. (LU-4.C, LU-4.E, LU-4.D, LU-4.F.)

• The Council should add to the Community Services Element an implementation program that serves as a mitigation measure to reduce to a less than significant level impacts associated with new demands on wastewater treatment capacity. (Addendum #7 incorporated as Policy CS-10.3.)

The Council should add to the Community Services Element an implementation program to provide mitigation to reduce the severity of the potentially significant drought-year water supply impact identified in the RDEIR. (Addendum # 6 incorporated as Policy CS-9.3.)

• The Council should add to the Natural Resources Element policy language addressing the potentially significant impacts to endangered, threatened, and rare species. (RDEIR p. 14: Response to Comment 49.3; Addendum #12; NR-2.4, NR-2.A, NR-2.B.)

The Planning Commission recommended certification of the draft Final EIR and the incorporation of the recommended modifications to the General Plan Policy Document as mitigation measures. (See Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-068-CQ (June 26, 1998); Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-068-GP and attachments (June 26, 1998); Topic Matrix, Planning Commission Deliberation, City of Napa Draft General Plan; City of Napa, Council Agenda Summary Report, September 28, 1998, p. 3; Topic Matrix, City Council Deliberation, City of Napa Draft General Plan; Topic Matrix, City of Napa General Plan, October 13, 1998 City Council Deliberation and Direction to Staff)

City Council Hearings, Consideration, and Action

In a Study Session held on September 24, 1998, members of the Planning Commission discussed their recommendations with the City Council. On September 28 and 29, 1998, the Council held a noticed public hearing on the Draft General Plan, the Draft Final EIR, and the Zoning Crosswalk and Interim Administrative Policies, during which the Council heard testimony from


12

53 speakers. The Council then scheduled a meeting for October 13, 1998, for the commencement of its deliberation on the General Plan. The Council also directed Staff to organize the concerns presented in the oral and written comments into a Topic Matrix to help focus the Council's discussion.

On October 13, 1998, the Council deliberated over the issues presented, took tentative votes on numerous matters, and directed City Staff to prepare documents reflecting the Council's preliminary decisions regarding the draft Final EIR and the General Plan. The Council accepted the Planning Commission's recommendations to revise the Policy Document to provide for further environmental impact mitigation, and made the following additional revisions to address environmental concerns.

• The RA-Resource Area designation was revised to allow a maximum of one dwelling unit per 20 acres after discretionary review by the City.

• The RA-Resource Area designation was placed on the Napa Oaks property (Pod 123). Information included in the General Plan EIR and in studies prepared for previous project applications show that this hillside property has serious constraints to development due to slopes, significant stands of vegetation, habitat, seismic risks, water supply problems, and limited access. This hillside is an important viewshed for the City and is partially within the Cameros wine growing region.

• The Transportation Element was amended to include new language emphasizing the need to continue to monitor, study, and update transportation policies and implementation programs in order to address traffic impacts associated with ongoing development (T-1.G).

(Topic Matrix, City of Napa General Plan, October 13, 1998 City Council Deliberation and Direction to Staff; Minutes and Transcripts of City Council hearings and deliberations on September 28, 1998, September 29, 1998, and October 13, 1998; Written Communications submitted for Council consideration regarding the General Plan.)

On December 1, 1998, the City Council certified the Final EIR, adopted these Findings, and approved the City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020.

V. ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL EIR TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS ADOPTED

In letters dated October 6, 1998, and October 28, 1998, Attorney Marie A. Cooper, on behalf of Davidon Homes ("Davidon"), applicant for the proposed Napa Oaks residential development project, raised a number of issues associated with the City's decisions creating the "RA" designation and applying it to the Napa Oaks site. Of particular relevance to these Findings are three arguments she made in claiming that CEQA requires that the City analyze certain purported impacts of the General Plan before certifying the Final EIR and approving the General Plan.


13

First, she claimed that the City's decisions regarding the RA designation and the Napa Oaks property would have the effect of "diverting housing to other areas, both within and outside city limits," and that such effects must be analyzed. Second, she asserted that, "if the RA designation is encouraging agricultural uses of property, with its concomitant environmental impacts from pesticides and farm equipment, those impacts must also be evaluated." Third, Ms. Cooper also predicted that hypothetical future Council actions, taken after General Plan adoption, could apply the RA designation to other properties, thereby frustrating the City's obligations to make land available for its regional fair share of housing affordable to persons or families of various income levels. (Letter from Marie Cooper to City Council, October 6, 1998, p. 5.)

The City has the following responses to these claims. First of all, the City has addressed the issues raised by Ms. Cooper in the Addendum to the Final EIR, although City Staff reached conclusions with which the attorney may not agree. Although, for reasons discussed below, CEQA did not require the City to conduct such analysis, in that Ms. Cooper's arguments do not implicate any new or worsened significant environmental effects, Staff did make such an effort. (See Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 6-7, 8-9, 11-13.) Second, it is clear from Staff's analysis that the City's adoption of the RA designation and application of that designation to the Napa Oaks property is not a basis for "recirculating" some or all of the EIR for the General Plan. The Council's actions had the effect of rendering the General Plan more environmentally benign than the Plan as originally proposed, and did not create any new significant effects or substantially worsen any previously-identified environmental effects. (Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 8-9, 11- 12.)

The Addendum to the Final ElR concluded that (i) any potential environmental effects associated with the alleged "diversion" of future housing from the Napa Oaks site, where 85 units might have been built, to some other unnamed sites within or outside the City are either purely speculative or nonexistent; (ii) any impacts associated with possible future agricultural activities on the Napa Oaks property are also too speculative to predict, and by no means would necessarily be significant; (iii) the RA designation will require Davidon to obtain discretionary approval, with CEQA compliance, from the City prior to intensifying any agricultural activities on-site beyond the grazing currently occurring; (iv) other City policies, independent of the General Plan, will also give the City authority to limit agricultural activities that otherwise might lead to land use conflicts; (v) the application of the RA designation to the Napa Oaks property does not cause the City to fall short of meeting its "fair share" requirements in its Housing Element; and (vi) the prospect that the City Council, in the future, might apply the designation to other properties, and thereby thwart compliance with fair share obligations, is pure speculation unsupported by any pending proposal that could lead to such a result.

As the Addendum to the Final ER and other documents in the Record make clear, the City's actions creating the RA designation and applying it to the Napa Oaks site are consistent with one of the primary purposes of CEQA: to reduce the severity of environmental impacts from proposed projects. In addition, as the discussion set forth below will demonstrate, the City's actions did not trigger the duty to recirculate any portion of the General Plan EIR.


14

"It is state policy in California that 'the long-term protection of the environment. . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." (Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 112 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 612], quoting Pub. Resources Code, § 21001, subd. (d).) "In enacting CEQA, the Legislature declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 105, 112 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 580].) Among the specific goals and objectives articulated by the Legislature are "to maintain a quality environment for the people of California"; "to demonstrate that every citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation of the environment"; "to take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental quality of California"; "to provide the people of the state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise"; and "to require governmental agencies at all levels to develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality." (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, 21001.)

The CEQA process "is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650], quoting County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199 [139 Cal.Rptr. 396].) As the California Supreme Court has explained,

"CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process.' [Citation.] In short, a project must be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification during the CEQA process."

(Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association (1986) 42 Ca1.3d 929, 936 [231 Cal.Rptr. 748] (emphasis added).)

Thus, the CEQA process is intended to generate project changes made for purposes of environmental protection — which is exactly what has happened here with the City Council's actions creating the RA designation and applying it to the Napa Oaks site.

It is clear, moreover, that these benign changes to the General Plan can be addressed in an Addendum to the Final EIR, which does not require formal public review. "[T]he Legislature did not intend to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs. Recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule." (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights II") (1993) 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1132 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 231].)


15

Under CEQA, "[a] lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR" only "when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review . . . but before certification." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (a) (emphasis added); see Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1.) "Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (b).) "New information added to an EIR is not 'significant," moreover, "unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5, subd. (a).)

CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, subdivision (a), sets forth the only four recognized examples of "significant new information" requiring recirculation. That obligation is prompted by information showing that:

"(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded."

As is clear both from the general statement of the rule governing recirculation and from the four examples provided above, recirculation is typically not triggered where a project is modified in a manner that makes it more benign from an environmental standpoint. A contrary approach would give agencies a counterproductive disincentive against responding to public input favoring project changes that mitigate environmental effects. (See State of California v. Block (9 th Cir. 1982) 690 F.2d 753, 771 (coming to same conclusion under analogous provisions of federal law).) Thus, as is evident from the third example of "significant new information" shown above, a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure only triggers recirculation where it is "considerably different" from previously-identified alternatives or mitigation measures and it is rejected by the project proponent. Here, because the City Council has opted to include the RA designation within the Plan, and to apply it to the Napa Oaks property, the change would not require recirculation even if it represented a new alternative or an approach to mitigation considerably different from those addressed earlier. In any event, the Council concludes it is not very different from the approach to mitigation embodied in the maintenance of the RUL as a growth boundary.

Findings ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

City ofNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

16

The Record is clear that the RA designation is intended to function as a means of avoiding environmental effects that would otherwise occur, as is evident from its definition:

"This designation is applied to sensitive lands inside the RUL that require special standards due to viewshed, resource, habitat, geotechnical or other considerations that further the conservation and resource protection goals of the General Plan. Limited, very low density residential use (up to 1 home per existing parcel) is permitted, with discretionary review of the site development details. Other low intensity uses, such as rural residential (to a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres) or agriculture, may be considered at the discretion of the City on a case by case basis. All uses will be assessed to determine if they will impact or change the underlying character or feature that is intended for preservation by the RA designation."

As is clear from those portions of the Record in which the Planning Commission and City Council heard testimony regarding, and then discussed, the merits of creating the RA designation and applying it to the Napa Oaks property, clear environmental benefits will result from the use of that designation, particularly as applied to that particular property. (See, e.g., Planning Commission minutes for meetings of May 30, 1998 (p. 2), June 4, 1998 (p. 2), June 26, 1998 (p. 6); Addendum to Final E1R, pp. 8-9, 11-12; Letter from Linda Emerson to Thomas B. Brown, pp. 1-2 (October 6, 1998).) Nothing in these documents indicates that, by imposing the RA designation on the Napa Oaks site, the City Council thereby intended Davidon to undertake any kind of agricultural activity. In fact, the definition of RA was framed in a manner that permits City control over any attempt to conduct new or expanded agricultural activities on the site. (Planning Commission minutes for meetings of May 30, 1998 (p. 2); 6/26/98 PC Policy Document, pp. 1-30; Addendum to Final EIR, p. 13.)

The Napa Oaks site is located on a visually prominent ridgeline west of Highway 29. Many of its slopes are quite steep (30 percent incline or greater); and it includes substantial amounts of oak woodland habitat. An initial study prepared for the landowners' pending project application describes the subject property as follows:

"The site is atop of a ridgeline within the western boundary of the City of Napa adjacent to the Rural Urban Limit (RUL), a line designating the maximum extent of physical growth of the City. The hillside topography rises from 70 feet above sea level to four knolls separated by small valleys up to 336 feet in elevation. Vegetation is grassland interspersed with stands of trees, primarily oaks. Hillside slopes are extremely variable, with about 40% of the site having slopes of 9-15%, about 30% of the site having slopes ranging from 15-30%, and the remainder having slopes steeper than 30%. Geotechnical analysis has found areas of landsliding and potential slope instability, and fault traces through the site which may be related to the West Napa Fault Zone. The site drains to five drainage basins: Old Sonoma Road, Casswall Street, Raynes Pond, Raynes Creek, and Congress Valley Creek. The site has been used for grazing cattle."


17

(Environmental Checklist and Initial Study for Napa Oaks Subdivision, pp. 1, 2 (January 9, 1998).)

This Initial Study recommended an EIR for the proposal because it could cause a number of potentially significant effects on the environment. The document noted, for example, that "[d]ue to its hilltop location the project may have significant visual and aesthetic impacts." (Id. at p. 16.) In addition, "[t]he site contains extensive stands of native oaks"; and the City, like the State of California, has policies "recommend[ing] protecting oak woodlands as much as possible." (Id., p. 10.) The proposed project would cause some loss of these oaks, though the full extent would have to be determined through an EIR. (Ibid.) The EIR would also have to "address how the proposed project affects wildlife and wildlife corridors[.]" (Ibid.) Moreover, "[s]ite grading and construction have the potential to create additional wind or water erosion." (Id., p. 5.)

Notably, the Initial Study expressed the apprehension that new residents in the project area could be adversely affected by existing operations occurring outside the RUL. "The proposed project would place residences near ongoing vineyard operations. The proposed residences may be impacted by noise from farm operations leading to complaints and conflicts between the new residents and existing agricultural operations. This in turn can impact the continued viability of existing agricultural operations." (Id. at p. 12.) "Concern over potential impacts of the project related to grading, drainage, pesticide use complaints, noise, trespass, and water quality have been expressed in public meetings held previously[.]" (j . p. 4; see also Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 11-12.)

The City's concern about hillside development comes at a time when the County of Napa is addressing the same issue. The County Board of Supervisors is currently considering a General Plan amendment (#98-05) that, among other things, would subject hillside development, including the expansion or creation of vineyards, to more rigorous regulation than currently exists. (See Memorandum from Kevin Eberle, Planner III, to Conservation, Development and Planning Commission [of Napa County] (July 22, 1998) and Exhibit A attached thereto; Draft Negative Declaration for "County-Initiated General Plan Amendment #GPA 98-05.") Thus, both the City and the County, together taking a regional perspective, are moving on parallel tracks to protect the ridgelines of the Napa Valley as important visual and natural resources for Valley residents and California.

Ms. Cooper's suggestion that the RA designation will lead to new environmental impacts from "diverting housing to other areas" constitutes pure speculation, particularly insofar as she suggests that housing might occur in undeveloped areas that otherwise would remain pristine, and that such development would lead to "new significant effects" not disclosed in the EIR. In addition, she is too dramatic in implying that the regional housing market will suffer a noticeable change due to the potential lost prospect of the 85 upper-end housing units being proposed by Davidon. The General Plan as adopted leaves the City with more than sufficient land to accommodate its "fair share" of housing at various levels of affordability. Notably, the pending flood control project will open up for housing construction large new areas of Napa (much of it designated mixed use) previously unbuildable based on concerns about flooding. (See Addendum to Final EIR, p.6.)


18

In 1992, the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified that Napa's Housing Element satisfied state standards, including the requirement that Napa designate enough land to satisfy the City's "fair share" of regional housing needs for persons from various income groups. (General Plan, Background Report, p. 2-1; Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) The City has not updated the Housing Element as part of this General Plan update, but will do so by the year 2001. (Policy Document, p. 2-1; Addendum to Final ElR, p. 7.) Nothing in the new General Plan calls into question the validity of the current Housing Element or the City's ability to meet its fair share obligations. (See Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 6-7, 12-13.) Even under Davidon's pending project application, which would permit roughly one unit per acre, the City has never considered the Napa Oaks site, with its difficult terrain, as a possible location for housing affordable to persons of low, very low, or moderate income -- the primary intended beneficiaries of statutory housing element requirements. (Addendum to Final ElR, p. 13.) Flat property presents the best opportunity for building housing with a minimum of added costs. (Id., pp. 12, 13.) Nor is there any shortfall within Napa of the kind of high-end housing proposed by Davidon.

Case law is also instructive with respect to Davidon's claim that applying the RA designation to its property will somehow lead to environmental impacts on other, unspecified properties. In Mann Municipal Water District v. KG Land Corporation California (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1660-1663 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 767], the Court of Appeal upheld an EIR's analysis of the environmental impacts associated with a moratorium on new water connections in Mann County pending the creation of new water supplies. In rejecting the petitioner's claim that the EIR should have identified the specific areas to which growth would be directed (since it would not occur in Mann County), the Court noted that the document properly concluded that any attempt to identify such areas with specificity would be speculative. The Court also emphasized that any physical development resulting from such pressures would require CEQA analysis by whatever lead agency received applications from interested developers.

These same considerations apply with equal force to Napa's decisions to create the RA designation and to apply it to the Napa Oaks property. Stated another way, the alleged secondary environmental effects posited by Davidon's attorney are not "reasonably foreseeable." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15358, subd. (a)(2).) The imposition of the RA designation on the Napa Oaks property will not create a shortfall of land authorized for residential development within Napa. Rather, the City has identified plenty of land to satisfy its fair share obligation and to absorb foreseeable market demand for the kind of housing proposed by Davidon, as well as for other housing types. (See Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 12-13.)

This same reasoning applies with respect to future agricultural activities that might occur or continue due to particular landowners' inability to gain dense development approvals on land designated RA. Nothing in the RA designation either encourages an intensive agricultural use of the Davidon property or makes such a use reasonably foreseeable. As noted earlier, the property is currently used for grazing -- a low-impact activity. To the extent that existing grazing is causing any level of environmental effect, these activities, and their impacts, are part of the "existing environment," and thus cannot be treated as a consequence of the General Plan. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15125 (environmental setting); Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 352-354 [182 Cal.Rptr. 317].)


19

The language describing the potentially permissible uses on land designated RA makes it clear that any attempt by Davidon to expand or alter agricultural operations on the site will trigger discretionary review by the City, subject to CEQA compliance:

"low intensity uses, such as. . . agriculture, may be considered at the discretion of the City on a case by case basis. All uses will be assessed to determine if they will impact or change the underlying character or feature that is intended for preservation by the RA designation."

General Plan Implementation Program LU-10.B makes it clear that discretionary review will take the form of City consideration of proposed conditional use permits. This Program provides as follows:

"The City shall revise the Zoning Designation of 'AR — Agricultural Residential District' (NMC § 17.10) by renaming it 'AR-Agricultural - Resource District' to more closely reflect the RA General Plan designation; and, by requiring a Conditional Use Permit for all uses (except one single family residence on a parcel), with a list of considerations that reflect the Resource, Conservation and Health and Safety purposes of the General Plan."

As these provisions make clear, any attempt by Davidon to propose agriculture activities requiring pesticide usage or heavy farm equipment would trigger careful City review that might result in denial of a proposed conditional use permit or the imposition on such an entitlement of mitigation measures protecting the nearest residential uses from adverse environmental impacts. (See also Addendum to Final EIR, p. 13.) Alternatively, Davidon could propose low-intensity agricultural operations that, with or without mitigation measures required by the City, will avoid the potential for conflicts between agricultural operations and other land uses.

A number of existing provisions of the City Code will also allow the Council, in reviewing proposals for land uses on the Napa Oaks property, to protect the interests of persons who might be adversely affected by intensive agriculture. For example, within Chapter 17.10 of the Municipal Code, which governs the AR Zoning District, section 17.10.050 sets forth development standards, including setbacks for buildings and structures. Section 17.10.060 establishes additional standards and requirements for land uses, and refers to Chapter 17.80 for requirements governing stream bank stabilization and erosion control. Chapter 17.60 of the City Code will also provide environmental protection. Section 17.60.030 includes specific regulations for erosion hazard areas. Section 17.70.090 sets forth regulations to minimize the conflict between agricultural and urban residential uses, "thereby protecting the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the city[.]" Requirements include setbacks, restrictions/protections from noise, the need for new lots be subject to recorded notice of the "right to farm" possessed by nearby agricultural properties, site design to minimize conflicts, and an agricultural buffer plan. (See also Addendum to Final EIR, p. 13.)


20

As the above-quoted Initial Study reveals, development at the levels proposed by Davidon, by introducing 85 homes near vineyards just outside the RUL, may create more potential for land use conflict than could occur with regulated agriculture permitted under the RA designation. The City Council, moreover, finds noteworthy the fact that Ms. Cooper herself asserted that "[t]here is no evidence that Davidon's property is suitable for any kind of economically viable agricultural use." (Letter from Marie Cooper to City Council, October 6, 1998, p. 7.) Thus, in the same letter, Davidon's agent inconsistently asserts that agricultural activities, with "impacts from pesticides and farm equipment," are both a foreseeable and an unlikely consequence of the City's action. Current grazing operations do not involve such impacts; and Ms. Cooper suggests that more ambitious kinds of agricultural activities are not viable for her client.

The City rejects her suggestion, moreover, that the densities permitted under the RA designation will not constitute an economically viable use of the property. The RA designation allows one unit per twenty acres. This density would permit four very expensive homes on the 80-acre property, which would be more than sufficient to allow a reasonable use of the property. (See 1-1FH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Ca1.3d 508 [125 Cal.Rptr. 365].) Estate lots of this size, particularly with hillside views and urban services, are rare in the Napa Valley, and could fetch very high prices in the real estate market. (Addendum to Final EIR, p. 12.) Moreover, Davidon could also continue grazing some or all of the site. Nor does the placement of the RA designation on that property permanently foreclose the possibility of a future General Plan amendment if Davidon can show in the future that, absent such an amendment, no reasonable use of the property is possible. (See Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Ca1.3d 110, 118 [109 Cal.Rptr. 799] (a General Plan is "by its very nature merely tentative and subject to change").)

Notably, even without the General Plan RA designation, the Napa Oaks site would remain subject to the existing Hillside Development ("HS") Overlay zone, which will remain in place under the new General Plan. That designation currently allows Davidon the right to one dwelling unit for the property, with any additional units being permitted only with the issuance of a use permit. (Napa Municipal Code ch. 17.54; City of Napa Zoning Map for Assessor's Parcels 043-040-08 and 043-040-25; Addendum to Final EIR, p. 12.) Thus, even without the new RA designation, the City would retain discretion to deny Davidon's request for more than one residential unit for its property. In other words, the application of the RA designation does not change the fact that Davidon previously had no firm basis for assuming an ability to develop the 85 units it has proposed.

On the question of whether Davidon is legally entitled to densities greater than those permitted under the RA designation, the City Council finds persuasive the reasoning set forth by Attorney Linda Emerson in two letters written on behalf of Napa residents who favored the application of the RA designation to the Napa Oaks property. (See Letter from Linda Emerson to Thomas B. Brown, October 12, 1998; Letter from Linda Emerson to Thomas B. Brown, November 6, 1998.) For example, Ms. Emerson correctly notes that Davidon did not derive any vested rights from either the former General Plan designation for the property, the existing zoning, or the designation proposed in the Draft General Plan. (See 10/13/98 Emerson letter, p. 2, citing Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 785, 793 [132 Cal.Rptr. 386].) She is also correct that Davidon's speculative investments in reliance on

Findings ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

21

existing designations also fail to establish a vested right. (Anderson v. City Council (1964) 299 Cal.App.2d 79, 88-90 [40 Cal.Rptr. 41].) Ms. Emerson also appropriately notes that there is nothing arbitrary, capricious, or irrational about applying to a ridgeline property a designation intended to prevent harm to that resource. (See 10/13/98 Emerson letter, p. 5, citing Anderson, supra, 299 Cal.App.2d at pp. 90-91 and Dore v. County of Ventura (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 320, 330 [28 Cal.Rptr.2d 299].) Finally, the Council agrees with Ms. Emerson that, contrary to assertions made by Ms. Cooper, the City's actions are not prohibited by Government Code sections 65589.5 or 66474.2, and do not constitute a "taking." (See 10/13/98 Emerson letter, pp. 5-6, 7.)

Nor was the City required to recirculate its EIR due to any information revealed for the first time in the Responses to Comments on the RDEIR or in the Addendum to the Final EIR. In Laurel Heights II, supra, 6 Ca1.4th at pp. 1128-1129, the California Supreme Court concluded that even very voluminous information generated in response to written comments on a draft EIR should generally not trigger recirculation. The lead agency's disclosure of new information and analysis within a Final EIR is contemplated as part of the normal CEQA process, in which, as noted earlier, "Necirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule."

Nor is recirculation triggered where a lead agency, in a Final EIR, decides to adopt a more conservative approach to the characterization of certain impacts, provided that such a change is not the result of any "significant new information." Thus, the City's cautious decision to acknowledge potentially significant effects on rare, threatened, or endangered species (Biological Resources Impact # 1) did not require the City to recirculate the EIR.

City Staff initially proposed this change in the response to comment 49.2E on the RDEIR, and made the change public on April 24, 1998. (RDEIR, Response to Comment, p. 14.) At the same time, Staff prepared an "Addendum" presenting the issue to the Planning Commission. (See Addendum #12, "General Plan Policy Document and Final Environmental Impact Report: Endangered Species" (April 24, 1998).) On June 4, 1998, the Commission accepted Staffs recommendation, and at the same time amended the proposed Policy Document to include new language, proposed by Staff, strengthening the Plan with respect to impacts on endangered, threatened, and rare species. (Planning Commission Resolution 98-068-GP, p. 13 (item 58), and Addendum 12 attached thereto; Topic Matrix, Planning Commission Formal Recommendations, p. 31; Planning Commission Minutes for June 4, 1998, p. 10; Topic Matrix, City Council Deliberation, City of Napa Draft General Plan, p. 9; 6/26/98 PC Policy Document, pp. 7-6 - 7-7.) Thereafter, on October 13, 1998, the City Council agreed to accept the Commission's recommendation. (Topic Matrix, City of Napa General Plan, October 13, 1998, City Council Deliberation and Direction to Staff, p. 9.) The Addendum to the Final EIR contained still more information on this issue. (Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 11, 14.)

By statute, recirculation is only triggered by the existence of "significant new information." (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092.1 (emphasis added).) Such information must involve new


22

substantive data or analysis, not just a decision to err on the side of treating a previously-identified impact as significant rather than less than significant. CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 states that "the term 'information' can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information." This definitional statement reveals that a mere change in impact characterization, without more, is not enough to require recirculation. (See also Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (e) (" [s]tatements in an [EIR] . . . shall not be deemed determinative of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment"); Environmental Council of Sacramento v. Board of Supervisors ("ECOS") (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 428, 437-439 [185 Cal.Rptr. 363] (lead agency decisionmakers are not bound by agency staff's views regarding the significance of environmental impacts).)

With respect to the change of characterization for impacts on endangered, threatened, and rare species, the City's change in approach was revealed on April 24, 1998, more than seven months prior to the Council's action certifying the Final EIR on December 1, 1998. In light of the fact that, during this interim period, both the Commission and Council held numerous hearings on the General Plan, and the City was able to receive written correspondence, no interested citizen could claim any prejudice simply because the City did not reveal its new conclusion in a document formally circulated for public review and comment.

VI. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings (or "Administrative Record") of the City Council shall include, at a minimum, the following documents:

• The City of Napa Futures Report (1990) and the General Plan Concept Report (1994);

• The 1996 Draft Policy Document and Background Report for Envision Napa 2020, the City of Napa Draft General Plan;

• The June 6, 1998, Draft Policy Document as revised to reflect the Planning Commission recommendation;

• The Draft EIR dated October 1, 1996;

• The Draft EIR Response to Comments dated December 8, 1997;

• The Revised Draft EIR dated December 8, 1997;

• The Revised DEER Response to Comments dated April 24, 1998; the Draft Final EIR, dated June 26, 1998;

• The Addendum to the Final EIR, dated December 1, 1998;

• The Final EIR as certified by the City Council;


23

• All nondraft and/or nonconfidential reports and memoranda regarding the General Plan prepared by City staff and the City's consultants;

• Minutes, tapes, and/or verbatim transcripts of the discussions regarding the General Plan and/or General Plan EIR at public hearings or meetings held by the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), the Planning Commission, and the City Council (transcripts should be prepared when possible, as they are better evidence than minutes and more easily used than tapes);

• Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at the public hearings and public meetings on the General Plan;

• All documents specifically referenced or relied on in the Draft and Final EIRs for the General Plan, including all documents listed in Section 6 ("References") of the Revised Draft EIR;

• The General Plan Policy Document, Background Report, and Land Use Maps in their final forms as adopted;

• The Water System Optimization and Master Plan (November 18, 1997), and the Draft and Final EIRs prepared for that plan;

• Water Supply Contract between the State of California, Department of Water Resources, and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (December 19, 1963);

• Contract for Water Supply from North Bay Aqueduct Between Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and City of Napa (April 5, 1966);

• Amendment No. 1 to Water Supply Contract, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City of Napa (December 21, 1982);

• Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the State Drought Water Bank (January 1993);

• Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the State Drought Water Bank (November 1993);

• Draft Environmental Impact Report for Implementation of the Monterey Agreement (May 1995);

• Monterey Amendment White Paper (September 28, 1995, redraft);

• Final Environmental Impact Report for Implementation of the Monterey Agreement (October 1995);


24

▪ Pre-Feasibility Report, American Basin Conjunctive Use Project (February 1995);

• Feasibility Report, American Basin Conjunctive Use Project, Memorandum Report (July 1997);

• Pilot Program Agreement for the Feasibility Study of the American Basin Project Between the State of California, Department of Water Resources, and Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (May 1, 1997);

• Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program (December 1996);

• Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the State Water Project Supplemental Water Purchase Program, Appendix B: Description of Existing Environment (December 1996);

• Draft Amendment No. 2 to Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contract No. 1573 (Water Supply Contract with City of Napa);

• The full record of the Planning Commission with respect to its consideration of, and deliberations on, the proposed Envision Napa 2020 General Plan, including Planning Commission Resolutions 98-068-CQ and 98-068-GP;

• Policy Resolution No. 27 (November 21, 1995);

• Memorandum from Kevin Eberle, Planner III, to Conservation, Development and Planning Commission of Napa County (July 22, 1998) and Exhibit A attached thereto;

• Draft Negative Declaration for "County-Initiated General Plan Amendment #GPA 98- 05";

• Information in City of Napa Project File 92-116 (application not pursued), including information in Initial Study and Notice of Preparation prepared by the City of Napa and circulated in July 1993, with supporting technical information as follows:

• Geotechnical Report by Engco, Inc. (1989);

• Napa Oaks Project Tree Inventory by Evergreen (1989, updated 1992):

• Traffic Report by TJKM (1992);

* Traffic Impact Study for Napa Oaks by Pacific Traffic and Transportation Engineers (1994);

* Pumping Station Proposal (Napa Sanitation District) Technical Report and Supplement (1993);


25

* Drainage Study and Supplement by Chaudhary & Associates (1993);

* Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Study by Phoenix Geotechnical (1994);

* Fiscal Impact Analysis by Kreines & Kreines, Inc. (prepared for applicant) (1994);

* Phase One Environmental Site Assessment by Kreines & Kreines, Inc. (1994);

* Water System Supply Evaluation, Brown and Caldwell (1993); and

* Archaeological Resources Investigation by Chavez, David & Associates (1992).

• Information in City of Napa Project File 97-035, including information in the Initial Study, Notice of Preparation circulated on January 9, 1998 (SCH #98012049), and other background studies and reports (in addition to those from Project File # 92-116) used in preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR for the project (10/98), including the following:

* All studies and reports included in Napa Oaks Project File #92-116;

* ACC Environmental Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (August 1997);

* Hort Science, Inc., Tree Survey (October 1997);

* Zander Associates, Plan List & Biological Survey Reports (1997 & 1998);

* Phoenix Geotechnical Addendum to Preliminary Geotechnical Study (August 1998);

* Geotechnical review memorandum and letters: Miller Pacific (April 9, 1998, and May 7, 1998) and Michael J. Dwyer (May 6, 1998);

• Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above;

• Any and all nonprivileged documents within the City's files, in addition to those identified above, relating to any and all of the planning, environmental, and economic issues addressed in the General Plan, the Final EIR for the Plan, and testimony and written correspondence received by the City regarding the General Plan and EIR;

• Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e); and

• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to:


26

* the 1982 City of Napa General Plan, as updated in 1986 (including Land Use Maps);

* the 1991 Housing Element for the Napa City General Plan and the documents associated with the certification of that element by the Department of Housing and Community Development in 1992;

* the City of Napa Zoning Code (including Zoning Maps);

* the Big Ranch Specific Plan (and the Draft and Final EIRs for that plan);

* the Napa County General Plan;

* the Napa County Integrated Waste Management Plan (July 23, 1997);

* all other policies, ordinances, and resolutions formally adopted by the City that are relevant to the formulation, review, and implementation of the General Plan; and

* federal and state laws and regulations relevant to the formulation, review, and implementation of the General Plan.

The custodian of the materials constituting the Record of Proceedings is City Clerk Pamyla Means. Her address is 955 School Street, Napa, CA 94559.

The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020, even if not every document was formally presented to the Council or City Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of three categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the Council was aware in approving the City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020. (See City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominey v. Department of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729, 738, fn. 6 [252 Cal.Rptr. 620].) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the Council. Still other documents (e.g., those relating to past and pending development proposals for the Napa Oaks site) were reviewed by interested citizens, who thereafter communicated to the City on the subject matter of those documents. City Staff was also familiar with this last category of documents. For all of these reasons, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the Council's decisions relating to the adoption of City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21167.6, subd. (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852, 866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].)


27

VII. FINDINGS REOUIRED UNDER CEOA

Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects."

The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[c]hanges 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." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch 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." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific 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." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).)

Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines section 15364 adds another factor: "legal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors ("Goleta H") (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal.Rptr. 410].)

The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal.Rptr. 898].) "[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182].)


28

The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, 21002.)

For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question (e.g., the "regional traffic problem") less than significant.

Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these Findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than significant level (avoided), or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.

Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these Findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR.

As explained above, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a) , (b).)

As the Findings will explain in detail in Section X below, the City's new General Plan, even after adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, will cause or contribute to four significant, unavoidable environmental effects:

• Prime agricultural soils within the City's RUL would be converted to urban uses (Significant - RDE1R, pp. 3.2-5 — 3.2-7);


29

The SR 221 — SR 29 intersection would continue to operate at Level of Service F, largely due to cross-county traffic between Solano and Sonoma Counties (Significant). In addition, the uncertainty associated with future funding for transportation improvements, combined with City trips that impact roadways outside the City limits, may create potentially significant impacts (Potentially Significant) (RDEIR, pp. 3.3-8 — 3.3-11);

Water demand could exceed the City of Napa's water supply during drought years. (Potentially Significant — RDEIR, pp. 3.4-6 — 3.4-12); and

Future development permitted under the General Plan could cause the loss of habitat or reduced number for endangered, threatened, and rare species of animals and plants (Significant — RDEIR, pp. 3.7-7 — 3.7-9, RDEIR Response to Comments page 14, Planning Commission Resolutions 98-068-CQ & 98-068-GP; Addendum to the Final EIR, p. 14).

In Section XI, the City addresses whether any alternatives to the Project are environmentally superior with respect to those four effects. As the discussion in that section will demonstrate, the Plan as adopted, compared with the alternatives, is not only more effective in meeting the City's project objectives; it is also either environmentally superior or equivalent with respect to the four unavoidable significant effects. Furthermore, all of the unavoidable impacts set forth above have been substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Thus, the City has completely satisfied its CEQA obligations by incorporating feasible mitigation measures into the Plan in its final form.

CEQA generally provides that, where an agency wants to approve a project for which significant impacts cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially lessened through the adoption of mitigation measures or through the approval of an environmentally superior alternative, the agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a "statement of overriding considerations" setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) Consistent with this approach, the California Supreme Court has stated that, "Wile wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Ca1.3d at p. 576.)

Section XII of these Findings is the City's Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan. This Statement identifies the numerous environmental, social, planning, and economic benefits that justify the City Council's action in approving Envision Napa 2020.


30

VIII. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS

To the extent that these Findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Revised Draft EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City intends to bind itself to implement those measures, which have been directly integrated into the General Plan as policies within the Plan.

IX. MITIGATION MEASURES/MITIGATION MONITORING

As noted earlier, CEQA requires that, where a proposed project would cause significant environmental effects, a lead agency is required to adopt feasible mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. Where a project is a specific development proposal for a particular piece of land, mitigation measures typically take the form of conditions of approval or the equivalent thereof. Where the project is a plan, however, such an approach presents conceptual and practical difficulties. Planning documents typically relate to numerous pieces of property, which must receive additional approvals or entitlements before actual development can commence. Thus, the Legislature, the Resources Agency, the courts, and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research ("OPR") permit lead agencies, when approving plans affecting numerous properties, to integrate the "mitigation measures" and mitigation monitoring provisions for such plans directly into the plan policies themselves. Such an approach avoids confusion by allowing a single planning document (e.g., a general plan) to function as a stand-alone document.

Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (b), states that:

"[c]onditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design."

The result of this approach is what is commonly known as a "self-mitigating" plan. As noted earlier, the newly-adopted Napa General Plan contains policies and implementation programs that will function as mitigation measures for significant environmental effects that may result from future development permitted by the General Plan. Mitigation measures will be implemented when the City applies these policies to individual public and private development projects and other activities over the 20-year term of the General Plan.

In its final form, the General Plan has been modified to include the mitigation measures proposed in the Revised Draft E1R, which was prepared in reaction to the original Draft Policy Document published in 1996. Where relevant, these policies will be applied to individual development approvals and other project decisions to ensure that the significant environmental effects of such actions are mitigated to the extent feasible. The only exception to this approach occurs with


31

respect to those measures already required either by Policy Resolution Number 27, which sets forth standard mitigation measures required of all new development in Napa, or by existing provisions of the City Code. (A copy of Policy Resolution No. 27 can be found as Appendix B to the General Plan EIR.)

Building on the concept that mitigation measures can be incorporated into a planning document, both case law and recently-adopted revisions to the CEQA Guidelines have extended this approach to mitigation monitoring. In Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center v. County of Solano (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 351, 380-381, the Court held that the respondent agency had satisfied its mitigation monitoring obligations by adopting language within a hazardous waste management plan committing the agency to monitor the plan policies that function as mitigation measures. The Court explained that

"[t]he adequacy of a mitigation monitoring program, like a description of mitigation measures and project alternatives, must be assessed in accordance with the 'rule of reason,' which requires 'what is reasonably feasible.' [Citations.] Without approval of a particular site or facility, most identified mitigation measures are incapable of being presently monitored or reported, except to the extent of being included in the policies. . . stated in the Plan, which will be considered in any future. . . decisions [implementing the plan]."

In revisions formally approved on October 26, 1998, the CEQA Guidelines now provide that "[w]here the project at issue is the adoption of a general plan," "[t]he monitoring plan may consist of policies included in the plan-level documents. The annual report on general plan status required pursuant to the Government Code [§ 65400, subd. (b)] is one example of a reporting program for adoption of a city or county general plan." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097, subd. (b).) OPR expressed this same sentiment in the 1990 General Plan Guidelines (at page 160).

Consistent with these principles, the City is satisfying its monitoring obligations through the "Administration Element" (Chapter 9) of the General Plan. The policies in that Chapter require the City to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures (policies) throughout the term of the General plan. For example, Policy A-1.A reads as follows:

"The Planning Commission shall review the General Plan annually, focusing principally on actions undertaken in the previous year to carry out the implementation programs of the Plan. The Planning Commission's report to the City Council shall include, as the Commission deems appropriate, recommendations for amendments to the General Plan. This review shall also be used to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6 for a mitigation monitoring program for this General Plan."

(Italics in original.)

In addition to Policy A-1.1, Policy A-1.2 requires the City to conduct a major review and update of the General Plan every five years, and Policy A-1.3 requires the City to review and amend any


32

applicable ordinances and regulations to ensure that the implementation mechanisms of City government will be consistent with the policies of the General Plan.

The City will also use the application review process for individual projects as a means of complying with subdivision (a) of Public Resources Code section 21081.6. The City will determine the "completeness" of an application only after sufficient information has been submitted to show the applicant's intent to comply with all pertinent General Plan policies (or measures from Policy Resolution No. 27 or other City Code provisions) that have the effect of reducing the severity of the otherwise significant environmental impacts of development. The process of reviewing application materials will be the first step in "monitoring" the effectiveness of such policies.

The second step will occur when the City approves individual development applications or public works projects, or makes other decisions approving proposals defined as "projects" under CEQA. Prior to approving any such applications or projects, the City must determine that the proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan. Furthermore, as part of any discretionary project approval (with the possible exception of specific plans, into which monitoring obligations can be incorporated), the City will require a separate mitigation monitoring or reporting program that will ensure compliance with all adopted mitigation measures.

For all of these reasons, the City has concluded that the public interest is served by incorporating both mitigation measures and monitoring obligations directly into the General Plan. Under this approach, the General Plan will function as a single, user-friendly stand-alone document that embodies all of the mitigation obligations applicable at the General Plan level.

X. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The Revised Draft EIR and related documents identified a number of significant or potentially significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that, absent the adoption of new policies functioning as mitigation measures or the imposition of "standard mitigation measures" required via Policy Resolution No. 27 or City Code provisions, would occur with implementation of the General Plan.

As noted earlier, all but four of these significant or potentially significant effects -- drought year water supply, use of prime agricultural land, impacts on regional traffic, and potential impacts on endangered, threatened, and rare species -- can be, and are, fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures proposed in the Revised Draft and Final EIRs, and integrated into the final General Plan.

As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section XII, the City Council, exercising its legislative discretion, has decided that these unavoidable significant and potentially


33

significant effects are outweighed by specific overriding environmental, planning, economic, social, and other considerations associated with adoption of Envision Napa 2020.

This Section (X) presents the City's specific findings with respect to the significant and less than significant environmental effects that would occur, absent mitigation, with implementation of the General Plan,

A. LAND USE

Significance Criteria

The adoption and implementation of the General Plan would result in significant land use and planning impacts if the proposed uses:

substantially alter the type or intensity of land use on a proposed site, causing it to be incompatible with surrounding land uses or the overall character of the surrounding neighborhoods;

convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land; or

conflict with applicable, adopted environmental plans and goals.

(RDEIR, p. 3.2-3.)

Impact 1:

Future development in Napa will be compatible with existing development within the RUL. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.2-3.)

Finding:

Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (or "beneficial"). (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)

Explanation:

The policies and programs of Envision Napa 2020, the City of Napa General Plan, provide a framework for encouraging future development that will be compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods. One of the goals of the Land Use Element provides that new development be consistent with the City's character and urban form (Goal LU-4). To ensure compatible new and infill development in neighborhoods, the City has established density ranges and general neighborhood typologies that will require new development to be patterned on the character of the existing, surrounding neighborhood (LU-4.1, LU-4.5). Incompatible land uses that are not beneficial to neighborhood qualities would be targeted and addressed through available regulatory measures (LU-4.9). Commercial and Industrial uses will be appropriately


34

located and buffered so as to minimize impacts on residential neighborhoods and other sensitive office and commercial uses (LU-5.4, LU-5.6, LU-7.2, LU-7.4). (RDEIR, p. 3.2-4.)

In order to determine the best configuration of Land Use for the Stanly Ranch, the City has decided to carry forward the SA-Study Area land use category from the 1982 General Plan and allow it to remain as the designation for the Stanly Ranch, so that the more detailed environmental information in the pending specific plan and project EIR can be used to determine the most appropriate land use for this portion of the City's planning area. For the purposes of program level environmental analysis for the General Plan, a development potential "envelope" was assumed for the Stanly Ranch Planning Area. The combination of types and intensity of potential uses were used for traffic modeling and other environmental analysis purposes on a City-wide scale. (DEIR Response to Comments, p.10, "Stanly Ranch Standard Response"; Planning Commission Resolution 98-068-GP, p. 7; Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 1998, pp. 5-6; 6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-8; Topic Matrix, City of Napa Draft General Plan, October 13, 1998 City Council Deliberation & Direction to Staff, p. 3; minutes and transcripts of City Council meeting of October 13, 1998.)

With respect to the Napa Oaks property, which is designated RA, land use compatibility problems, as discussed earlier, will be avoided through the requirement that any expansion of agricultural activities on the property, beyond currently occurring grazing, will require approval by the City of a conditional use permit, which will allow the City to deny unreasonable proposals or to impose mitigation measures and conditions of approval that will prevent problems due to noise, pesticides, odors, and farm equipment. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, pp. 1-24 (Implementation Programs LU-10.A, LU-10.B), 1-30 (RA definition as proposed by Planning Commission); Topic Matrix, City of Napa General Plan, October 13, 1998, City Council Deliberation and Direction to Staff, p.2 (final definition for RA designation).)

Mitigation:

Adherence to above-referenced General Plan Policies.

Significance after Mitigation

Less than Significant. (RDEIR, p. 3.2-4.)

Impact 2: The continued support and maintenance of the RUL to define the City's urban growth boundaries will minimize disturbance to the region's rich natural resources. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.2-4.)

Finding:

Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant (or beneficial). (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)


35

Explanation:

The strong policies for confining urban development within the RUL have been carried forward from past Napa General Plans. For over 20 years, the long-standing policies of both the City and the County with regard to the RUL have proven effective in protecting the unincorporated agricultural and open space land around the City. Without strong policies to maintain this urban/rural boundary, urban development could extend outward and threaten the unique agricultural landscape of the Napa Valley. Goal LU-2 in the Land Use Element commits to maintaining the RUL and supporting Napa County's agricultural and other resource areas. Policies LU-2.1 and LU-2.2 provide support for this goal. Chapter 9 of the General Plan establishes policies regarding any future consideration to move the RUL, and provides specific, stringent criteria that must be satisfied before any such change can be approved. (RDEIR, p. 3.2-4.) The City Council has determined not to modify the RUL with the adoption of the General Plan, despite the fact that the 1996 Draft General Plan would have expanded the RUL to include 445 new acres ostensibly suitable for development. (RDEIR, pp. S-5, 2-4 - 2-5; Draft General Plan/Draft EIR Comments and Responses to Comments, pp. 5-8.) Although not needed to reduce any significant impacts identified in the EIR, the Council has added language to further enhance the mitigating effect of the confined urban development policies of the General Plan, so that the City will carry forward the Greenbelt designations from the 1982 General Plan and create a continuous Greenbelt around the RUL by designating land on the western edge of the RUL beyond Browns Valley and along the east boundary of the State Hospital property. These areas will add to the land already designated Greenbelt by the 1982 General Plan. (Addendum # 2; 6/26/98 PC Policy Document, pp. 1-1, 1-9, 1-11, 1-31, and Figure 1-16 on p. 1-42.)

Mitigation:


Significance


Impact 3: The General Plan will not induce sprawl or the premature conversion of agricultural land. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.2-5.)

Finding:

Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)

Explanation:

As noted repeatedly above, the City Council has decided not to adopt the proposed RUL expansion set forth in the 1996 Draft General Plan. (Planning Commission Resolution 98-068- GP, p. 4; compare 6/26/98 PC Policy Document, pp. 1-2, 1-3 to August 1996 Draft Policy


36

Document, p. 1-2 ; compare RDEIR, pp. S-5, 2-4 - 2-5, with Topic Matrix, City of Napa Draft General Plan, October 13, 1998 City Council Deliberation & Direction to Staff, p. 1.) The RUL has proven effective in confining urban development and protecting the unique agricultural and open space resources of the Napa Valley that give the City its identity and backdrop. There is no compelling reason or community-wide purpose in moving the RUL at this time. As previously explained, even without the expansion, the City has plenty of land available to meet its fair share of housing for persons of various income categories. (See Addendum to Final E1R, pp. 6-7, 12- 13.)

The draft General Plan (1996) proposed four areas where the RUL would be expanded, for a total of 445 acres. The City Council, though, has decided to maintain the current location of the RUL, and has chosen not to include the proposed expansion areas in the adopted General Plan. In addition, as was described above in the discussion of Impact 2, Chapter 9 of the General Plan establishes very stringent policies that will govern any future proposals to modify the RUL. These policies will likely make the approval of any such proposals very difficult for landowners to obtain. (RDEIR p. 3.2-5.)

Mitigation:

No mitigation beyond the policies embodied in Policy A-2.1 is necessary to render this impact less than significant. Policy A-2.1 will ensure that any expansion of the RUL will occur in a manner that complies with City and County goals and guidelines for environmental protection and growth management. (RDEIR, p. S-10.)



Impact 4: Development associated with the General Plan will result in the conversion of prime agricultural soils within the City's RUL to urban uses. (Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.2-5.)

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with loss of prime agricultural soils. No mitigation is available to render the effect less than significant. The effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The overall extent of the General Plan's effects on agricultural soils, however, has been significantly reduced by the City Council's decision not to expand the RUL.

Explanation:

The RUL has been effective for more than twenty years in protecting prime agricultural land and other important agricultural resources in the Napa Valley. Working with Napa County, which


37

applies agricultural land use designations to the vast majority of unincorporated agricultural property outside the RUL, the City has been able to avoid the urban and suburban sprawl phenomenon that has occurred in so many other regions within California.

Because, as discussed earlier, the City Council has rejected the proposal to expand the RUL to include 445 new acres, the new General Plan leaves in place RUL boundaries that have remained in effect since 1975, thereby significantly reducing the potential area of impact on agricultural soils. (See Goal LU-2 and the policies that follow; Goal LU-3 and the policies that follow; and Policy A-2.1.) In order to continue to protect the agricultural property outside the RUL while allowing some amount of additional growth, however, the City must permit new growth to occur within the area inside the RUL, most of which has been intended for development since 1975 or earlier.

As the RDEIR explained, a number of vacant and underused parcels currently devoted to agricultural and grazing purposes are located on the periphery of the City, though within the RUL. Smaller sites, generally less than one acre in size, are scattered throughout the City. Prime agricultural soils (rated as Class I and Class II soils by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service) are located throughout a large central portion of the RUL (see Figure NR-3 of the General plan Background Report). Based on the City's use of a significance threshold treating any conversion of prime agricultural land as a significant effect on the environment, the Council concludes that the development of parcels underlain by such soils, and particularly larger parcels, constitutes a significant effect on the environment. Under the rule of reason governing CEQA compliance generally, however, the conclusion that this impact was less than significant would have been equally supportable.

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation of this impact. The Council believes that the public interest is served by promoting infill development on land already served by existing infrastructure, rather than allowing new land development and the expansion of the urban area into valuable tracts of economically viable agricultural land. (See RDEIR pp. 3.2-6 & 3.2-7.)

Even while considering this impact significant, the Council nevertheless believes that, compared with the huge acreage within the Napa Valley being preserved by ongoing City and County policies, the loss of relatively small areas within the RUL, when viewed in context, is minimal, and is offset by the fact that, by focusing development within the RUL, the Plan protects significant tracts of agricultural and open space land outside the RUL from development and growth pressures.

Mitigation:

Adherence to above -referenced General Plan Policies.


Significant and Unavoidable. (RDEIR, pp. S-4, 3.2-5.)


38

Impact 5: The land uses authorized by the General Plan will accommodate a household population and workforce generally consistent with regional growth projections. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.2-7.)

Finding:

Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)

Explanation:

ABAG's Projections '96 for households and jobs in the City of Napa is consistent with the General Plan's projected growth in these sectors. The City estimated dwelling unit and job growth based on capacity and other limitations related to local policies and growth trends. (RDEIR pp 3.2-7 & 3.2-8; see also Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 6-7, 12-13 (decisions not to expand RUL and to impose RA designation on Napa Oaks property does not affect City's ability to meet its "fair share" requirements).)

Mitigation:

No Mitigation Measures are proposed or necessary.

Significance


Impact 6: The General Plan will generally be consistent with and reinforce the adopted environmental plans and goals of other local and regional jurisdictions. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.2-8.)

Finding:


Explanation:

By clearly defining the long-term urban growth boundary mutually accepted by the City and County, the RUL alleviates premature development pressures to convert unincorporated agricultural, watershed, or open space lands to urban uses, consistent with the policies of the County General Plan. The City's General Plan is also consistent with, and supportive of, the environmental policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The General Plan identifies areas that are subject to review by the Airport land Use Commission, and specifies the land use


39

limitations and criteria for development within these areas (Policies under Goal HS-6). (RDEIR p. 3.2-8.)

Mitigation:


Significance


B. TRANSPORTATION


Former CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (1), still in effect when the City approved the General Plan, suggests that significant impacts be identified when an increase in traffic is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. For purposes of the EIR, the following criteria were applied to define significant impacts:

For freeway mainline sections and freeway ramps, the threshold level used in this analysis is LOS E, consistent with the criteria used by the County Congestion Management Authority ("CMA"). Facilities under the jurisdiction of the CMA in the City of Napa are the State Highways (12, 29, 121, and 221) plus Trancas Street. If a segment drops below LOS E, it is considered a significant traffic impact.

The Draft General Plan established a minimum acceptable level of service for signalized intersections on arterial and collector streets at midrange LOS D. Midrange LOS D represents delays greater than 32.55 seconds per vehicle. Notably, for purposes of determining significance in the broader context of the General Plan, and in recognition of the need for some flexibility, 2020 LOS levels that are slightly higher than midrange D are considered to be mitigated. Midrange LOS E would be permitted in the following areas:

Downtown Napa within the area bounded by Soscol Avenue, First Street, California Boulevard, and Third Street;

Jefferson Street between Third Street and Old Sonoma Road; and

Silverado Trail between Soscol Avenue and First Street.

For unsignalized intersections, the minimum acceptable level of service recommended by the Draft Policy Document is midrange LOS E. Midrange LOS E for unsignalized intersections represents a reserve capacity of 49.5 vehicles per hour or greater, and is


40

considered restrictive for purposes of overall evaluation at the General Plan level. For purposes of EIR analysis, LOS F would therefore be considered significant. In the context of the General Plan, given the time frame and extent of variables, the prospect of "unacceptable" conditions at a single intersection does not constitute a significant impact at the overall project level; and

For transit and bicycle facilities, a significant effect would occur if General Plan proposals and policies thwarted or diminished access to transit service or bicycle routes, eliminated routes, or did not support use of these alternative modes of transportation.

(RDEIR, pp. 3.3-6 - 3.3-8.)

Impact 1:

Finding:

Intersections (e.g., SR 221 at SR 29) that operate at LOS F with no mitigation measures identified may create potentially significant impacts. In addition, the uncertainty associated with funding for transportation improvements, combined with City trips that impact roads and intersections outside the City limits, may create potentially significant traffic impacts. (Potentially Significant.) (RDE1R, p. 3.3-8.)

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with traffic impacts. Furthermore, potential means for mitigating the effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, which can and should take steps to mitigate the effect. No mitigation is available to render the effect less than significant. The effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable.

Explanation:

The combination of increased land use development and roadway system improvements proposed by the Napa General Plan would, for the most part, result in a transportation system operating within the criteria established by the General plan Policy Document. The Draft ElR found no significant traffic impacts; however, based on several comments on the Draft EIR and reconsideration, the City modified its findings of significance in the Revised Draft E1R to conclude as follows:

With the improvements recommended in the General Plan, all but one signalized intersection would operate within or very close to the established criteria. The single intersection that would not satisfy the criteria, SR 221 at SR 29, is currently already operating at LOS F. The City's contribution to the intersection with the new General Plan is minor, making this a cumulative condition. Factors that cause this impact to be beyond the City's ability to mitigate are: 1) The intersection is outside of the City limits and the City's jurisdiction; and 2) The primary cause of the impact is traffic passing through Napa County between Solano and Sonoma County. The City will continue to


41

participate in the Napa County Transportation Planning Agency ("TPA") and coordinate with Caltrans and other jurisdictions in an effort to address the traffic issues that occur on the 12/29 corridor, including the condition at the 221/29 intersection; but, because of the ongoing condition at this intersection, the impact has been characterized as a significant cumulative impact. (DEIR Response to Comments p. 15 and Revised Ent pp. 3.3-8 — 3.3-13.)

The City recognizes that the source of funding for all transportation projects that serve as mitigation measures in the General Plan is not guaranteed. Through its Capital Improvement Program, however, the City will endeavor to schedule and fund road improvement projects in response to the needs outlined in the policies, and to thereby adequately address the potential impacts related to future development. This commitment is found in Policy T-1.2 of the Transportation Element. Regardless of the City's commitment to implement the necessary road projects, however, the uncertainty of funding affects the feasibility of mitigation, causing the City to treat the cumulative impact at issue as being potentially significant. In order to clarify the commitment in Policy T-1.2, in response to this issue, an additional Implementation Program has been included in the Transportation Element as follows:

T-1.D The City shall continue to implement Resolution 89-362, which establishes a Street Improvement Fee for all new development within the City of Napa, to mitigate local and regional impacts. The City shall conduct a review to update and refine Resolution 89-362 as needed, to reflect current conditions and needs. Responsibility: Public Works Department and City Council. Time Frame: Ongoing.

In order to clarify the intent to continue to cooperate in addressing the future mitigation of regional traffic impacts, an additional Implementation Program has been included in the Transportation Element as follows:

T-1.E The City shall continue to participate as a cooperative member of the Congestion management Agency, or its successor, to coordinate local and regional transportation needs. Responsibility: Public Works and City Council. Time Frame: Ongoing.

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the further mitigation of this impact. The intersection at SR 221/SR 29 is currently already operating at LOS F; and the traffic analysis in the General Plan EIR demonstrates that the City's contribution to the intersection with the new General Plan is minor, making this a cumulative condition. This impact is beyond the City's ability to mitigate because it is outside of the City limits and the City's jurisdiction; and the primary impact is caused by traffic passing through Napa County between Solano and Sonoma County.

With regard to the uncertainty of funding for improvement projects, this circumstance affects the feasibility of mitigation and results in a potentially significant impact. The City will endeavor to schedule and fund road improvement project in response to the needs outlined in the General Plan, and to thereby adequately address the potential impacts related to future development. Resolution 89-362, which establishes a Street Improvement Fee for all new development in the City, includes a component that provides for funding the City's fair share of important


42

intersections improvements outside of the City such as 221/29. An implementation programs (T-1.D) is added to the Transportation Element to strengthen the commitment to implement necessary road projects and to update Resolution 89-362 as necessary in order to ensure the City's ability to participate in regional traffic improvements.

Mitigation:

• Implement major road improvements identified in Table 3.3-3 of the Draft EIR (please refer to section 3.3, Transportation). (T-1.3.)

• Pursue federal and state funding for roadway construction. (T-1.7.)

• Correct discontinuous arterial or collector streets. (T-1.9.)

• Amend the Capitol Improvement Program to identify selected streets and intersection improvements as priorities for funding. (Implementation Program T-1.A.)

• Pursue creation of street utility assessment district and update Street Improvement Fee Program to pay for roadway and intersection improvements. (Implementation Programs T-1.B and T-1.C.)

• Work with Caltrans to improve Trancas/Redwood and SR 29 and implement interim improvements while waiting for funding. (Implementation Program T-1.D.)

(RDEIR, pp. 3.3-8 - 3.3-11.)


Significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. S-11.)

Impact 2: The General Plan conforms to the Napa County Congestion Management Plan. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.3-14.)

Finding: Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)

Explanation:

The state mandate for a CMA was eliminated under state legislation signed by the Governor in 1997 (AB 2419). On June 17, 1998, the Napa County Congestion Management Agency transitioned into a Joint Powers Agency entitled the Napa County Transportation Planning Agency ("NCT'PA"). The NC'TPA is charged with the development of a Strategic Transportation Plan and Program for highways, streets and roads, transit, paratransit, and bike paths within the


43

Napa region. There is no longer a Napa County Congestion Management Plan or a requirement for conformance.

Mitigation:

No mitigation measures are proposed or required.

Significance

Less than significant. (RDEIR, p. 3.3-14.)

Impact 3: Implementation of policies and programs supporting alternative modes of transportation will result in the added benefit of reduced energy use, air emissions, and automobile congestion. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.3-14.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The General Plan encourages access to, and expansion of, public transit services and facilities, thereby enhancing mobility for local residents, employees, and commuters. Chapter 1 (Land Use) and Chapter 3 (Transportation) of the General Plan contain policies and implementation programs supporting the use of public transit services and facilities and alternative modes of transportation. The General Plan promotes mobility within the Napa Valley, and supports transit services to the City's major activity center, thereby alleviating local automobile congestion. To further these positive effects of transit, major new commercial projects will be required to be designed to support mass transit and alternative modes of transportation. (Policies LU-5.3, T-5.1, T-5.12, T-5.7, T-5.8, T-5.9 and T-5.10.) (RDEIR pp. 3.3-14 — 3.3-15.)

Mitigation:

Adherence to General Plan Polices referenced above.



Impact 4: In addition to reducing energy use, air emissions, and automobile congestion, General Plan policies relating to bicycle use will increase recreational opportunities for City residents and offer an alternative to the automobile. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.3-15.)


44

Finding:


Explanation:

The General Plan encourages bicycle use and provision of bicycle facilities. Policies and implementation programs supporting bicycle use, facilities, and safety are included in Chapter 1 (Land Use) and Chapter 3 (Transportation). New projects will be required to support and promote bicycle access, as well as other modes of transportation in site planning and design stages; and the City will continue to plan and develop bicycle routes and other facilities as part of its capital improvement program. (Policies LU-5.3, T-6.9, T-6.3, T-6.12.) (RDEIR p. 3.3-15.)

Mitigation:




Impact 5: The General Plan's emphasis on an interconnected, safe pedestrian network will have the beneficial effect of improving access to the City's major activity centers and offering Citywide recreational opportunities. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.3-15.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The General Plan supports appropriate pedestrian access in all new developments and the connection of City trails to regional trails (Policies T-9.1 & T-9.4). Pedestrian orientation of retail uses Downtown is encouraged, and pedestrian amenities are promoted (Policies T-9.5 & T-9.A). (RDEIR p. 3.3-15.)

Mitigation:

Adherence to the above-referenced General Plan Policies.


45

Significance


C. COMMUNITY SERVICES AND UTILITIES

Police and Fire Significance Criteria

Former Appendix G, subdivision (z), of the CEQA Guidelines, which remained in effect at the time of General Plan approval, suggests that the criteria for measuring the significance of effects on emergency services relate primarily to interference with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. For purposes of analysis in the General Plan EIR, the City determined that significant police and fire service impacts would result if the proposed project would result in emergency response times greater than five minutes. (RDEIR, p. 3.4-4.)

Impact 1: Development accommodated by the General Plan will increase the demand

for police services but will not adversely affect response times. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4-5.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Future development within the existing RUL will be readily served by the existing NPD beat structure and five-minute response time standard. The discussion in the EIR of increased demand for police services was addressed primarily to new development that would occur in the proposed RUL expansion areas, as shown in the 1996 Draft Policy Document. The City, however, has determined not to expand the RUL with Envision Napa 2020. Thus, the General Plan as adopted will have an even lesser effect on existing NPD operations than what was characterized as "insignificant" by the RDE1R. (RDEIR p. 3.4-5.)

Mitigation:

Policies within the General Plan require that the City endeavor to maintain a five-minute emergency response time to Priority I calls and continue community-oriented education and involvement programs. (CS-2.2 and CS-4.1.) (RDE1R, p. 3.4-6.)

Signcance after Mitigation

Less than Significant. (RDE1R, p. 3.4-5.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ciry ofNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

46

Impact 2: Development accommodated by the General Plan will increase the demand for firefighters and equipment, but is not expected to adversely affect emergency response times by Napa Fire Department personnel. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4 -6.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Development accommodated by the General Plan will result in an increased number of structures and population within the RUL, thereby increasing the number of calls for service and need for fire personnel. The expected increase in demand for services, however, will not adversely affect fire protection and emergency medical services, due to policies and implementation programs in the General Plan Policy Document. These policies serve to reduce potential impacts, and to provide for the adequate provision and administration of fire/emergency services commensurate with the development of the City. (Policies CS-5.1, CS-5.6, CS-5.8, CS-5.C.) These policies and measures are complemented by standard mitigation measures set forth in Policy Resolution No. 27, which requires adherence to the Uniform Fire Code and the Fire Department "Standard Requirements for Commercial/Residential Projects" and other provisions of the Municipal Code Sec. 15.78. (RDEIR p. 3.4-6.)

Mitigation:

• Taken together, the General Plan and Policy Resolution 27 will require that the City maintain adequate personnel, equipment, and fireflow throughout the community. (CS-5.1, CS--5.6, and Policy Resolution 27.)

• Continue mutual aid agreements with local and federal agencies. (CS-5.8.)

• Prepare a Fire Services Master Plan. (Implementation Program CS-5.C.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.4-6.)




4,7

Water Suvalv Sirnificance Criteria

A significant impact would occur if new development authorized by the General Plan increased water demand that exceeded the available existing or planned supply of the City of Napa Water System. (RDEIR, p. 3.4-4.)

Impact 3: Development accommodated by the General Plan could result in demand in excess of the City of Napa's water supply system during drought years. (Potentially Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4-6.)

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with water supply demand impacts. No mitigation is available in the short-term to render the effect less than significant. The effect therefore remains significant and unavoidable. If, as is expected, however, the City is able to accelerate the time line by which it can receive increased amounts of water from the State Water Project (SWP), the long-term impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Explanation:

Policies and programs in Chapter 4 (the Community Services Element) of the General Plan emphasize the continuation of water conservation programs, water demand management, and coordination with state and federal agencies (CS-9.1, CS-9.5, CS-9.6, CS-9.7, CS-9.8). In order to plan future and adequate water supply capacity and services to the City, the General Plan calls for the implementation of the Water System Optimization and Master Plan adopted in November 1997 (CS-9.A). (RDEIR, pp. 3.4-6 - 3.4-12.)

The City has sufficient water supplies during normal and wet years, as indicated in the Water System Optimization and Master Plan. During drought years, when water supplies from local sources are reduced and the City's State Water Project ("SWP") entitlements are cut back, the City may be faced with a deficit in water supplies. Based on past drought experience, the impact of this deficit is public inconvenience and minor loss of irrigated landscape. The potential reductions in supply from the SWP is the reason why the City faces the drought-ear water supply shortfalls. Since the City's SWP entitlement increases each year based on a schedule of entitlement build-up, the potential estimated deficit of 4,200 acre feet will diminish each year, and the City will have sufficient water supplies in both dry and normal years after the year 2012. A combination of programs for increasing water supply and/or acceleration of the City's entitlement from the SWP could be relied upon to provide for the projected drought year deficits; but, until the City is able to secure a certain and guaranteed water source during drought year conditions, there is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation, in the form of two additional policies (CS-9.2 & CS-9.3), has been added to the Community Services Element to address this impact. The new policies will require the City to

Findings of Fact and Statement of Considerations City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

48

monitor new water system hook-ups, and to pursue additional water supply options, including acceleration of the SWP entitlements. Even though the City believes that these policies will adequately address the potential impact, the City has determined that, since water supply is ultimately dependent on several factors of nature that are outside the control of the City and the State Department of Water Resources ("DWR"), drought year water supply remains uncertain for all water purveyors in California. Thus, this impact is still considered potentially significant, even after mitigation. Fortunately, preliminary indications are that the City will be successful in persuading DWR to accelerate the future increases in the City's entitlements under the S'WP. (See General Plan Communication # 125, Memorandum from Don Ridenhour to Deborah Faaborg, September 11, 1998, and attachments; Addendum to Final EIR, p. 11.) If the City is successful on this score, the long-term impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Mitigation:

• Implement water conservation programs. (CS-9.1 and Policy Resolution 27.)

• Monitor new water system hook-ups in order to improve reliability of drought year water supplies to existing and proposed developments. (CS-9.3.)

• Evaluate the feasibility of the use of reclaimed water. (CS-9.5.)

• Enable the SWP to meet its obligation to the City by establishing programs and projects with state and federal agencies. (CS-9.8.)

• Control urban development beyond the RUL. (CS-9.10.)

• Implement the Public Works Department's Water System Optimization and Master Plan. (Implementation Program CS-9A.)

(FtDEIR, pp. S-12, 3.4-7 - 3.4-12.)

Of particular significance is Policy CS-9.3, added by the Planning Commission and Council upon Staffs recommendation in the RDEIR. This Policy will ensure that, as new development is phased in, it does not occur at a rate that will prevent the City from providing adequate water supplies during droughts to all existing and future residents during droughts. In such conditions, the City's obligation is to ensure that people get enough water for the "health and safety needs," as opposed to less essential uses of water (e.g., watering lawns and sidewalks). Specifically, the Policy will require that, before the City issues building permits or similar ministerial entitlements for structures that would consume water, the Department of Public Works must first issue a letter "stating that approval of the permit or other entitlement will not adversely affect the City's ability to adequately serve the public health and safety needs of all of its water customers during drought conditions." (Policy CS-9.3, subd. (1).) These obligations must also be imposed on discretionary projects subject to environmental review. (Id., subd. (2).)


49

Significcmce after Mitigation

Potentially significant and unavoidable in the short-term (Mk p. S-12), with the prospect that, if the City can successfully accelerate the timing of obtaining increased water supplies from the SWP, as appears probable, the impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Wastewater Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Significance Criteria

A significant impact would occur if new development authorized by the General Plan generated wastewater flows that exceeded the existing or planned wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal capacity of the Napa Sanitation District's system. (RDEIR, pp. 3.4-4 - 3.4-5.)

Impact 4: Impacts to wastewater treatment capacity from future development are significant due to development accommodated by the General Plan, necessitating expansion of treatment capacity, solids handling facilities, and water reclamation efforts by the NSD. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4-12.)

Finding:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the General Plan that avoid the potentially significant environmental effect as identified in the RDEIR.

Explanation:

The Napa Sanitation District's 1990 Master Plan update assumed a population for the City, as projected by the 1982 General Plan, of 82,000 by the year 2012. Envision Napa 2020, in contrast, projects a 2020 RUL buildout population of 81,140, which is slightly lower than the 2012 projections used to plan NSD facilities. The NSD, however, has been unable to fully implement its Master Plan and to pace facility development and treatment with current development. As a result, wastewater flows from new development authorized by the General Plan may not be accommodated by the existing NSD facilities, and possibly will not be accommodated by already planned NSD facilities. This impact is therefore considered significant in the absence of mitigation. With the reduced capacity of the new General Plan and the extended time frame to 2020, though, it is unlikely that the City's population would exceed 77,500 by 2012 (NSD Master Plan time frame).

In the past, the City has relied upon the NSD to observe its existing policy obligation to continue to plan, design, finance, and construct facilities adequate to meet the needs of its entire service area, as reflected in, among other documents, the City's General Plan. To ensure that new demands for new City development will not exceed NSD's capacity, the City has adopted a policy that will mitigate the capacity impact and require a "will serve" letter from NSD for new development (Policy CS-10.3). More specifically, this Policy requires that, if NSD has notified the City that a critical capacity problem exists, all applicants for development must secure a

Findings ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Civ of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

50

"will-serve" letter from the NSD before the City will approve "building permits or similar ministerial entitlements that would increase net demand on NSD treatment capacity." These obligations must also be imposed on discretionary projects subject to environmental review. The addition of this Policy to the General Plan has reduced impacts on NSD facilities to a less than significant level. (RDEIR pp. 3.4-12 — 3.4-15; 6/26/98 PC Policy Document p. 4-13.)

Mitigation:

• Promote the use of reclaimed water and water-conserving devices. (CS-10.1 and CS-10.2.)

• Require all new applications for development projects to secure a "will-serve" letter from Napa Sanitation District if a critical capacity situation exists. (CS-10.3.)

(RDEIR, pp. 3.4-12 - 3.4-13.)



Solid Waste Sirnificance Criteria

A significant impact would occur if solid waste generated exceeds the capacity of the landfill where such wastes are disposed, or the capacity of the transfer station. (RDEIR, p. 3.4-5.)

Impact 5: Development accommodated by the General Plan will increase the City's solid waste disposal requirements, with less than significant impacts to present the solid waste disposal system. (Less Than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4- 15.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The Napa County Solid Waste Transfer Station processes solid waste from Napa and parts of Solano County, and ships it to the Roosevelt Regional Landfill in Washington State. According to the Napa County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan Siting Element (June 1996), there is adequate capacity at the Roosevelt site to meet disposal needs for the General Plan 2020 planning horizon. Even so, the City has implemented an aggressive recycling program, which includes the adoption of a Source Reduction and Recycling Element and Household Hazardous Waste Element, which are part of the County's Integrated Waste Management Plan. In addition, the Community Services Element of the General Plan includes policies and implementation

Finding: ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

51

programs to ensure that the provision and administration of waste disposal services are commensurate with the development planned for the City to the year 2020 (Policies CS-12.1, CS-12.2, CS-12.A). These policies will work in concert with the requirements in Policy Resolution No. 27 for source reduction plans for larger scale projects. (RDEIR p. 3.4-15.)

Mitigation:

• Promote public awareness programs and continue monitoring the City's Source Reduction and Recycling element to ensure that the City meets established goals. (CS-12.1, CS-12.2, and Policy Resolution 27.)

• Construct a Materials Recovery Facility if desired goals are not achievable. (Implementation Program CS-12.A.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.4-15.)



Gas and Electric Siznificance Criteria

Energy-related impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project:

substantially increases overall per capita energy consumption, substantially increases reliance on natural gas and oil, or substantially decreases reliance on renewable energy sources, thereby resulting in wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy; or

has an adverse effect on local and regional energy supplies and/or on requirements for additional capacity.

(RDEIR, p. 3.4-5.)

Impact 6: Development accommodated by the General Plan will neither substantially increase overall per capita energy consumption nor substantially increase reliance on natural gas and oil. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4 - 16.)

Finding:



52

Explanation:

The increases in gas and oil consumption that will result from development under the General Plan will be less than significant due to policies and implementation programs contained in the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements. (LU-5.3, LU-5.7, NR-5.1, NR-5.2, NR-5.3.) In addition, Policy Resolution No. 27 requires as a standard mitigation or condition of approval the incorporation of energy conservation measures into project design and construction, in accordance with applicable codes and ordinances. (RDEIFt, p. 3.4-16.)

Mitigation:

• Require new developments to support mass transit and alternative modes of transportation. (LU-5.3 and NR-5.1.)

• Encourage on-site mixed uses for commercial properties. (LU-5.7.)

• Encourage energy conservation and efficiency in land use patterns, and improvement programs that reduce demand from power-generating facilities. (NR-5.2, NR-5.3, and Policy Resolution 27.)

(RDE1R, p. 3.4-16.)

SignOcance after Mitigation

Less than significant. (RDE1R, p. 3.4-16.)

Impact 7: Development accommodated by the General Plan will not adversely affect local and regional energy supplies. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4- 16.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The same policies and implementation programs discussed under Impact 6 above apply here and help to minimize energy consumption. As mentioned earlier, the City Council has decided not to expand the RUL, as originally proposed in the 1996 draft Policy Document. Thus, the "new service areas" identified in the RDE1R will not be created, and there will be no need to extend distribution lines to them. (See FtDE1R p. 3.4-16.)


53

Mitigation:

Adherence to General Plan Polices referenced above in the discussion of Impact 6.



Impact 8: Development accommodated by the General Plan will increase the need for public facilities (new schools, libraries, corporation yards, public administration buildings) and the need for active recreations sites (parks). (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, pp. 3.4- 16 - 3.4- 17.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Specific sites for public facilities are not known at this time; and future public facility projects will be subject to CEQA review on a project-by-project basis when, and if, construction is proposed at a future date. Policy Resolution No. 27 requires certain mitigation measures for site development impacts and the payment of required fees for public services, in accordance with Napa Municipal Code Chapter 15.68. (RDEIR, pp. 3.4-16 — 3.4-17.)

Development authorized by the General Plan will increase the need for public facilities (e.g., new schools, libraries, corporation yards, public administration buildings) and the need for active recreations sites (parks). Potential impacts related to the construction and operation of public facilities are too speculative to assess at this time. Potential impacts related to the construction and operation of parks were evaluated in 1993 in a certified E1R on the City's Park and Recreation Element. (RDEIR, pp. 3.4-16 - 3.4-17.)

Mitigation:

No mitigation measures are proposed or necessary.

Significance



54

Impact 9: Implementation of the City trail system has the potential to cause indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources due to soil erosion and downstream sedimentation, excessive noise and lighting, and human encroachment. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.4-17.)

Finding:

Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) (But see Discussion of Biological Impact #1 with respect to potential General Plan impacts on endangered, threatened, and rare species.)

Explanation:

Policies in the Natural Resources and Parks and Recreation Elements address the potential impacts associated with trail development (NR-1.1, NR-1.8, PR-3.4). In concert with these policies, the standard mitigation measures in Policy Resolution No. 27 related to project design and construction will mitigate impacts at a project level. Notably, Appendix D of the General Plan Policy Document includes recommendations for sensitively locating trail alignments included in the Trails Master Plan. (RDEIR, p. 3.4-17.) (To the extent that trail construction, as a theoretical matter, could cause some measurable amount of harm to an officially "listed" species, see the discussion of Biological Impact # 1, infra.)

Mitigation:

▪ Protect riparian habitats from incompatible uses and activities. (NR-1.1.)

▪ Control access to riparian habitats on public lands and locate parks, trails, and overlooks adjacent to areas protected from development. (NR-1.8 and PR-3.4.)

• Use low-level lighting in parking areas. (Policy Resolution 27.)


Less than significant. (RDE111, p. 3.4-17.)

D. CULTURAL RESOURCES


The criteria for determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources are derived from (i) Public Resources Code section 21084.1, (ii) the standards by which resources are determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register (see 36 CFR part 60.6), and (iii) the standards from former Appendix K, Section HI, of the CEQA Guidelines, which was in effect when the


55

EIR was prepared and the General Plan approved. Pursuant to these criteria, significant cultural resource impacts would occur if, with development under the General Plan,

• Significant historic structures are physically disturbed;

• Significant archaeological resources are disturbed; or

• Substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical resources result.

(RDEIR, p. 3.5-2; Pub. Resources Code, § 21084.1.)

Impact 1: Development authorized by the General Plan may result in the unearthing of,

and possible disturbance to, subsurface historic structures and archaeological sites. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.5-2.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The General Plan contains policies consistent with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) procedures to mitigate any potential impact that may result from the development anticipated by the General Plan (Policies HR-6.1, HR-6.2). The City will also continue to enforce state mandates through its standard mitigation requirements in Policy Resolution No. 27. (RDEIR p. 3.5-3.)

Mitigation:

• Enforce existing laws that mandate the protection, preservation, and identification of historic sites. Require investigations of potentially sensitive archeological areas when it appears that prehistoric resources may be affected. (HR-6.1 and HR-6.2.)

• Continue to enforce state mandates regarding the discovery of archaeological remains during construction. (Policy Resolution 27.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.5-2.)


Less than significant. (RDEIR, p.-3.5-2.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of OverridingConsiderations City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

56

Impact 2: Development authorized by the General Plan will not result in impacts to historic properties within the City. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.5 -3.)

Finding:


Explanation:

National Register, State Landmark, and locally designated historic properties exist in the City's planning area. The locations of infill development cannot be determined at this time; therefore, specific impacts to historical structures cannot be determined. Policies and implementation programs contained in the Historic Resources Element, however, will help to preserve and to protect historic resources in the City, and will guide new development so that the impacts to historic resources are less than significant (Policies HR-1.2, HR-1.6, HR-1.10). This Element also includes implementation programs that encourage consideration of alternatives to demolition, that provide guidelines for rehabilitation and appropriate infill development, and that promote the preservation and rehabilitation of endangered buildings (HR-1.G, HR-1.M, HR-1.N). In addition, policies in the Land Use Element supporting neighborhood preservation and the land use designation of TM will further protect the integrity of historic Downtown neighborhoods (LU-1.1, LU-1.4, LU-4.1, LU-10.B). (RDE1R p. 3.5-3.)

Mitigation:

• Identify historic structures and resources for preservation. (HR-1.2, HR-1.3, and Implementation Program HR-1.N.)

• Establish procedures and develop legislative/economic incentives as alternatives to demolition. (HR -1.10 and Implementation Programs HR-1.G.)

• Adopt and implement rehabilitation guidelines in historic areas. (HR-1.6 and Implementation Program HR-1.M.)

• Preserve historic properties and maintain the distinction of historic neighborhoods as it relates to the rest of the City. (LU-1.1, LU-1.4, LU-4.1, and Implementation Program. LU-10.B.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.5-3)


Less than significant. (RDEIR, p. -3.5-3.)


57

Impact 3: The General Plan provides for the identification and preservation of significant cultural and historical resources within the RUL. This preservation program will help to foster appreciation for the City's cultural heritage and significant historical and cultural resources. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.5 -3.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The City recognizes that the preservation of historic resources contributes to the diversity of a community, provides a variety of housing for a wide range of the population, and can have certain economic benefits to local citizens and businesses. The Historic Resources Element contains policies and programs that will support the preservation of the City's cultural and historical heritage by identifying historic buildings, sites, features and districts; identifying and reinforcing historic linkages; encouraging landscape and other improvements to enhance historic areas; and supporting economic incentives through federal state and local funding programs. (Policies HR-1.1, HR-1.5, HR-1.20, HR-2.1, HR-2.6.) (RDEIR pp. 3.5-3 — 3.5-4.)

Mitigation:

No mitigation measures are proposed.

Significcmce


E. VISUAL QUALITY


Significant visual impacts would occur if the proposed project:

Conflicts with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the community; or

Results in a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect, such as obstruction of a scenic vista or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view.

(RDEIR, p. 3.6-2.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City cfNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

58

Impact 1: The General Plan will ensure the preservation and enhancement of the visual

character of existing urban uses in the RUL by imposing design standards on infill development. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.6 -2.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Maintenance and enhancement of Napa's small-town qualities and community identity is a key theme in the General Plan (Goal LU-1). To achieve this goal, the Citizens Advisory Committee and staff developed a neighborhood typology system to describe the physical components and relationships shared by neighborhood units throughout the City. New development will be required to be consistent with the character of the surrounding existing development in order to preserve the visual integrity of neighborhoods (Policies LU-4.1, LU-4.5, LU-1.2). Implementation programs call for development standards for commercial and office area development to ensure that new non-residential development will be designed to minimize adverse visual characteristics and enhance, rather than detract from, surroundings (LU-5.A, LU-5.B, LU-7.4). For all development, the City will promote an urban form that integrates the urban environment with the City's natural features (LU-10.1, NR-1.7, NR-1.A, NR-1.B, NR-1.C). Natural Resource areas are considered important elements of visual quality within the RUL, contributing to a sense of openness and small-town character. The visual quality provided by the open space surrounding the City would continue to provide a context and visual identity for Napa.

The Planning Commission recommended certain revisions to the Policy Document (6/26/98 PC Policy Document) to strengthen the protection for visual resources and to strengthen the mitigating character of the policies and programs in the General Plan as follows:

The RUL line should not be moved, so that the area designated for urban development should not be expanded beyond that designated in the 1986 General Plan. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-2.)

The Council should carry forward the Greenbelt designation from the 1982 General Plan and create a continuous Greenbelt around the RUL by adding lands to the east and west of the City. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-11.)

The Council should add another land use category to the General Plan called "RA-Resource Area," which will be applied to sensitive lands inside the RUL that have certain constraints to development and function as viewshed. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-30 & p. 1-24, LU-10.A, LU-10.B.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City ciNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

59

• The Council should enhance language regarding Open Space throughout the text of the General Plan, and should strengthen references to Appendix F, the Open Space Action Program.

The Council should add a Napa River section to the Land Use Element in order to emphasize the multi-faceted benefits derived from treating the River as part of the Urban community, including its benefit as a visual resource. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-22, LU-9, Goals and Policies.)

The Council should revise policy language and implementation programs in the Land Use Element to allow for further evaluation of City gateways, their location, and components, and to support the preparation of guidelines for private and public development to protect scenic resources in gateway areas. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-11, LU-1.A, LU-1.5.)

• The Council should strengthen policies to encourage new development to protect and enhance sensitive and significant stands of vegetation and habitat, and to support mitigation of tree removal in viewshed areas both during and after project development. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, NR-1.6, NR-1.C, NR-1.E, LU-10.C.)

The City Council agreed with, and adopted, these recommendations, and further addressed the potential impacts to a significant hillside viewshed by designating Pod 123 (Napa Oaks property) as RA-Resource Area, with a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. (10/13/98 record of City Council deliberations; Topic Matrix, City of Napa Draft General Plan, October 13, 1998 City Council Deliberation & Direction to Staff.)

Mitigation:

• Require new development to be consistent with the existing neighborhood typology. (LU- 4.1, LU-4.5, and LU-1.2.)

• Require design guidelines regarding placement, scale, massing, and parking areas for new commercial developments. (Implementation Program LU-5A.)

• Develop commercial and office area standards. (Implementation Program LU-5.B.)

• Ensure that new development is designed and operated to minimize adverse visual characteristics. (LU-7.4.)

• Integrate development with the City's natural environment while protecting significant species of flora and fauna. (LU-9.1, NR-1.7 and Implementation Programs NR-1A, NR-1.B, and NR-1.C.)

In addition, Policy Resolution 27 imposes standard mitigation related to lighting, landscaping, and signage.


60

(RDEIR, pp. S-17, 3.6-2 - 3.6-3.)



Impact 2: The General Plan will enhance the visual setting in the Downtown area, along key gateways, scenic corridors, crucial corridors, and major roadways in the City. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.6 -3.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Goal LU-6 in the Land Use Element is to improve the character of Downtown through a variety of measures that would enhance the visual environment, including promotion of pedestrian-oriented retail and commercial development and improvement of visual and design character Downtown (LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU6.8). In addition to the goals for enhancing and reorienting river front development Downtown (LU-6.4 and LU-6.6), the City has added a Napa River Section to the Land Use Element (Goals and Policies under LU-9), which promotes further comprehensive planning for the Downtown in order to achieve an urban pattern that complements and coordinates with the design of the Flood Management Project (6/26/98 PC Policy Document p. 1-22).

In addition to visual resource related gateway, urban design, and resource protection policies listed under Impact 2 above, the General Plan designates SR 29, SR 121, and SR 221 as scenic corridors to be visually improved (LU-1.6, LU-1.B); and corridor streetscape design guidelines are called out for major streets that are important to the City's character (LU-1.C).

Mitigation:




Impact 3: The proposed expansion of the RUL would not have detracted from the region's scenic resources. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.6 -4.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

61

Finding:


Explanation:

As explained repeatedly above, the City has decided not to include the RUL expansion areas proposed in the 1996 draft General Plan with Envision Napa 2020. The discussion in the RDEIR of this impact is therefore moot.

Mitigation:




Impact 4: The General Plan protects the scenic resources, especially the vineyards, that dominate the visual landscape. (Beneficial.) (RDEIR, p. 3.6 -5.)

Finding:


Explanation:

For reasons discussed at length earlier in these Findings, the City Council has created an RA designation as a means of protecting hillside visual resources, and has applied that designation to the Napa Oaks property, which is visually significant.

In addition to the RA designation and the policies and programs for protecting natural scenic resources within the RUL, as described in the preceding finding, the RUL itself has been established to preclude urbanization of the region's vineyards, hillsides, grasslands, and major marshlands, and to maintain the wine growing agricultural character of the Napa Valley. Policy LU-10.5 provides the City with the opportunity to restrict development if underlying land use designations are inconsistent with the conservation of critical environmental resources. Policy LU-10.2 reinforces the emphasis on integrating the urban environment with natural features, and calls for special development standards in sensitive natural areas. (6/26/ PC Policy Document, p. 1-23.)


62

Mitigation:




Impact 5: The General Plan is consistent with the Napa County General Plan's Scenic Highways Element regarding Scenic Highways. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.6-5.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The Napa County General Plan identifies SR 29 and SR 121 as "potential" scenic highway corridors, and calls for improving the scenic character of these roadways. The support for this improvement is described under Impact 2 above (LU-1.6, LU-5.2, LU-5.8).

Mitigation:

Improve the scenic character of the roadways through landscaping, utility undergrounding, street tree planting, and other improvements. (LU-1.6, LU-5.2, and LU-5.8.)


Less than significant. (RDELR, p. 3.6-5.)

G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Sirnificance Criteria

Significant biological effects will occur if the Plan would:

• substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;

• cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;

• threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community; or

Findings ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ci6, of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

63

reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species.

(RDEIR, p. 3.7-7; CEQA Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a).)

Impact 1:

Finding:

General Plan implementation may result in unavoidable significant impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered plant and/or animal species that may exist within the RUL, including the Contra Costa goldfields, Mason's liaeoposis, soft bird's beak, the salt marsh harvest mouse, and the California clapper rail (Potentially Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.7 -7; RDEIR. Responses to Comments, p. 14, response to comment 49.2E; Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 11, 14.)

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with rare and endangered plant and/or animal species impacts. No mitigation is available to render the effect less than significant. The effect therefore remains potentially significant and unavoidable.

Explanation:

The Revised Draft EIR (pp. 3.7-7 - 3.7-8) concluded that existing federal and state laws and proposed policies in the General Plan could avoid or minimize disturbance to any endangered, threatened, or rare species that were known to occur, or might occur, within areas for which the General Plan would allow some level of development. Such officially listed species, or species that might foreseeably be listed, include one proposed endangered plant species (Contra Costa goldfields) and one rare plant species (Mason's lilaeopsis) known to exist in areas proposed for urban development; other sensitive species, such as the threatened California red-legged frog, that might occur in proposed development areas. Also implicated are "sensitive salt marsh species" such as the soft bird's beak (rare plant), the salt marsh harvest mouse (endangered mammal), and the California clapper rail (endangered bird).

In preparing the Final ELR, the City determined that, although it had not received any new information calling its earlier impact characterization into question, the more conservative approach was to conclude that, "as a theoretical matter, the proposed General Plan policies cannot guarantee the avoidance of all adverse effects on listed species," and that, as a result, the impact should be considered significant and unavoidable. (RDEIR Response to Comments, p. 14 (emphasis added).) At the same time, City Staff proposed new Plan language, ultimately recommended by the Commission and adopted by the Council, to ensure that impacts on all listed species are given considerable attention during environmental and project review. (NR-2.4; see also Planning Commission Resolution 98-068-GP, p. 13 (item 58) and Addendum # 12 attached thereto.) These conclusions were reiterated in the Addendum to the Final EIR (at pages 11 and 14).


64

Mitigation:

• Maintain information about the location of rare, endangered and threatened species. (NR-2.1.)

• Refer development proposals affecting sensitive plant and animal species to state and federal agencies charged with wildlife protection duties. (NR-2.3.)

• Protect and restore riparian and onsite habitat. (NR-1.1, NR-1.2, NR-1.4, NR-1.6, and NR-1.8.)

• Ensure that the City's process for project-level environmental review includes triggers for early review for potential impacts to endangered, threatened, and rare species, results in an avoidance of any net loss of habitat for such species where feasible, and reflects accurate information in the form of maps and other data. (NR-2.1, NR-2.4, NR-2.A, and NR-2.B.)

(RDEIR, p. S-18.)


Significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. S-18.)

Impact 2: Sensitive salt marsh species, including federal and state-listed endangered species, could be disturbed by development activity in the southern portion of the Stanly Ranch Planning Area. (Less than Significant.) (RDEM, p. 3.7 -

8.)

Finding:

Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) (But see discussion above for Biological Impact # 1.)

Explanation:

The City has decided to carry forward the SA-Study Area designation for the Stanly Ranch Planning Area, so that the more detailed environmental information in the pending proposed specific plan and project EIR can be used to determine the most appropriate land use and the most effective mitigation measures for potential impacts from development in the area. Regardless, the RDEIR identifies policies (LU-10.2, NR-1.A, NR-2.3) that would require special development standards in wetland and critical wildlife areas pursuant to the requirements of state and federal wildlife agencies.


65

Mitigation:

• Apply special development standards to wetlands and critical wildlife habitat. (LU-9.2.)

• Review and modify existing regulations regarding conservation and management of habitats. (Implementation Program NR-1.A.)

• Refer development proposals regarding salt marshes to state and federal agencies. (NR-2.3.)

▪ Follow all policies set forth as relevant to Biological Impact 1, discussed above.

(RDEIR, p. 3.7-8; Final EIR, p. S-18; Addendum to Final E1R, p. 14.)


Less than significant, except as to endangered, threatened, and rare species, for the reasons discussed above in connection with Biological Impact 1. (RDE1R, p. 3.7-8.)

Impact 3: Environmentally sensitive sites could be impacted by nearby development. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.7 -8.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The General Plan includes policies that will require the use of alternative land use standards in order to integrate urban development with natural features (Goal LU-10, Policy LU-9.1). These policies promote the continued use of special development standards, encourage the maintenance of remaining wildlife corridors, and discourage the fragmentation of significant natural communities (LU-10.2, LU-10.3). Cluster development is encouraged under LU-10.4; and density reductions are available to protect specific environmental resources under LU-10.5.

In addition, the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council adopted, an RA-Resource Area land use category for use on sensitive lands inside the RUL that require special standards due to viewshed, resource, habitat, geotechnical, or other considerations in order to further the conservation and resource protection goals of the General Plan.

Mitigation:

• Provide alternative land use standards that integrate urban and environmental habitats. (LU-9.1.)

Finding! of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

66

• Maintain remaining wildlife corridors. (LU-9.3.)

• Promote special development standards and encourage the maintenance of natural communities. (LU-9.4 and LU-9.5.)

(RDE1R, p. 3.7-8.)

Significcmce after Mitigation


Impact 4: Native terrestrial vegetation and habitats within the RUL could be damaged or eliminated by development. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.7-9.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The City plans to manage the natural resources and open space areas in and around the City in order to preserve and enhance plant and wildlife habitats (Goal NR-1). The City also will encourage the planting of native species in natural habitats (Policy NR-1.3). In approving new development, the City will impose conditions of approval requiring the protection for significant onsite natural habitat whenever possible (Policy NR-1.6). If avoidance is not possible, the City will permit equivalent mitigation off-site. During development review, the City will also try to identify and protect significant species and groves or clusters of trees on project sites (NR-1.7). (RDE1R p. 3.7-9.)

Mitigation:

• Encourage the planting of native plant species in natural habitats. (NR-1.3.)

• Require development to provide significant onsite protection of natural habitat. (NR-1.6 and NR-1.7.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.7-9.)


Less than significant. (RDE1R, p. 3.7-9.)


67

H. GEOLOGY. SOILS. AND SEISMICITY

Si2nificance Criteria

The significance criteria for geology, soils, and seismicity are as follows. In the RUL, soil properties and proximity to active earthquake fault zones are the geotechnical factors of principal concern. The following geotechnical and seismic conditions would constitute significant impacts:

Alteration of landforms that substantially change the topography or ground surface relief features; and

Exposure of people or structures to major geologic hazards, including earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards such as settlement and groundshaking.

(RDEIR, pp. 3.8-1 - 3.8-2.)

Impact 1: Development authorized by the General Plan will be susceptible to

potentially strong groundshaking from earthquakes. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.8 -2.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Several faults located within approximately 35 miles of the City could potentially expose residents to 7.0 magnitude earthquakes. There are three locally active faults that could produce earthquakes of up to a 6.75 Richter magnitude. The Health and Safety Element includes policies and programs to minimize risks from seismic events by requiring construction to conform to the Uniform Building Code (HS-1.1 and Policy Resolution No. 27). In addition, the City will discourage the siting of emergency facilities, major utilities, uses with hazardous materials, high occupancy structures, and dependent housing within areas subject to very strong, violent, or very violent ground shaking (HS-1.3 and Policy Resolution No. 27). The City also requires soils and foundation engineering studies and the incorporation of special construction features where site investigations confirm potential seismic hazards (HS-1.4).

The Planning Commission added the RA-Resource Area land use category to the General Plan to be applied to sensitive lands within the RUL that require special standards. Geotechnical considerations are listed as one of the criteria for applying the RA designation. The RA land use


68

category is considered to be another mitigation measure that could reduce public exposure to seismic and other geotechnical hazards.

During its October 13, 1998, consideration of the land use designations for the General Plan, the City Council concluded that there was sufficient evidence in the FtDEIR and General Plan documents (particularly Chapter 8 of the Background Report and the Health and Safety Element of the Policy Document), as well as studies prepared for previous project applications (City files 92-116 and 97-035), to show that the hillside property encompassed by Pod 123 (Napa Oaks) had serious constraints, including landslides and seismic hazards related to a fault running through the property. (See listing of Napa Oaks Studies and Report under Section VI of these Findings.) Exposure to this risk is a potentially significant effect. Along with concerns about a number of other constraints associated with this vacant hillside property, the Council's desire to minimize the exposure of future residents to seismic risk was one of the reasons the City Council applied the RA-Resource Area designation to the property, and determined that 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres was an appropriate density.

Mitigation:

• Discourage the siting of critical facilities from areas that are seismically unstable. (HS-1.2.)

▪ Require new facilities to meet structural and seismic standards in hazardous areas. (HS-1.1, HS-1.3, HS-1.4, HS-1.6, and Policy Resolution 27.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.8-2.)



Impact 2: Development authorized by the General Plan will be susceptible to liquefaction hazards. (Less than Significant.) (RDElR, p. 3.8 -2.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The discussion for Impact 1 immediately above applies with equal force with respect to Impact 2. The policies and implementation programs discussed in Impact 1 also apply to this impact.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

City of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

69

Mitigation:

Adherence to General Plan Polices referenced above in Impact 1.



Impact 3: Development authorized by the General Plan and located on slopes of 15 percent or greater will be exposed to risks of erosion and landslides. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.8 -3.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The RDEIR (p. 3.8-3) describes the areas of landslide susceptibility as generally occurring along the western edges of the Browns Valley and Westwood Planning Areas, and along the eastern periphery of the Alta Heights and River East Planning Areas where steep slopes (15 percent or greater) exist. In order to minimize the potential exposure to risks of landslides and erosion in these areas, the General Plan densities are very low (0 — 2 dwelling units per acre). In addition, policies and implementation programs in the Health and Safety Element help to minimize the risks in this impact category by requiring minimal grading and sensitive development practices and geotechnical studies to determine the appropriate location and intensity of project development (HS-2.1, HS-2.A, HS-2.4, HS-.2.B, HS-2.C). The standard mitigation measures in Policy Resolution 27 also implement these policies. As discussed under Impact 1 above, the RA designation has been added to the General Plan to provide further mitigation on particularly sensitive sites, and has been applied to Pod 123 (Napa Oaks) to reduce exposure to certain risks (such as the possibility of landslides) and to reduce erosion impacts resulting from disturbance of hillside soils.

Mitigation:

Require erosion control plans and site investigations in high erosion and landslides areas. (HS-2.1, HS-2.4; Implementation Programs HS-2.A, HS-2.B, and HS-2.C, and Policy Resolution 27.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.8-3.)

Signccmce after Mitigation

Less than significant. (FtDEIR, p. 3.8-3.)


70

I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Siznificance Criteria

The General Plan would be considered to have significant adverse water quality or hydrologic impacts if development permitted by the plan would cause:

Substantial flooding;

Exposure of life and property to increased flood hazards as defined by the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA);

Substantial degradation of water quality (including siltation from erosion);

Substantial interference with groundwater recharge; and

Destruction of natural drainage ways.

(RDEIR, pp. 3.9-1 - 3.9-2.)

Impact 1:

Development authorized by the General Plan will occur within the current 100-year floodplain of the Napa River. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.9-2.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Since the release of the 1996 Draft General Plan, the design for a flood management project has been endorsed by the community and a 1/2 cent sales tax ballot initiative (Measure A) was passed by the voters in March 1998 to finance the local share of funding to implement the project. These actions represent progress in implementing Policies HS-3.7 and HS-3.8 in the Health and Safety Element. Other policies and programs in that element will continue to be applicable in protecting the public from potential flood hazards until such protection is replaced by a constructed flood control project. These policies serve as mitigation measures, and include HS-3.1, HS-3.2, HS-3.3, HS-3.4, HS-3.6 and HS-3.9. (RDEllt, p. 3.9-2.) Adherence to FEMA regulations and participation in the-National Flood Insurance Program will also minimize the potential flood hazards.


71

Mitigation:

• Continue existing floodplain management programs. (HS-3.1, HS-3.3 and Policy Resolution 27.)

• Continue coordination with US Army Corps of Engineers to develop a Napa River Flood Control project or develop other projects. (HS-3.7 and HS-3.9.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.9-2.)



Impact 2: Development authorized by the General Plan will add minimal runoff volumes to the City's stormwater drainage system. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.9-2.)

Finding:


Explanation:

Because most of the land within the RUL is already urbanized, the amount of additional impervious surface from new development will be minimal. Policies and implementation programs in the Community Services Element will serve to keep potential storm drainage impacts at less than significant levels. These policies will require the following: continued collection of Storm Water System Service fees to finance drainage improvements and maintenance; the development of a Stormwater Management Plan that includes an Urban Runoff Management Program, and standards and objectives for reducing runoff pollutants; and the maintenance of water quality in the storm drainage system (CS-11.2, CS11.4, CS-11.5, CS, 11.6, CS-11.7, CS-11.A).

In response to comment #49.1 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (p. 12 of RDEIR Response to Comments Document), the Commission recommended a revision to implementation program CS-11.A so that it would specify in detail how the City will implement the Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements for storm water run-off. Communication # 74 (4/24/98 RDE1R Response to Comments, pp. 92-93) from the RWQCB acknowledges the inclusion of this language as satisfying the agency's concern. (Addendum # 11 and 6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 4-16.) The City Council accepted the recommendation and included the revised language in the General Plan. (Topic Matrix, City of Napa Draft General Plan, October 13, 1998 City Council Deliberation & Direction to Staff, p. 8.)

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ciry of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

72

Mitigation:

• Require new development to obtain NPDES permits, to adhere to design standards for stormwater systems, and to help finance necessary drainage improvements. (CS-11.2, CS-11.4, CS-11.5, CS-11.6, CS-11.7.)

• Update Drainage Master Plan in order to prioritize and enhance the existing drainage system. (Implementation Programs CS-11.A.)

In addition, Policy Resolution 27 contains standard mitigation measures related to minimizing water quality impacts from construction activities and from the storage of materials that could cause pollution. (RDEIR, p. 3.9-2.)


Less than significant. (RDEIR, pp. 3.9-2 - 3.9-3.)

Impact 3: Development authorized by the General Plan will not interfere with groundwater recharge. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.9 -3.)

Finding:


Explanation:

The remaining vacant acreage within the RUL represents 1.62 square miles or 0.0038 percent of the 426 square-mile watershed that drains into the Napa River. Accordingly, the proportion of this watershed being converted to impervious surfaces, and thereby potentially affecting groundwater recharge, is negligible. (RDEIR, p. 3.9-3)

Mitigation:

Require a drainage and grading plan. (Policy Resolution 27; RDEIR, p. 3.9-3.)



Impact 4: Development authorized by the General Plan will not result in the destruction of natural drainageways. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.9 -

3.)


73

Finding:


Explanation:

Policies and programs in the Natural Resource Element provide protection and enhancement for natural drainageways such as the Napa River, Napa Creek, Browns Valley Creek, and Redwood Creek (NR-1.1, NR-1.2, NR-1.3, NR-1.8, NR-1.A, NR-1.B). In addition, future waterway improvement projects within 100 feet of a waterway are subject to review to ensure that they protect and minimize effects on riparian and aquatic habitats (NR-1.4, NR-1.E). (RDEIR p. 3.9-3.) Finally, the City recognizes the need for further comprehensive planning to integrate urban development with the natural features that result from the Napa River flood management project; and a section has been added to the Land Use Element (policies and programs under Goal 9) to support future planning efforts for the Napa River and its watershed (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-22.)

Mitigation:

• Protect riparian habitats from incompatible uses. (NR-1.1, NR-1.2, NR-1.3, NR-1.8 and Implementation Programs NR- 1.A and NR-1.B.)

• Review all projects that are within a 100 feet of a waterway in order to protect riparian and aquatic habitats. (NR-1.4 and Implementation Program NR-1.E.)

• Regulate the speed of watercrafts to protect bank erosion and habitats. (Implementation Program NR-1.D.)

(RDE1R, p. 3.9-3.)



J. AIR OUALITY


The City derived its significance criteria for air pollution impacts from a document entitled, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines — Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans (April 1996), which recommends three "tests" to measure air quality impacts due to general plans. The tests focus on the plan's consistency with the most recently adopted regional air quality plan (i.e., the Bay Area 1994 Clean Air Plan). According to the tests, the General Plan will be consistent with the CAP if:


74

The rate of increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with the Draft General Plan is equal to or lower than the rate of increase in population for the City (based on ABAG's Projections);

• The General Plan includes reasonable measures that will implement transportation control measures (TCMs) in the CAP; and

The General Plan establishes buffer zones around existing and proposed land uses that will emit potential odors and/or toxic air contaminants.

In essence, these tests help the BAAQMD determine whether the project would:

• Conflict with adopted air quality attainment plans; or

Violate ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an exiting or proposed air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

(RDEIR, pp. 3.10-1 - 3.10-2.)

Impact 1: The rate of increase in VMT associated with the General Plan will not exceed ABAG's projected rate of population increase. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.10 -3.)

Finding:


Explanation:

According to the estimate prepared by Dowling Associates (the City's transportation consultant for the General Plan), the projected daily VMT increase within the City authorized by the General Plan will be consistent with the population growth rate projected by ABAG (Projections '94). On this basis, the consultant determined that the General Plan will be consistent with the CAP. Notably, the trip data used for these projections, and therefore the VMT figures used by Dowling, included data reflecting traffic that will be passing through the City on State Highways. Therefore, the comparative rate of City population growth will be even less than indicated. It is worth noting, too, that ABAG's recent "Projections '98" shows a lower population growth rate than that predicted in "Projections '94."

Mitigation:



75

Significance


Impact 2: The General Plan contains policies and implementation measures that will implement the transportation control measures in the Clean Air Plan. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.10 -3.)

Finding:


Explanation:

At page 3.10-3, the RDEIR identifies the various TCMs that must be included in a general plan if the document is to be found consistent with the CAP, and provides analysis to show how the Napa General Plan implements each applicable TCM through the following policies and implementation programs in the Transportation Element:

TCM 1. Expand Employer Assistance Program: The incentives for this program have been eliminated by the State; the City programs are promoted on a voluntary basis.

TCM 9. Improve Bicycle Access and Facilities: T-1.1; 1-6.1 through T-6.8, T-8.1, T-8.2, T-6.A through T-6.G, T-8.A, T-8.B; T-7.1, 1-7.2, T-7.A, T-7.B; T-9.8.

TCM 12. Improve Arterial Traffic Management: NR-5.6.

TCM 13. Transit Use Incentives: T-5.4, T-5.5; 1-5.12, 1-5.13.

TCM 15. Local Clean Air Plan, Policies and Programs: Implemented by policies contained in both the Land Use and Natural Resources Elements. Key policies include: LU-5.7, NR-5.2 & NR5.5.

In summary, the Policy Document contains numerous policies supporting the implementation of the TCMs critical to demonstrating less than significant air quality impacts. (RDEIR p. 3.10-4.)

Mitigation:

• Establish five-foot bike lanes on both sides of all streets at the collector level and above. (T-1.1.)


76

• Develop and maintain a safe, integrated bicycle route network through residential . . neighborhoods and connecting to county lands. (T-6.1 through T-6.8 and 1-8.1 and T-8.2 , and Implementation Programs T-6.A through T-6.G, T-8.A, and T-8.E.)

• Require the provision of bicycle racks and/or lockers for certain commercial and industrial projects. (1-7.1 and T-7.2 and Implementation Programs T-7.A and T-7.B.)

• Require coordination between Napa Valley Unified School District and property owners to develop cost effective bicycle access to school sites. (T-9.8.)

• Continue and expand the use of synchronized traffic signals on roadways susceptible to emissions improvement through approach control. (NR-5.6.)

• Promote coordination of Napa transit services with inter-city and regional services, and consolidate transit services to improve efficiency and commuter linkages to transit systems in other counties. (1-5.4 and T-5.5.)

• Encourage employers to provide discount bus passes to employees to promote alternatives to single occupancy vehicles in commercial development. (T-5.12.)

• Encourage developers to provide financial support to alternative commute modes and to provide carpool parking spaces. (T-5.13.)

• Require new major development to support mass transit and alterative modes of transportation. (LU-5.3.)

• Encourage developers of larger commercial projects to provide on-site mixed uses that will allow employees to make non-work related trips without use of their automobiles. (LU-5.7.)

• Encourage land use patterns and management practices that conserve air and energy resources, such as mixed use development and provisions for local-serving commercial uses adjacent to neighborhoods. (NR-5.2.)

• Encourage project designs that minimize direct and indirect air emissions.(NR-5.5.)

(RDEIR, pp. 3.10-3 - 3.10-4.)



Impact 3: The General Plan contains measures that will buffer residential development from sources of potential odors and/or toxic air contaminants. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.10-4.)


77

Finding:


Explanation:

The Land Use Element acknowledges that potential conflicts, including those created by odors and pesticide exposure, can occur between residential uses and agricultural land. The location of land use designations is intended to protect sensitive uses from the potential impacts of other uses. Policies and programs in the Land Use Element provide for buffers and agricultural setbacks, feathering of development within 'A mile of the RUL to minimize urban/rural conflicts, and requirements that industrial uses be designed and operated to minimize dust, air emissions, and other nuisances (LU-3.2, LU-3.3, LU-7.4). As a result of these measures, the General Plan will satisfy the third BAAQMD significance test; and air quality impacts will be considered less than significant. (FtDEIR p. 3.10-5.)

With respect to the Napa Oaks property, discussed earlier, any potential odors or other air pollutants from hypothetical future agricultural activities could be mitigated through the discretionary review process (with environmental review) that Davidon Homes would have to undergo before gaining City permission for any such activities. As discussed at length previously in these Findings, the City's application of the RA designation on the Davidon property should not be understood as encouraging Davidon to devote its property to agricultural uses. (See Policy Document, Implementation Program LU-10, Definition of "Resource Area" General Plan Designation.)

Mitigation:

• Require an agricultural setback between the agricultural lands and residential uses so that potential conflicts are minimized. (LU-3.2 and LU-3.3.)

• Ensure that industrial uses are designed and operated to minimize dust and air emissions, among other nuisances. (LU-7.4.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.10-5.)



Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Ciry of Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

78

K NOISE

Sirnificance Criteria

Significant noise impacts would occur if the project substantially increases the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. More specifically, significant noise impacts may be expected whenever the sound level exceeds the compatibility criteria identified in Table 8-1 of the General Plan. (RDEIR, p. 3.11-4.)

Impact 1:

There will not be any new residential areas exposed to noise levels greater than 70 dBA CNEL from yehicular traffic. (Less than Significant.) (RDEIR, p. 3.11-4.)

Finding:


Explanation:

An analysis of projected vehicular traffic was used to determine whether future ambient noise levels will increase with the General Plan. The analysis determined that the resulting overall noise level from General Plan implementation will be acceptable for certain land uses, according to the land use compatibility criteria. Based on traffic data prepared by Dowling Associates, Table 3.11-2 (RDEIR p. 3.11-7) estimates the distance in feet to various noise contours associated with vehicular traffic. The 70 CNEL, which is the critical threshold for residential development, will not be experienced by any sensitive receptors that are not already exposed to this level. Accordingly, there will be no exceedences of land use/noise compatibility guidelines presented in Figure 3.11-1 (RDEIR p. 3.11-4).

The Health and Safety Element establishes policies and programs that will minimize noise impacts on both existing and new land uses in those areas where noise levels may be normally or conditionally unacceptable (HS-9.3, HS-9.12, HS-9.5, HS-9.1, HS-9.13). In addition, the City will use CEQA as an enforcement mechanism during individual project review (HS-9.2). The City will also encourage alternatives to the use of sound walls, such as careful site planning and building design (HS-9.7 and HS-9.14). (RDE1R pp. 3.11-4 — 3.11-9.)

Mitigation:

• Reduce noise impacts, evaluate and modify designated truck routes, and continue to enforce state muffler laws. (HS-9.3, HS-9.12, and HS-9.5.)

• Establish noise and design compatibility guidelines and an interior CNEL of 45 dB. (HS-9.1 and HS-9.13.)


79

• Use CEQA as an enforcement mechanism. (HS-9.2.)

• Encourage site planning and building alternatives that minimize noise impacts. (HS-9.7 and HS-9.14.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.11-6.)



L. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Siznificance Criteria

A significant impact would occur if:

a project creates a potential public hazard; or

involves the use, production, or disposal of materials that could pose a hazard to human, animal, or plant populations.

(RDEIR, p. 3.12-2.)

Impact 1:

Finding:

Hazardous materials and waste associated with development authorized by the Draft General Plan will not pose a significant hazard to people or animal and plant populations within the RUL or adjacent areas. (Less than Significant.) (RDE1R, p. 3.12-3.)


Explanation:

The Health and Safety Element contains policies that support the County's efforts to reduce the risks to health and safety from hazardous materials. These policies focus on supporting the County's Integrated Waste Management Plan and the County's role as the Certified Unified Program Agency (HS-7.2, HS-7.3). In addition, the City will continue to evaluate and implement the goals of the Household Hazardous Waste Element (HS-7.1), and will address emergency preparedness and response in order to maintain and improve effective handling of hazardous materials incidents (HS-8.1 through HS-.18). Finally, the City will ensure that


80

industrial development is designed and operated to minimize the potential impacts from hazardous materials associated with industrial uses (LU-7.4).

Mitigation:

• Support the County's Integrated Waste Management Plan and the County in its role as the Certified Unified Program Agency for all County jurisdictions. (HS-7.2 and HS-7.3.)

• Reevaluate, modify, and implement changes to the short-term goals of the Household Hazardous Waste Element. (HS-7.1.)

• Maintain and improve emergency preparedness and response. (HS-8.1 and HS-8.18.)

• Ensure that industrial development is designed and operated to minimize hazardous materials. (1J-7.4.)

(RDEIR, p. 3.12-3.)



XL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. As explained earlier, in Section VII of these Findings, an alternative may be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, "feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors" relevant to a project. (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)

The detailed discussion in Section X demonstrates that all of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the General Plan have been at least substantially lessened through General Plan policies, either as found within the original 1996 Draft Policy Document or as found within the modified Final General Plan. All of these significant or potentially significant effects but four, moreover, have been fully avoided (i.e., rendered less than significant). The four significant or potentially significant effects that, though substantially lessened, remain significant or potentially significant and unavoidable are the following:

Findings of-Fact and Statement 4 -Overriding Considerations City 4 -Napa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

81

1. Land Use Impact 4: "Development associated with the General Plan will result in the conversion of prime agricultural soils within the City's RUL to urban uses." (Significant.) (RDEIR, pp. 3.2-5 — 3.2-7.)

2. Transportation Impact 1: "Intersections (e.g., SR 221 at SR 29) that operate at LOS F with no mitigation measures identified may create potentially significant impacts. In addition, the uncertainty associated with funding for transportation improvements, combined with City trips that impact roads and intersections outside the City limits, may create potentially significant traffic impacts." (Potentially Significant.) (RDEIR, pp. 3.3-8 — 3.3-11.)

3. Community Services and Utilities Impact 3: "Development accommodated by the General Plan could result in demand in excess of the City of Napa's water supply system during drought years." (Potentially Significant.) (RDEIR, pp. 3.4-6 — 3.4-12.)

4. Biological Resource Impact 1: "General Plan implementation may result in unavoidable significant impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered plant and/or animal species that may exist within the RUL, including the Contra Costa goldfields, Mason's liaeoposis, soft bird's beak, the salt marsh harvest mouse, and the California clapper rail." (Potentially Significant.) (RDEIR, pp. 3.7-7 — 3.7-9; Response to Comments, p.14; Planning Commission Resolutions 98-068-CQ and 98-068-GP, p. 13 (Item 58 and Addendum #12 attached thereto; Addendum to the Final EIR, pp. 11, 14.)

Because all of these impacts have been substantially lessened through mitigation, the City has fully satisfied its mitigation obligations under CEQA, and therefore need not determine whether any of the alternatives set forth in the RDEIR are environmentally superior with respect to those impacts. (Laurel Hills, supra, 83 Cal.App.3d at pp. 519-527; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731 [270 Cal.Rptr. 650]; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights r) (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 400-403 [253 Cal.Rptr. 426].) As the succeeding discussion will show, however, it turns out that, in any event, the General Plan as approved, without any expansion of the RUL, is environmentally superior to all of the alternatives found in the RDEIR, and is superior or equivalent to these alternatives with respect to the four significant or potentially significant and unavoidable effects.

As is contemplated by CEQA, the City's original formulation of project alternatives was guided primarily by the need to reduce potential impacts associated with the proposed Project while still achieving most of the basic objectives of the Project. As explained earlier, these objectives include the following:

1) contain growth within the Rural Urban Limit;

2) conserve the character of existing neighborhoods;

3) improve the City's jobs/housing balance;


82

4) recognize the fragility of Napa' s precious natural resources and focus protection on wetlands, other scarce habitats, hillsides and agricultural lands adjacent to but outside the RUL;

5) promote a sustainable economy: a healthy economy with jobs that "fit" the needs of residents;

6) maintain a vital and healthy Downtown; and

7) consider the environmental and financial costs of flood control along the Napa River and encourage appropriate development.

(RDEIR, p. 2-4.)

The Draft EIR identified the following six potentially feasible alternatives to the Project: the No Project Alternative (A-1); the Reduced Growth Alternative; the No Growth Alternative; the Decrease Housing City-Wide Alternative (A-4); the Selective Decrease in Housing Alternative (A-5); and the Expanded RUL Alternative (B-1). Each of these Alternatives will be discussed in detail below.

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

The CEQA Guidelines require the evaluation of the "No Project" alternative. Such an alternative "shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." (Former CEQA Guideline, § 15126, subd. (d)(4) (in effect at the time of General Plan adoption).)

The No Project Alternative would retain the policies and implementation strategies of the 1982 General Plan, as it has been amended (i.e., by state-mandated updates to the Housing Element and the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Element). This alternative would fail to address the concerns that precipitated the current General Plan Update, namely, the City's inability to protect its residential neighborhoods and their character. Moreover, the existing General Plan is ill equipped to deal with growing local concerns over historic preservation and urban design. (RDEIR, p. 5-9.)

The No Project Alternative would permit a greater development potential than will be permitted by the new General Plan. The number of units permitted under the No Project Alternative would have been about 1,000 units more than was contemplated under the Draft General Plan as released in 1996, which contemplated a 445-acre expansion of the RUL; thus, population under the No Project Alternative would have been about 2,600 greater under the Plan as proposed in 1996. The differential in housing units and population will be somewhat, but not very much, greater under the General Plan as adopted. (See Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 6-7, 12-13.) Planning Areas that would experience a substantial absolute increase if the old General Plan were left in place include Linda Vista, Browns Valley, Westwood, and Terrace/Shurtleff. More


83

notably, the No Project Alternative anticipates 800,000 square feet more commercial and industrial square footage. The biggest variance occurs in River East, where the No Project Alternative proposes more than 2.8 million square feet of additional space. The new General Plan calls for an increment of slightly over a million square feet. (RDEIR, p. 5-9.)

Environmental Assessment. On a Citywide basis, the No Project Alternative would pose greater population-driven impacts (i.e., those related to traffic, air quality, noise, and community services) than the new General Plan. Even with the same traffic improvements and control measures found in the new Plan, the No Project Alternative would still leave nine signalized intersections at unacceptable service levels; and it might be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. Ambient noise levels and demand for community services would increase, but, as with the new Plan, the effects would not be significant. In addition, the following additional adverse effects are associated with the No Project Alternative:

relatively high densities would remain near the RUL line, affecting the agricultural/urban interface;

residential infill densities could continue to exceed those of existing development, creating land use conflicts and detracting from the neighborhood character;

• efforts to protect historic structures and enhance urban design would not be supported; and

• proposed new roads to complete missing road segments would not be adopted.

(RDEIR, pp. 5-9 - 5-10.)

Conformity with Community Objectives. The No Project Alternative does not propose any modification to the existing RUL. From this perspective, it would be consistent with the first and fourth objectives; namely, to protect the agricultural and natural environment and to contain the City's urban expansion. (RDEIR, p. 5-10.)

As noted above, one of the issues that prompted the current General Plan Update was the fact that the 1982 General Plan allows residential development at densities greater than what is currently built. As a result, higher density residential infill has created land use conflicts between higher and lower density development, and has resulted in the removal of historic structures and the loss of community character. Accordingly, the No Project Alternative, which would do nothing to remedy these issues, would not satisfy the second objective, which concerns preservation of quality of life, neighborhood character, and historic structures. (RDEIR, p. 5- 10.)

Because the No Project Alternative would increase both jobs and housing units, it would be consistent with the third objective (i.e., to improve the City's jobs/housing balance). (RDEIR, p. 5-10.)


84

The No Project Alternative would permit greater development than envisioned under the Draft Policy Document (1,000 more units and 800,0000 square feet more commercial and industrial square footage). This alternative would conform to the fifth objective (i.e., promotion of a sustainable and healthy economy). The existing 1982 General Plan includes policies to revitalize Napa's Downtown, and thus would be considered supportive of the sixth objective (i.e., commitment to Downtown revitalization). (RDE1R, p. 5-10.)

The No project Alternative would retain the policies and programs of the 1982 Napa General Plan, including Policy 5a of the Seismic Safety/Safety Element, which states that residential developments of more than four units in the Flood Hazard Area shall only be permitted when the flood evacuation needs of future residents have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Adherence to this policy would ensure consistency with the seventh objective (i.e., encouragement of appropriate development in the flood hazard area of the Napa River). (RDEIR, p. 5-10.)

Summary. The No Growth Alternative would not address critical issues that arose from implementation of the 1982 General Plan, and thus would be environmentally inferior to the General Plan as approved. As described above, the No Growth Alternative fails to meet many of the City's objectives. For these reasons, the City Council rejects the No Growth Alternative as infeasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; Sequoyah Hills, sup, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)

B. REDUCED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE 1: NO GROWTH

The Reduced Growth Alternative 1 assumes that further growth in Napa would not occur, with the exception of already permitted development. Under this no-build alternative, the policies and procedures of the existing 1982 General Plan would govern the physical development of the City.

This Alternative would maintain the existing number of housing units at 27,100, or 7,800 fewer dwelling units than would be allowed under the proposed project embodied in the Draft General Plan issued in 1996. This conclusion is also generally true with respect to the General Plan as adopted. (See Addendum to Final E1R, pp. 6-7.) Existing commercial and industrial square footage would remain at about 7 million, or 3.2 million less than under the proposed project. (RDE1R, p. 5-10.)

Environmental Assessment. Under the Reduced Growth Alternative 1, loss of existing agricultural lands within the RUL would not occur; ten intersections that are projected to deteriorate to unacceptable levels would continue to operate acceptably; two residential areas that are projected to experience normally unacceptable sound levels would continue to enjoy acceptable ambient conditions; and air quality conditions would remain unchanged. Because this Alternative would not result in any new residential development, there would be no adverse impacts to land use, community services or utilities, visual resources, natural resources, and public health. (RDE1R, p. 5-11.)


85

Conformity with Community Objectives. The Reduced Growth Alternative 1 would be consistent with the first and fourth objectives, since it would retain the existing RUL, thereby preserving agricultural lands and the natural environment and containing urban expansion. Because no new development would occur under this scenario, this alternative would neither degrade Napa's quality of life nor result in loss of historic structures. It is acknowledged, however, that redevelopment of existing developed areas at higher densities can occur under the No Reduced Growth Alternative 1. Thus, this alternative would not conform to objective 2 (i.e., conserving the character of existing neighborhoods). (RDE1R, p. 5-11.)

The Reduced Growth Alternative 1 would also be inconsistent with the fifth and sixth objectives (i.e., to promote a sustainable economy and to revitalize downtown). This Alternative would frustrate revitalization of the Downtown, and would constrain overall residential/economic development. This same limitation would preclude the City from expanding its housing stock. As a result, new affordable units would not be provided, and the costs for those remaining available units would likely rise because of the limited housing supply. These conditions would not improve the City's jobs/housing balance; thus, this alternative would be inconsistent with objective 3. As with the No Project Alternative, Policy 5a of the Seismic Safety/Safety Element of the 1982 Napa General Plan would continue to apply. Through adherence to this policy, this Alternative would conform to the seventh objective. (RDEIR, p. 5-11.)

Summary. Because this Alternative conflicts with basic objectives underlying the community vision, and because of the long-term impracticality of implementing this Alternative, it is rejected as being unrealistic. (RDEIR, p. 5-11.) For all of these reasons, the City Council rejects this Alternative as infeasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)

In addition, it is by no means clear that the No Growth Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Plan as approved, and in fact would be inferior in several key respects. The new Plan not only maintains the RUL in its current location, establishes an RA designation for sensitive properties, applies an RA designation to the Napa Oaks property, and decreases permissible densities within infill areas in the City; it also contains numerous new policies that will have the effect of improving the quality of even the limited amount of growth that could occur under the Alternative. Under the Alternative, in contrast, such growth would not be subject to new policies favoring the mitigation of impacts to endangered, threatened, and rare species, or requiring the phasing of development to account for scare water resources during droughts and limited wastewater treatment capacity. For these reasons, the Council concludes that, on balance, the Plan as approved is environmentally superior to the Reduced Growth Alternative 1: No Growth.

C. REDUCED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE 2: DECREASE HOUSING CITY -WIDE

This Alternative recognizes that neighborhood character and stability was threatened by the 1982 General Plan policy of encouraging higher density infill development. Thus, Reduced Growth Alternative 2 would decrease the permitted densities of each residential land use classification by about 25 percent. As a result, the projected buildout under this scenario would be about 67,300


86

to 78,300, or 2,800 to 13,800 fewer persons than under the General Plan as proposed in 1996. For the General Plan as approved, the difference in population will be somewhat diminished. (See Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 6-7.) Commercial and industrial development would be expected to occur similar to that planned under the Plan as approved. (RDEIR, p. 5-11.)

Environmental Assessment. Reduced Growth Alternative 2 would minimize the adverse effects identified for the proposed General Plan related to population. In other words, adverse trip generation, air emissions, noise, and community service impacts would all be reduced to a limited extent. The reduction would be moderated, however, given that commercial and industrial development would remain comparable to that of the Plan as adopted, meaning that the only actual change is linked to the decreased number of residential units. This Alternative as originally conceived does not include the urban design considerations found in the land use designation system of the Policy Document. Thus, while Reduced Growth Alternative 2 would eliminate the pressures to redevelop infill areas at higher densities, it would not function as well as the new system in preserving the character, pattern, and typology of existing residential development. Furthermore, an across-the-board reduction in residential densities, as contemplated under this Alternative, would be contrary to the City's objectives of promoting affordable housing, and might frustrate efforts to satisfy regional fair share housing requirements. (RDEIR, pp. 5-11 - 5-12; see also Addendum to Final EIR, pp. 6-7, 12-13 (Plan as adopted will satisfy City's fair share requirements).)

Land-driven impacts, such as disturbance of natural resources and encroachment into natural and man-made hazards areas, would be similar to those identified for the proposed project. (RDEIR, p. 5-12.) The Plan as approved, however, has policies, such as those creating and implementing the RA designation, and those involving the Greenbelt around the City, that will reduce impacts to natural resources in a manner not contemplated for the Alternative.

Conformity with Community Objectives. This Alternative is similar to the No Project Alternative and the approved Plan in terms of retaining the existing RUL boundary. Accordingly, it would satisfy the first and fourth objectives to protect agriculture and the natural environment and to contain urban expansion. (RDEIR, p. 5-12.)

In general, the overall reduction in residential densities would result in infill development being more compatible with existing development, thereby reducing potential land use conflicts. Similarly, without the higher densities, there would be less incentive to redevelop areas, thereby protecting existing historic resources. Accordingly, Reduced Growth Alternative 2 would be supportive of the second objective. The Reduced Growth Alternative 2, however, would constrain residential development, which could detract from efforts to revitalize Downtown (the sixth objective). The decrease in the number of housing units would diminish the City's surplus of housing units relative to jobs and thus would fail to improve the jobs/housing ratio (the third objective). Because this Alternative only addresses broad land use patterns, it cannot be readily determined whether the City will be able to sustain a viable and healthy economy (the fifth objective). Policy 5a of the Seismic Safety/Safety Element of the existing General Plan would still apply, making this Alternative consistent with the seventh objective (i.e., encouragement of appropriate development in the flood hazard area of the Napa River). (RDEIR, p. 5-12.)


87

Summary. Because Reduced Growth Alternative 2 (i) does not provide any compelling benefits relative to the Plan as approved (i.e., a clear reduction in the number and magnitude of significant effects identified for the Plan), (ii) would be less successful at protecting neighborhood character than the new Plan, and (iii) would create greater impacts in certain areas, the Council concludes that, on balance, the Alternative is environmentally inferior to the Plan in its final form. (RDEIR, p. 5-12; see also Addendum to Final E1R, pp. 6-13.) Furthermore, the Alternative would not include new policies favoring the mitigation of impacts to endangered, threatened, and rare species, or requiring the phasing of development to account for scarce water resources during droughts and limited wastewater treatment capacity. For the reasons described above, moreover, the Reduced Growth Alternative 2 also fails to fully meet all of the City's objectives, and thus is rejected as infeasible. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)

D. REDUCED GROWTH ALTERNATIVE 3: SELECTIVE DECREASE IN HOUSING

This alternative recognizes that the City needs to protect open space surrounding the City, to reduce development pressures on the outlying areas, and to minimize potential conflicts between residential development and agricultural operations. Reduced Growth Alternative 3 would therefore decrease the development potential in the RUL line by about 17 percent, by selectively reducing densities on vacant and underused properties near the RUL line (see RDE1R, Figure 5- 1). As a result, the projected buildout under this scenario would be about 69,300 to 78,800, or 2,300 to 11,800 fewer persons than under the version of the General Plan proposed in 1996. Commercial and industrial development would be expected to occur in a manner similar to that planned for under the new General Plan. (RDE1R, p. 5-12.) The General Plan as approved, lacking the expanded RUL proposed in 1996, can be conceptualized as a variation on this Alternative, in that the new Plan protects all land outside the current RUL, in place since 1979, and includes a density reduction on the Napa Oaks property. While the Plan as approved will probably support a population somewhat higher than would occur under the Alternative, the differential would have been greater with the Plan as proposed in 1996.

Environmental Assessment. Reduced Growth Alternative 3 would minimize the adverse effects identified for the proposed General Plan related to population. Trip generation, air emissions, noise, and community service impacts would all be reduced to a limited extent, though such reductions Would be less than would occur with Reduced Growth Alternative 2. The reduction is further moderated given that commercial and industrial development would remain comparable to that permitted under the new General Plan, meaning that the only actual change would be linked to the reduced number of residential units. (RDEIR, pp. 5-12 - 5-13.)

Under Reduced Growth Alternative 3, land-driven impacts, such as loss of natural resources and increased exposure to public safety risks, would be comparable to those anticipated under the new General Plan and Reduced Growth Alternative 2. (RDE1R, p. 5-13.)

On the other hand, this Alternative does not propose to reduce permitted densities in the residential land use designations. As a result, the same problems that exist with the 1982

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City cfNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

88

classification system persist (i.e., infill development that need not conform to the existing character, pattern, and density of residential development, thus undermining neighborhood stability and creating pressures to redevelop older areas with historic buildings). (RDE1R, p. 5- 13.)

Conformity with Community Objectives. This Alternative is similar to Reduced Growth Alternative 2 and thus is comparable to that Alternative in terms of conformity with community objectives. The two objectives for which Reduced Growth Alternative 3 scores lower are the protection of neighborhood quality and preservation of historic resources (the second objective). This assessment is based on the fact that this Alternative would not reduce the permitted residential densities (as under the new Plan and Reduced Growth Alternative 2), but rather would leave them at the levels of the 1982 General Plan. (RDEIR, p. 5-13.)

Summary. Because Reduced Growth Alternative 3 does not provide any compelling benefits relative to the new Plan (i.e., a clear reduction in the number and magnitude of significant effects identified for the Plan) and would be less successful at protecting neighborhood character, the City Council considers it to be environmentally inferior to the new Plan. (RDEIR, p. 5-13.) Furthermore, the 'Alternative would not include new policies favoring the mitigation of impacts to endangered, threatened, and rare species, or requiring the phasing of development to account for scare water resources during droughts and limited wastewater treatment capacity. In addition, for the reasons described above, the Reduced Growth Alternative 3 would also fail to fully meet all of the City's objectives, and thus is rejected as infeasible. (City of Del Mar, sum, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)

E. EXPANDED RUL ALTERNATIVE

This Alternative contemplates the expansion, and rounding off, of the RUL and is intended to reflect property owner interest in future annexation and/or water service extension. Also included are properties such as Alston Park and the properties located north of Soscol Creek and south of the Southern Crossing that various past City Councils have expressed an interest in annexing. Figures 5-2 and 5-3 of the RDEIR. indicate the areas encompassed by the revised RUL proposed by this alternative. Overall, the RUL would be enlarged by approximately 4,000 acres, which would be developed at 2-3 du/ac to reflect terrain and other constraints. At buildout, this alternative would have a maximum population of 100,100, about 19,000 or 23 percent greater than the General Plan as proposed in 1996. (RDE1R, p. 5-13.)

Environmental Assessment. Because expansion of the RUL would result in a greater population, those impacts that are population-driven would be greater under this Alternative than under the Plan as approved. In particular, traffic congestion and demand for community services would increase proportionately. Existing congested segments, such as Trancas and State Highway 221, and congested intersections at Highway 29/Highway 12/121, Highway 221/Highway 12/29, and Soscol/Imola would experience greater volumes than under the new Plan, as a result of the additional development proposed in the Dry Creek, Stanly Ranch, and Southern Crossing areas, plus the annexation area in the Suscol Ridge Area. (RDEIR, p. 5-13.)


89

The expansion of the RUL, in some cases relatively extensive distances beyond existing desired service areas (e.g., into Stanly Ranch, Coombsville, and the Southern Crossing), would increase housing and population in peripheral areas, thereby increasing response times. In addition, the construction of housing and the placement of new population in steeper areas would further inhibit emergency response times, and would require special equipment (i.e., high clearance, four-wheel drive vehicles that can negotiate the tree/brush covered slopes). The extension of water and sewer systems to areas now unserved would also increase the burden on the existing water and wastewater treatment facilities, and might induce additional development pressures (since the availability of water and wastewater systems would make the land more attractive to urbanization). The State Department of Water Resources has indicated that it will have difficulties fulfilling the City's NBA entitlement beyond that which would serve the population anticipated under the project as proposed in 1996. Thus, this alternative, with a maximum population 19 percent beyond that of the 1996 General Plan proposal, would exceed the City's water supply capabilities. (RDE1R, pp. 5-13 - 5-14.)

Besides increased demands on the City's infrastructure, the expansion of the RUL would alter the land use pattern and, to a certain extent, the character of Napa. Over 60 percent of the 4,000 acres included in the RUL expansion areas are currently undeveloped or considered agricultural resources. Expansion areas in Dry Creek, Congress Valley, Stanly Ranch, Suscol Ridge, and large portions of Coombsville would encroach into areas currently designated by the County for Agricultural Watershed. These are areas that the County seeks to maintain in low intensity uses compatible with watershed management. Urbanization/annexation of these areas would conflict with this objective, and begin to erode the long-standing greenbelt concept that has been a fundamental principle of Napa planning. (RDE1R, p. 5-14.)

Proposed expansion into the Congress Valley, Stanly Ranch, and Coombsville areas would encompass lands under Williamson Act contracts, and may therefore induce premature conversion of these lands from agricultural uses to urban uses. Of the acreage included by this alternative, nearly 520 acres are currently planted as vineyards. Thus, this alternative would lead to a significant loss of agriculturally productive land. A number of unique and important farmlands as mapped by the State of California would be disturbed by proposed expansion, primarily in the Stanly Ranch and Coombsville areas. In the same vein, prime and important state farmlands would be lost along Highway 121 in the Silverado area and in the Dry Creek area. (RDEIR, p. 5-14.)

Finally, expansion of the RUL would introduce urban development into more areas with natural hazards or sensitive resources. The areas proposed for expansion occur on steeper slopes, upslope from the valley floor, and are susceptible to slope instability, especially for the area in Congress Valley, and greater erosion potential. The western portions of the Stanly Ranch expansion area lie in a high/moderate fire hazard area. The greater expanse of land included under this alternative, particularly on the nearby hillsides, increases the likelihood that this Alternative would encroach into the habitats of rare, threatened, and endangered plants and animals. (RDE1R, p. 5-14.)

Conformity with Community Objectives. The first objective involves continued use of the RUL and greenbelt concept to contain the City's expansion. The Expanded RUL Alternative,


90

while retaining the notion of an RUL, proposes extension of the RUL. Extension for the sake of "rounding off" the boundary may make some planning sense; but it is not a prerequisite for a good plan. The Futures Report predicts that the Expanded RUL Alternative would provide sufficient housing to last 26 to 45 years, far beyond the 2020 planning horizon (assuming the average annual rate of housing development experienced between 1980 and 1990 of 400 units per year). As a result, the City concludes that the areas encompassed by the Expanded RUL Alternative are excessive for the planning horizon, and could lead to premature development. Moreover, this Alternative would undermines efforts to emphasize infill development and to take advantage of existing infrastructure capacity. Thus, the Expanded RUL Alternative would not be consistent with the first objective. (RDE1R, p. 5-14.)

The Expanded RUL Alternative may be comparable to the Plan as adopted with respect to the second and sixth objectives (i.e., protection of neighborhood character and commitment to Downtown revitalization). If the residential typologies and residential land use designations included within the new Plan were made part of this Alternative, then future infill development under the Expanded RUL Alternative would be sensitive to existing neighborhood character and historic structures. Likewise, this Alternative would not thwart Downtown revitalization; rather, the proposed increase in population over that of the Plan as adopted might foster economic growth in this activity center. (RDEIR, p. 5-15.)

The Expanded RUL Alternative would result in the significant loss of agriculturally productive lands (over 500 acres of vineyards) and farmlands considered prime and important by the state. Thus, this Alternative would not be consistent with the fourth objective. (RDEIR, p. 5-15.)

Expansion of the RUL would increase the housing supply and the opportunity to provide affordable housing, although it is not clear whether more affordable housing would actually be constructed. With the greater number of housing units, the jobs/housing ratio would decline (the third objective); and the community character would tilt further towards that of a bedroom community. This Alternative is considered consistent with the fifth objective (i.e., promotion of a sustainable and healthy economy) because it would expand the City's residential base and the number of jobs for residents. Under this Alternative, Policy 5a of the Seismic Safety/Safety Element of the existing General Plan is assumed to still apply; therefore, this Alternative would be consistent with the seventh objective (i.e., encouragement of appropriate development in the flood hazard areas of the Napa River). (RDEIR, p. 5-15.)

Summary. The loss of agricultural lands, the increased conflict with the County's adopted land use/environmental goals, the uncertain availability of a future, long-term water supply, the increased conflicts with resource values, and the increased exposure to natural and man-made hazards indicate that the Expanded RUL Alternative is dramatically environmentally inferior to the Plan as approved. Furthermore, this Alternative would fail to advance three of the objectives embodied by the community vision for Napa. (RDEIR, p. 5-15.) For this reason, the City Council rejects the Expanded RUL Alternative for being infeasible, as well as on environmental grounds. (See City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at p. 715.)


91

XII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

As explained in the preceding sections, the City's approval of the Napa General Plan will result in four significant or potentially significant environmental effects that, although substantially lessened, cannot be avoided (i.e., rendered less than significant) even with the integration into the General Plan of policies functioning as mitigation measures. Despite these impacts, however, the City Council has chosen to approve the General Plan (as mitigated). The Council has therefore adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b); CEQA Guidelines, § 15093.)

Any one of the reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the new General Plan. Thus, even if a Court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. In addition, the City would stand by this Statement of Overriding Considerations, due to the clear public benefits of the General Plan, even if a court were to find that some impacts that the City treated as being fully avoided by General Plan policies would, after all, remain residually significant. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding Findings, which are incorporated by reference into this Section pp, and in the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, as defined in Section VI.

The City finds that the Napa General Plan would have the following economic, social, or other benefits:

Adherence to State Law and Existing General Plan Policies. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65300, every city in California must prepare and adopt "a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development" of the community. To keep up to date with changing environment, the City has provided an updated General Plan that reflects the environment of today. The 1975 General Plan and subsequent updates established important policies that create and maintain a RUL, provide protections for agricultural lands outside the City, manage hillside development, address public safety in flood prone areas, recognize and respond to seismic hazards, maintain adequate circulation on key commercial corridors, and provide for a wide range of housing needs. The Project, a comprehensive update of the City of Napa's existing 1982 General Plan, retains and promotes the existing General Plan policies. This fact can be evidenced by the Key Goals of the new General Plan, which are to "[c]ontain growth within the Rural Urban Limit (RUL)" and to "Dimprove the City's jobs/housing balance."

Provision of Updated and more Effective General Plan Policies. The Project, through its policies, encourages a balance between population and economic growth, which expands the opportunities and choices for its citizens, as well as serves regional demand for housing, business development, and agriculture. Napa's town character is defined to include the surrounding permanent greenbelt and open spaces, hillsides, agricultural lands and cultivated areas, public facilities such as parks and schools ; traditional residential neighborhoods, and the historic, architectural, and pedestrian-scale qualities of its central and Downtown areas. The Project allows the City to maintain this small town character, while at the same time improving and enhancing Downtown Napa. There also are certain features and characteristics of the City, some


92

which would be expected to accompany new growth and development, that the City, through the General Plan and its related programs and policies, intends to eliminate, avoid, or minimize. Important new policies will have the effect of enhancing protection for natural resources and habitats, conserving neighborhood character, solidifying the City's commitment to arts and cultural activities, improving public health and safety, improving planning for infrastructure and public services, and supporting mixed use development and creative solutions to providing higher density housing near services. (See Planning Commission Resolution 98-068-CQ, pp. 4- 5; Staff Report for Planning Commission meeting of May 7, 1998, p. 4.)

Protection and Maintenance of the RUL. The strong policies for confining urban development within a Rural Urban Limit (RUL) line have been carried forward from past Napa General Plans. The long-standing policies of both the City and County with regard to the RUL have proven effective in protecting the unincorporated agricultural and open space land around the City for over 20 years. Without strong policies to maintain this urban/rural boundary, urban development could extend outward and threaten the unique agricultural landscape of the Napa Valley. The Project will provide protection of urban/rural areas through its goals and policies. An example of this protection can be evidenced with General Plan Goal LU-2 in the Land Use Element, which commits to maintaining the RUL and supporting Napa County's agricultural and other resource areas. Policies LU-2.1 and LU-2.2 provide support for this goal. Chapter 9 of the General Plan establishes policies regarding any future consideration to move the RUL, and provides specific, stringent criteria that will likely make any expansion of the RUL difficult to approve. (RDEIR p. 3.2-4).

Consistency with Adopted Plans of Other Local and Regional Jurisdictions. The City's General Plan is consistent with, and supportive of the environmental policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The General Plan identifies areas that are subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission, and specifies the land use limitations and criteria for development within these areas (Policies under Goal HS-6). In addition, by clearly defining the long-term urban growth boundary mutually accepted by the City and County, the RUL alleviates premature development pressures to convert unincorporated agricultural, watershed, or open space lands to urban uses, consistent with the policies of the County General Plan. (RDEIR p. 3.2-8)

Encouragement of Access to, and Expansion of, Public Transit Services, Bicycle Use, and Pedestrian Facilities. The Land Use and Transportation Chapters of the General Plan contain policies and implementation programs supporting the use of public transit services and facilities, as well as alternative modes of transportation. The General Plan promotes mobility within the Napa Valley and supports transit services to the City's major activity center, thereby reducing the extent of future local automobile congestion. To further these positive effects of transit, major new commercial projects will be required to be designed to support mass transit and alternative modes of transportation. (Policies LU-5.3, T-5.1, T-5.12, T-5.7, T-5.8, 1-5.9 and T-5.10; RDE1R pp. 3.3-14 — 3.3-15.) The General Plan supports appropriate pedestrian access in all new developments, and the connection of City trails to regional trails (Policies T-9.1 & T-9.4). Pedestrian orientation of retail uses Downtown is encouraged; and pedestrian amenities are promoted (Policies 1-9.5 & T-9.A). (RDEIR p. 3.3-15.) Implementation of policies and

Finding, ofFact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City ofNapa General Plan, Envision Napa 2020

93

programs supporting alternative modes of transportation would also result in the added benefit of reduced energy use, air emissions, and automobile congestion.

Preservation and Enhancement of Scenic and Cultural Resources. The preservation of cultural/historic and scenic resources contributes to the diversity of a community, provides a variety of housing for a wide range of the population, and can have certain economic benefits to local citizens and businesses. The Historic Resources Element of the General Plan contains policies and programs that will support the preservation of the City's cultural and historical heritage by identifying historic buildings, sites, features and districts; identifying and reinforcing historic linkages; encouraging landscape and other improvements to enhance historic areas; and supporting economic incentives through federal state and local funding programs. (Policies HR-1.1, HR-1.5, HR-1.20, HR2.1, HR-2.6; RDEIR pp. 3.5-3 — 3.5-4.) In addition, policies in the Land Use Element supporting neighborhood preservation and the land use designation of TRI will further protect the integrity of historic downtown neighborhoods (LU-1.1, LU-1.4, LU-4.1, LU-10.B; RDEIR p. 3.5-3.)

Implementation of the Project will improve the character of Downtown through a variety of measures that will enhance the visual environment, including promotion of pedestrian-oriented retail and commercial development, and improvement of visual and design character Downtown (Goal LU-6, LU-6.1, LU-6.2, LU-6.3, LU6.8). In addition to the goals for enhancing and reorienting riverfront development downtown (LU-6.4 and LU-6.6), the Project includes a Napa River Section to the Land Use Element (Goals and Policies under LU-9) that promotes further comprehensive planning for the Downtown in order to achieve an urban pattern that complements the design of the Flood Management Project (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-22). In addition to policies addressed to visual resources, gateway, urban design, and resource protection, the Project designates SR 29, SR 121, and SR 221 as scenic corridors to be visually improved (LU-1.6, LU-1.B); and corridor streetscape design guidelines are called out for major streets that are important to the City's character (LU-1.C). The RA Designation will protect visual resources in areas that are visually significant, such as the Napa Oaks property. In addition to policies and programs for protecting natural scenic resources within the RUL, the RUL itself has been established to preclude urbanization of the region's vineyards, hillsides, grasslands, and major marshlands, and to maintain the wine-growing agricultural character of the Napa Valley. Policy LU-10.5 provides the City with the opportunity to restrict development if underlying land use designations are inconsistent with the conservation of critical environmental resources. Policy LU-10.2 reinforces the emphasis on integrating the urban environment with natural features, and calls for special development standards in sensitive natural areas. (6/26/98 PC Policy Document, p. 1-23.) Implementation of the Project will provide the protection and enhancement of valuable cultural/historic resources and scenic vistas for the benefit of the community.

Enhanced Economic Development. The Plan recognizes that Napa is influenced by a growing and healthy Bay Area economy, which has an influence over whether the City can effectively achieve the goals of the local community. The Policy Document establishes a framework for maintaining the City's identity and environmental setting while carefully guiding the location and type of economic development that will further enhance the City's character and provide a meaningful relationship between jobs and housing in the community. The Policy Document


94