Chapter 1
Introduction
The purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final
EIR) for the City of
This chapter provides an overview of the certification and project selection process, the public involvement process, the requirements for and consideration of recirculation, and a description of the response to comment process. This Final EIR also includes:
n Chapter 2: List of commentors, comments on the RDEIR and the responses to those comments. Each comment letter is identified individually with a document code based on the origin of the letter and each comment is assigned a sequential number. This chapter also includes a figure of the Enhanced Minimum Plan for the reader’s reference.
n Chapter 3: Revisions to the RDEIR text, including Section 3.5 Biological Resources in its entirety.
n Chapter 4: Mitigation monitoring and reporting plan.
n Chapter 5: References to documents used to support the comment responses and text modifications to the RDEIR.
n Attachment 1: Copies of the original comment letters and the public hearing meeting minutes.
n Attachment 2: Revised Draft Napa River Flood Protection Project Performance-Based Operation and Maintenance Manual for the Enhanced Minimum Plan (Adaptive Management Plan).
n Attachment 3: Professional Qualifications
1.1 EIR Certification and Project Selection Process
The City of St. Helena’s (City) approval of a comprehensive flood control project is a discretionary act subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) Prior to approving a project, the City Council must certify that: (1) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) the City has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR; and (3) the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15090.)
Once the Final EIR is certified, the City Council will be able to make a decision whether to approve the project as proposed, to approve instead one of the alternatives described in the EIR, or whether to take no action at all. As part of the approval of either the project as proposed or an alternative, the City Council must make findings for each significant effect identified in the EIR, stating whether the effect can be avoided or substantially lessened through feasible mitigation measures or a feasible alternative, whether the effect can be mitigated only through the action of some agency other than the City, or whether proposed mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce particular effects are infeasible and cannot be implemented. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) To ensure implementation of all adopted mitigation measures, the City must adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097.) In addition, if after the adoption of all feasible means of mitigating significant environmental effects, some such effects still remain significant and unavoidable, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying the specific economic, social, or other considerations that, in the City Council’s judgment, outweigh these significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15093.) Within five working days after approval of the project, the City must file a Notice of Determination. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15094.)
Once certified, the Final EIR will also be used by responsible agencies, in deciding whether, or under what conditions, to approve the required entitlements.
On August 1, 2003, the City released the RDEIR for public review and comment. Copies of the RDEIR were distributed to federal and state agencies, local governments, elected officials, groups and private individuals. Copies of the RDEIR were available for review at the City of St. Helena Public Library and at City Hall. The City of St. Helena held public hearings to receive oral comments on August 19, 2003. The comment period closed on September 15, 2003. Federal, State, and local agencies, groups, and individuals submitted written comments on the RDEIR.
On January 20, 2004, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Final EIR. On that date or thereafter, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding certification of the EIR and project approval. After that, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the Final EIR and eventually make a decision regarding certification of the EIR and project approval.
1.3 Agency Approvals and Permits
In order to complete this project, the following agency approvals and permits will be necessary.
n City of St. Helena approval of parcel map to divide Parcel #31 between City (Terrace B), Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park (VVMHP) (relocation area), and current landowner;
n City of St. Helena rezone and General Plan amendment of Terrace B area to Open Space;
n City of St. Helena conditional use permit to construct a public trail or viewing area;
n California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement;
n U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 404 Permit;
n State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification;
n Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO);
n Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit;
n California Department of Transportation (DOT) encroachment permit;
n U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Section 7 consultation with the Corps as part of the 404 permitting process;
n Cancellation or voiding of Williamson Act contracted land by County of Napa; and
n Approval of Measure A funding by Napa County Flood Protection and Watershed Improvement Authority.
1.4 Requirements for and Consideration of Recirculation
State law provides that, if significant new information is added to an EIR after public review, the lead agency must recirculate the document for additional public review and commentary. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.) Significant new information includes, for example, a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact. “[N]ew information to an EIR is not significant unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible projected alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. . . [R]ecirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies . . or makes insignificant modifications in . . an adequate EIR.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1129 - 1130).
In response to comments, several changes have been made to the RDEIR, including corrections and additions to the biology section of the RDEIR. No impacts described as less than significant in the RDEIR, however, have been reevaluated as significant as a result of these changes. Also, no substantial increase in the severity of impacts has been identified as a result of information presented in the comments on the RDEIR. Thus, there is no need to recirculate the RDEIR.
The City of St. Helena is obligated under CEQA to respond to all significant environmental issues raised in comments on the RDEIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.) Thus, responses to all written comments received within and shortly after the close of the comment period, as well as comments received at the August 19, 2003, public hearing, are contained in this Final EIR. Possible responses include requiring specific suggested mitigation measures, supplementing analyses, making factual corrections and explaining why certain comments do not warrant further agency response.
This Final EIR includes responses to each individual comment
received on the RDEIR. Where comments
duplicate previously addressed comments, references to other responses are
provided instead of repeating information.
Editorial revisions to the RDEIR in response to comments are shown in
Chapter 3. Changes in the text are
signified by strikeouts where text is removed and by underlined
italics where text is added.