Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA

Transcription

1 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA 1. Introduction The following aesthetic visual impact assessment has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of this assessment is to identify any potentially adverse visual impacts that might result from the proposed demolition of a 15,000 sf building and the construction of three residential structures totaling 40,645 sf for the Culinary Institute of America (CIA) located at 830 Pratt Avenue, St Helena, California. Several Federal Resource Agencies have developed methodologies for assessing visual impacts on the environment including the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA_FS), US Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (USDI_BLM), and The US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (USDOT-FHWA). However, no federal resource agency has addressed levels of impact intensity or significance of proposed impacts required by CEQA. CEQA requires an evaluation of the potential to cause significant visual impacts to a project. However, CEQA does not specify criteria or specific standards to arrive at the significance of impacts. As a result, an evaluation of impacts on the visual and aesthetic qualities of a project by necessity builds upon CEQA Guidelines and the specific items addressed in Appendix G of the CEQA environmental checklist. The methodology assigned by the BLM fits this project because agricultural land qualities and wide long views predominate. This approach includes: Project description and visual Setting Identification of sensitive view points Analyzing existing visual quality and character of identified views Assessing the project s impact to those views compared to existing visual quality and character, and Proposed methods to mitigate any potentially significant visual impacts 2. Project Description & Visual Setting Project Description Location: Located east of State Highway 29 (Hwy 29) in Napa County within the incorporated limits of St Helena, California the property at 830 Pratt Avenue is a triangular shaped site. The east west street is a relatively flat area of the Napa Valley floor with visual access to the site s existing landscape. The project site is immediately bounded by Vineyard Road to the east, Pratt Avenue to the south, and an existing railroad right-of-way to the west (Figure 1). Existing Conditions: Current building features within the project site can be described in three distinct areas. The southerly one-third of the site fronting on Pratt Avenue contains Vineyard Lodge I, a 15,050 sf single story residential structure with the remaining land area is surface parking. The second one-third contains a two story 12,848 sf residential building identified as Vineyard Lodge II. The most northerly one-third of the site is currently unimproved and vacant. Proposed Project: The Culinary Institute of America (CIA) proposes to remove Vineyard Lodge I, and construct three (3) residential structures clustered around a central courtyard. The additional 40,645 sf, located within the most southerly one-third of the property will add 164 beds in buildings varying in height from 29-0 to The following table illustrates specific information for each structure within the grouping: Building Description Bldg Height Setback from Street Vineyard Lodge II Existing Bldg Building A Two (2) stories Three (3) story at rear 29-2 (along Vineyard Road) 20-0 from Pratt Ave Property Line 50 from Centerline of Pratt Ave Right-of-way 40-2 (at 3 story portion) Building B Two (2) stories Rectangular plan from Pratt Ave Property Line 50-0 from Centerline of Pratt Ave Right-of-way Building C Three (3) stories Rectangular in plan from Pratt Ave Property Line from Centerline of Pratt Ave Right-of-way

2 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA 3. Methodology Documents Identified & Field Inspection: Visual Impacts were identified by evaluating plan drawings and landscape plans taking into account the existing project setting, and analyzing visual simulations of project features at key viewpoints. Interpretation of existing visual character and surrounding land use was based on field visits conducted in July Research of the regulatory setting for the project was undertaken, including review of city planning documents and policies. Visual Changes & Impacts Defined: Aesthetics and urban design are subjective fields, and visual changes that are favored or accepted by one may not be acceptable by another. The effects of visual changes are open to interpretation. Generally, a visual change is considered adverse if the project introduces obtrusive elements substantially out of character with the existing land use or substantially obscures a scenic view or vista available to sensitive receptors. In addition, visual change is considered adverse if it would damage scenic resources like trees, historic buildings, or other features of the visual environment that contribute to the scenic public setting. This visual analysis characterizes the visual setting and identifies import visual features and resources, in addition to scenic vistas experienced from within. View groups are identified, including sensitive view groups, in order to understand the potential visual changes that could be experienced with implementation of a proposed project. Further, St Helena s General Plan cites as a community goal the nomination of Hwy 29 as a California Scenic Highway. This assessment will take into account the potential to effect visual quality and character of eligible scenic resources, any identified historic resources, as well as from viewpoints that are likely to represent the experience of highly sensitive view groups. 4. Regulatory Setting State Standards: Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines contains a checklist of environmental effects that may be considered significant. Under the category of Aesthetics, a project may be considered to have a significant visual impact on the environment if it will: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; B. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The CEQA checklist questions are incorporated with other evaluation methods suited to the environment to determine the potential significance of the impacts generated by the proposed project. Local Standards: At the local level, the City of St Helena has established polices regarding protection of views. Within the current St Helena General Plan, The Residential Neighborhoods topic within the Land Use and Growth Management chapter, and The Gateway, Edges and Views topic of the Community Design chapter identify protection and enhancement policies affecting view protection. Visual Quality Rating: The before and after visual quality of viewpoints can be numerically rated according to the presence of seven key landscape components: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications. 1 By comparing the difference in visual quality from the baseline to post project visual conditions, the severity of project related visual impacts could be quantified. However, in some cases, visual changes caused by projects may actually have a beneficial visual effect, which enhances scenic quality. The table below illustrates the visual quality rating system for viewpoints. While most components of the visual landscape can be objectively rated by this system, the rating of cultural or manmade modifications can be a potentially subjective element. Therefore, it is important to assess project 1 Rating scale based on the Bureau of Land Management s (BLM) Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 2

3 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA effects relative to the visual character of the project setting. Visual character is qualitatively defined by eight important descriptive character components: form, line, color, texture, dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity. VISUAL QUALITY RATING SYSTEM KEY FACTORS LANDFORM VEGETATION WATER COLOR INFLUENCE OF ADJACENT SCENERY SCARCITY CULTURAL MODIFICATIONS RATING CRITERIA & SCORE High vertical relief as expressed in Steep canyons, mesas buttes, prominent cliffs, spires, or massive rock cinder cones and drumlins; or outcrops, or sever surface variation or interesting erosional patterns highly eroded formations including or variety in size and shape of major badlands or dune systems; or landforms; or detail features detail features dominant and which are interesting though exceptionally striking and intriguing not dominant or exceptional such as glaciers. SCORE = 3 SCORE = 5 A variety of vegetative types as expressed in interesting forms, textures, and patterns SCORE = 5 Clear and clean appearing, still, or cascading white water, any of which are a dominant factor in the landscape. SCORE=5 Rich color combinations, variety or vivid color; or pleasing contrasts in the soil, vegetation, water or snowfields. SCORE=5 Adjacent scenery greatly enhances visual quality. SCORE=5 One of a kind; or unusually memorable, or very rare within region. Consistent chance for exceptional wildlife or wildflower viewing, etc. SCORE=5 Modifications ad favorably to visual variety while promoting visual harmony. SCORE=2 Some variety of vegetation, but only one or two major types. SCORE = 3 Flowing or still, but not dominant in the landscape. SCORE=3 Some intensity or variety in colors and contrast of the soil, rock, and vegetation, but not a dominant scenic element. SCORE=3 Adjacent scenery moderately enhances overall visual quality. SCORE=3 Distinctive, though somewhat similar to others within the region. SCORE=3 Low rolling hills, foothills, or flat valley bottoms; or few or no interesting landscape features. SCORE = 1 Little or no variety or contrast in vegetation. SCORE = 1 Absent, or present but not noticeable. SCORE=1 Subtle color variation, contrast, or interest, generally mute tomes. SCORE=1 Adjacent scenery has little or no influence on the overall visual quality. SCORE=1 Interesting within its setting but fairly common within the region. SCORE=1 Modifications add little or no Modifications add visual variety to the area, and variety but are very introducing not discordant discordant and elements. promote strong disharmony SCORE=0 SCORE =-4 TOTAL SCORE: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 3

4 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA Projects that create a high level of contrast to the existing visual character of a project setting are more likely to generate adverse visual impacts due to the inherent visual compatibility. Conversely, projects that create a low level of contrast to the existing visual character are less likely to generate adverse visual impacts due to inherent visual compatibility. On this basis, project modifications are quantified and evaluated for impact assessment purposes. The following designations are used to describe the level of project impacts: Potentially Significant Impact: Any impact that could potentially permanently lower the visual quality of an identified sensitive viewpoint, and for which no feasible or effective mitigation can be identified. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated: Any impact that could potentially permanently lower the visual quality of an identified viewpoint, but can be minimized or screened with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, specific mitigation measures are provided to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Less Than Significant Impact: Any visible impact that would not potentially lower the visual quality of an identified sensitive viewpoint, In visual impact analysis, a less than significant impact usually occurs when a project s visual modifications can be seen but do not dominate, contrast with, or strongly degrade a sensitive viewpoint. No Impact: The project would not have an impact from an identified sensitive viewpoint. In visual impact analysis, there is no impact if the project s potential visual modifications cannot be seen from and identified sensitive viewpoint. Visual Setting: Located on the valley floor the project site is flanked by the Mayacamas Mountain Range on the western and northern sides the Vaca Mountains on the eastern side. Several smaller valleys exist within these two ranges. The floor of the main valley undulates to the north and gradually rises from sea level at the valley s southern end to 362 feet (110 m) above sea level at the northern end in Calistoga at the foot of Mount Saint Helena. The setting includes distant views of the Mayacamas and Vaca Mountain ranges with gradual undulating volcanic period landforms that create periodic interruptions in the view experience. Visual Character: The project site is situated at the northern border of St Helena s urban limits where medium density housing development is bordered by agricultural land uses immediately to the north and east. Therefore, the visual character of the project area is comprised of both residential scale single-family residences (south and west) and agricultural uses including processing and storage (north, east, and west). Sensitive Viewpoints: Based upon the CEQA Guidelines checklist and on land uses that are commonly seen by regulatory agencies as visually sensitive, for the purpose of this report potentially sensitive viewpoints would include scenic vistas, scenic highways, residential views, public parks, recreational areas, and / or important historic locations from which the project could potentially be visible. A scenic vista is defined as an area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designate by a federal date, or local agency. A Scenic Highway is defined as any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a federal, state or local agency. While, not currently listed as a scenic highway, portions of Hwy 29 within the vicinity of the project site have been identified as eligible by the State of California. Further, the City of St Helena has identified submission of Hwy 29 for Scenic Highway status as a goal of its General Plan. As such, this assessment treats Hwy 29 as a scenic resource for assessment purposes (SV1). Views from public parks, recreational trails, and/or important historic sites have high visual sensitivities. Each are considered sensitive viewpoints. Field inspection and document research identified Beringer Vineyards and the CIA Greystone Campus formerly Greystone Vineyard property are known historic resources within proximity of the proposed project site. No locations were identified where the project site is visible from the Beringer property and therefore removed from consideration. Only Greystone possesses high visual sensitivity. As such, this viewpoint is identified as SV2 and potential impacts to this viewpoint are assessed. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 4

5 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA View Groups: Viewers of project features can be categorized in the following view groups: Pedestrians Pedestrians walking to and from within the project area, or other streets that offer view of the project area. Cyclists cyclists riding to and from along Pratt Avenue and Vineyard Road within the right-of-way adjacent to the project. Motorists automobile and truck drivers and passengers traveling past the project area. Residents residents who live along Pratt Avenue in view of the project area. Tourists visitors/tourists who have traveled along Pratt Avenue with the intention of experiencing the visual resources of the area and wineries to the east. Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Motorists groups tend to have a more dynamic and a less prolonged view of landscape features elements. Of the five (5) view groups, neighboring residential viewers have a higher visual sensitivity resulting from extended viewing periods than other view groups. For this reason, residential views are typically considered sensitive. Views from public parks, recreational trails, and/or important historic sites have high visual sensitivities and considered sensitive viewpoints The City of St Helena identified six (6) locations where it is likely the proposed project would have the potential to affect sensitive residential viewer group and other secondary view groups. The six viewpoints (VP1-VP6) are described and the proposed project impacts are analyzed in the following section. 5. Potential Project Impacts / Affected Environment Summary of Visual Impacts SV1 Viewpoint from Eligible Scenic Hwy 29 at Pratt Avenue toward Project Site: The proposed project site is located approximately 1,350 feet east of State Highway (Hwy) 29. Sparsely located mature landscaping and varying changes in terrain characterize the view from this viewpoint. From Hwy 29 the project site is identified by a group of mature trees including a camphor tree in the southwest corner of the property. Viewed from this location, the pre-project scenic quality rating scores and the post-project scores noted in the SV1 Quality Rating Table indicate the proposed project does not measurably alter the viewer s perception. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an impact on the features viewed from this eligible scenic highway. SV1 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 1 1 Water 1 1 Color 1 1 Adjacent Scenery 3 3 Scarcity 3 3 Cultural Modifications 0 0 Total Score Limited view of proposed project. Does not appear not to have an impact on visible resources from this viewpoint. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 5

6 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA SV2 Viewpoint from Historic Resource (Hwy 29 at CIA Greystone) looking toward the project site: Views of the project site from viewpoints north of Pratt Avenue along Hwy 29 are characterized by an undulating valley floor landscape with clusters of planted mature trees near residential and commercial activities. The viewpoint from the north at the entrance to The Greystone campus of the Culinary Institute of America, across the valley toward the project site is interrupted by Beringer Vineyards production and storage facilities (Figure 2). The current Vineyard Lodge II and adjacent proposed project are located south and east of the Beringer facilities and are minimally visible from this viewpoint. As illustrated by the SV2 Scenic Quality Rating, the baseline visual quality score for this viewpoint is rated at 10 points. The post-project visual quality score for the same viewpoint is also rated at 10 points. The reviewers found no discernable difference in the two views. Given the distance from the project site, the character and nature of the existing land uses around the site and the project s visual changes are minimally different from what is presently seen. The scale of project features do not dominate the visual landscape nor do they impede views of the surrounding environment. Therefore, visual impacts from SV2 are less than significant. Viewed from this location, the pre-project scenic quality rating scores and the post-project scores as noted in the SV2 Quality Rating Table indicate the proposed project does not measurably alter the viewer s perception of the environment and would not have an impact on the features viewed from this historic resource. SV2 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 1 1 Water 1 1 Color 1 1 Adjacent Scenery 3 3 Scarcity 3 3 Cultural Modifications 0 0 Total Score VP1 Viewpoint looking west from the center of Pratt Avenue and fifty feet from the eastern corner of the project site: The pre-project setting is characterized by a predominance of foreground trees bordering Pratt Avenue and Vineyard Road. From this viewpoint, the existing Vineyard I and II buildings are minor features located in the background behind perimeter landscaping. A narrow portion of the Mayacamas range is visible within the Pratt Avenue right-of-way and hills are viewed through the project site. Through a break in the property s perimeter trees and over existing Lodge I roof, the background hillside beyond Hwy 29 is visible. The post-project view of the site as evidenced by the VP1 Scenic Quality Rating identifies an impact to this view as the result of replacing the surface parking area and existing interior trees with Buildings A & B at the Pratt Avenue and Vineyard Road corner of the property. From this viewpoint, the post-project simulation include existing and proposed landscape improvements based on five (5) years of growth. The landscaped perimeter remains a prominent visual feature and acts to screen buildings A & B at Pratt Avenue and Vineyard Road. Retention of existing trees adjacent to the public right-of-way, and the addition of proposed new trees, which over time will further reduce the prominence of the buildings, the visual change is reduced to less than significant. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 6

7 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA VP1 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 3 3 Water 1 1 Color 1 1 Adjacent Scenery 3 1 Scarcity 1 1 Cultural Modifications 0 0 Total Score 10 8 Proposed project has an impact to this view. New landscape treatment reduces the impact to less than significant. VP2 Viewpoint looking east from the center of Pratt Avenue and fifty feet from the western corner of the project site: The pre-project viewpoint illustrates the prominence of existing trees along Pratt Avenue and along the railroad right-of-way largely screen the one-story Vineyard Lodge I. Middle ground hills are visible east along the Pratt Avenue right-of-way. The Vaca Mountain ridgeline is visible beyond the thirty-two foot (32-0 ) high Vineyard Lodge II to the north and east. Portions of proposed project Buildings A & C replace Vineyard Lodge I. The introduction of new landscape trees at or near the railroad right-of-way reduces the visual impact of new construction. The introduction of new construction is a visual change. However, the siting, design, height, materials and color selection contribute to reduce perceived visual changes. As the VP2 Scenic Quality Ratings indicate, pre-project and post-project scores are the same (10). The difference between the pre-project qualities and the post-project qualities do not measurably alter the viewer s perception of the environment and would not have an impact from this viewpoint. VP2 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 3 3 Water 1 1 Color 1 1 Adjacent Scenery 3 3 Scarcity 1 1 Cultural Modifications 0 0 Total Score The proposed project appears to have no impact on the environment from this viewpoint. VP3 Viewpoint looking west from the center of Pratt Avenue and approximately 200 feet from the eastern corner of the project site: The pre-project foreground view is composed of vineyard plantings, trees along Vineyard Road that provide partial views of Vineyard Lodge I and II, and mountain range in the background within the Pratt Avenue right-of-way. The middle ground hillside is visible above the cultural modifications, Vineyard Lodge II. The post-project simulation view indicates proposed buildings will be visible above the tree line located at the site s perimeter. The siting, design, and overall height of the proposed project are similar to the existing cultural modifications, Vineyard Lodge I and nearby residential properties south of Pratt Avenue. Although the comparison of pre- and post-project views confirms a visual change, the viewers perception of the surrounding environment is not significantly different in the pre-and post-project views. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 7

8 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA As a result of the proposed landscape, the VP3 Scenic Quality Rating scores indicate the proposed project does not measurably alter the viewer s perception of the environment and would not have an impact on the features from this viewpoint. VP3 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 3 3 Water 1 1 Color 1 1 Adjacent Scenery 3 3 Scarcity 1 1 Cultural Modifications 0 0 Total Score The proposed project appears to have no impact from this viewpoint. VP4 Viewpoint looking east from the center of Pratt Avenue and approximately 200 feet from the western corner of the project site: The pre-project view is composed of planted vineyard in the foreground screening all but the roof and chimneys of Vineyard Lodge I, and the roof of Vineyard Lodge II. Hills to the east-northeast form the visible middle ground throughout the view with a portion of the Vaca Mountains visible in the background. The post-project view of the site as evidenced by the VP4 Scenic Quality Rating identifies an impact to this view as the result of replacing the single story Vineyard Lodge I with Buildings B & C (Cultural Modifications). The postproject simulation indicates the added landscape features have been located to reduce the presence of the proposed modifications. The design, materials and color selections further contribute to reducing the impact to visual quality. From this viewpoint, the post-project simulation indicates the proposed landscape and trees reduce the prominence of the proposed cultural modifications to less than significant. VP4 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 3 3 Water 1 1 Color 1 1 Adjacent Scenery 3 3 Scarcity 1 1 Cultural Modifications 0-4 Total Score 10 6 Proposed project has an impact to this view. New landscape treatment reduces the impact to less than significant. VP5 Viewpoint looking north from the south side of Pratt Avenue aligning with driveway adjacent to railroad right-of-way: The pre-project view is dominated by mature trees adjacent to the Pratt Avenue right-of-way. Cultural modifications including utility poles, overhead utility lines, rail crossing arms and utility boxes are located in the foreground. The hillside as middle ground is a minor feature from this viewpoint. Similarly, the Vaca Mountains within the railroad right-of-way is a minor component in the background. Trees within the railroad right-of-way help define the western boundary of the project site. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 8

9 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA Viewed from this location, the pre-project scenic quality rating scores and the post-project scores as noted in the VP5 Scenic Quality Rating indicate the proposed project does not measurably alter the viewer s perception of the environment and would not have an impact from this viewpoint. VP5 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 1 1 Water 1 1 Color 1 1 Adjacent Scenery 1 1 Scarcity 1 1 Cultural Modifications 0 0 Total Score 6 6 From VP5 the proposed project appears to have no impact from this viewpoint. VP6 Viewpoint looking north from the south side of Pratt Avenue at the midpoint of the Pratt Avenue frontage of the project site: The pre-project view of the project site is located near the center of the Pratt Avenue property line, opposite one of the two entry / exits to the property s surface parking. Mature trees that line the property along Pratt Avenue are located to the east and west. Existing trees at the site s interior partially screen Vineyard Lodge I to the west and Vineyard Lodge II to the North. Minimally visible, the hillside forms the middle ground in this view. A small portion of the Mayacamas range is visible near the center of the viewpoint. The post-project simulation illustrates Buildings A & B placed on the site set back 20-0 from the property line. The buildings are screened by the insertion of trees and landscaping replacing existing driveways, which complete the row of trees along Pratt Avenue. The multi-building plan provides the project with a scale and character consistent with Vineyard Lodge II. The architectural features further articulate the structures to blend with the residential qualities of nearby properties along Pratt Avenue. The cultural modifications score of the VP6 Scenic Quality Rating indicates a reduction in scenic quality. The proposed project provides for increasing the amount of landscaping within the setback along Pratt Avenue to mitigate the reduced visual quality residential and other view groups may experience. Further, the building design, materials and color selections were devised to reduce Building A & C s scale to a residential character and blend into the surrounding land features. With retention of existing trees adjacent to the public right-of-way and the addition of proposed new trees, which at maturity will further reduce the prominence of the buildings, the visual change is reduced to less than significant. VP6 Scenic Quality Rating Criteria Pre-Project Score Post-Project Score Landform 1 1 Vegetation 1 1 Water 1 1 Color 3 3 Adjacent Scenery 3 1 Scarcity 1 1 Cultural Modifications 0 0 Total Score 10 8 Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 9

10 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA 6. Conclusions This assessment identified eight sensitive viewpoints. Two long distant viewpoints (SV1 and SV2) that assessed potential impacts from Hwy 29 at Pratt Avenue, an eligible scenic highway, and the CIA at Greystone, a historic resource with a view of the project site. Six viewpoints (VP1-VP6) were selected to study the project form locations that may be seen by nearby residential viewers. The distant viewpoint (SV1) at Highway 29 and Pratt Avenue, as well as the view from the CIA at Greystone (SV2) resulted in no visual impact in these highly sensitive locations. Three of the six viewpoints (VP2, VP3, and VP5) were found to have no impact on visual quality. The three remaining, (VP1, VP4, and VP6) were found to have a less than significant impact on visual quality of the surrounding environment. The result of the foregoing analysis indicates the project from both the distant locations (SV1 and SV2) and nearby residential viewpoints (VP1 VP6) would have a less than significant impact. 7. References Caltrans California Scenic Highway Program Website: St Helena General Plan Update: United States Department of Transportation, Federal highway Administration, Office of Environmental Policy, Visual Assessment for Highway Projects, Publication No FHWA-HI (1983). United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Visual Resource Management Manual, Section 8400 (1980) Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 10

11 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA Appendix A Figure 1: Aerial of Site (NTS) Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 11

12 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA Figure 2: Locations of Scenic Views from Potential Resources. SV1 taken at Hwy 29 at Pratt Avenue and SV2 taken at Hwy 29 at CIA at Greystone. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 12

13 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA Figure 3: Locations of Viewpoints (VP1-VP6) Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 13

14 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA Figure 4 SV1 View from Hwy 29 along Pratt Avenue toward proposed project site. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 14

15 Visual Impact Assessment 830 Pratt Avenue St Helena, CA Figure 5: View taken from CIA_Greystone over Hwy 29 looking southeast to project site located behind Beringer production and warehouse facilities. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 Page 15

16

17 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 1: BEFORE AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 4

18

19 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 1: AFTER AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 5

20

21 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 2: BEFORE AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 6

22

23 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 2: AFTER AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 7

24

25 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 3: BEFORE AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 8

26

27 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 3: AFTER AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 9

28

29 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 4: BEFORE AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 10

30

31 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 4: AFTER AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 11

32

33 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 5: BEFORE AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 12

34

35 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 5: AFTER AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 13

36

37 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 6A: BEFORE AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 14

38

39 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 6A: AFTER AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 15

40

41 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 6: BEFORE AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 16

42

43 CULINARY INSTITUTE OF AMERICA NAPA VALLEY VIEW 6: AFTER AUGUST 15, 2016 PAGE 17

44