American Canyon City Council
December 6, 2022

9 10
1032
12 “…the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence of burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.”75 The proposed wetland preserve would not mitigate the impacts to burrowing owl habitat because it does not contain ground squirrel burrows (or surrogates).76 As a result, Project impacts to burrowing owl habitat remain potentially significant.

Merlin and Ferruginous Hawk
The merlin and ferruginous hawk have been detected immediately north of the Project site77 and the DEIR acknowledges that the Project site provides suitable foraging habitat for both species.78 The Project would directly and functionally eliminate (i.e., through implementation of MM LU3) habitat for these two species. The DEIR fails to disclose, analyze, or incorporate mitigation for this potentially significant impact.

Invasive Plants (GP Policy 8.4.3)
Invasive (alien) plants threaten biodiversity, alter ecosystem processes,79 and can cause extinction of native species.80 Indeed, next to habitat loss, invasive species pose the greatest threat to the nation’s biodiversity and natural resources.81 The Project has the potential to introduce invasive plant species or facilitate their spread.

Construction vehicles and equipment are common vectors for transporting invasive plant propagules from one place to another.82 In addition, soil and vegetation disturbance associated with Project construction and maintenance activities creates suitable conditions for the establishment of invasive plants.83

75 Ibid, p. 8. 76 DEIR, Appendix C.1, Biological Resources Report, p. 31. 77 eBird. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Checklists S80227479 and S96771272.
78 DEIR, Appendix C.1, Biological Resources Report, Table 2. 79 Vitousek P. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7–13. See also Theoharides KA, Dukes JS. 2007. Plant invasion across space and time:
factors affecting nonindigenous species success during four stages of invasion. New Phytologist 176:256-273. 80 Gurevitch J, Padilla DK. 2004. Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(9):470-474.
81 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs. 2013. Invasive Species Management. Statement for the Record: U.S. Department of the Interior Before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation's oversight hearing on “Invasive Species Management on Federal Lands.”
82 Cal-IPC. 2012. Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Managers (3rd ed.). Cal-IPC Publication 2012-03. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. 83 Ibid.

CASHEN

10 11
12 1033
13 The DEIR fails to incorporate mitigation that would minimize the Project’s potential to introduce invasive plant species or facilitate their spread. As a result, potentially significant impacts associated with the colonization and spread of invasive plants remain unmitigated, and the Project does not comply with General Plan Policy 8.4.3 (regarding control of alien plants).

Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines (14 Ca. Code Regs. § 15130(b)(3)) require lead agencies to define the geographic scope of the area affected by the cumulative effect and provide a reasonable explanation for the geographic limitation used. The DEIR states: “[t]he geographic scope of the cumulative biological resources analysis is a 0.5-mile radius of the project site.”84 The DEIR fails to provide an explanation for limiting the geographic scope to 0.5-mile, which is far too small to provide a valid assessment of cumulative impacts to biological resources that occur at the Project site.

The DEIR states: “[a]lthough there would be loss of foraging habitat, the cumulative loss of this resource would not be considerable due to the abundance of habitat in the American Canyon area.”85 This statement is not supported by evidence (e.g., data) and conflicts with the Biological Resources Analysis prepared for the Green Island Road Reconstruction and Widening Project.

The Biological Resources Analysis for that project states: “the Giovannoni property is the only remaining natural, undisturbed habitat located in the vicinity of the project site…”86 Furthermore, the DEIR’s rationale is flawed because it applies two different geographic scales to the analysis. It is not possible to accurately analyze cumulative impacts by using one geographic scale (i.e., the “American Canyon area”) to analyze the abundance of remaining habitat, but a much smaller scale (i.e., 0.5-mile) to analyze other projects that would impact foraging habitat.

CDFW’s comments in response to the Project’s Notice of Preparation state: “reduction of available habitat for a special-status species, should be considered cumulatively considerable without mitigation to minimize or avoid the impact.”87 The DEIR does not incorporate mitigation for the Project’s contribution to habitat loss for special-status species. Although the proposed wetland preserve would maintain approximately 45 acres of open space, the preserve would have minimal (or no) value as habitat for special-status species and could function as an “ecological trap” due to implementation of MM LU-3 and the surrounding industrial land uses.88 As a result, the Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts remains significant.

84 DEIR, p. 4-5.
85 Ibid. 86 DEIR, Appendix C.7, M& A 2019 Green Island Road Widening Biological Resources Assessment, p. 8. 87 DEIR, Appendix A, CDFW comments, p. 6.
88 An “ecological trap” occurs when an organism is lured into habitat where it either dies or has reduced reproductive output. See Robertson BA, Rehage JS, Sih A. 2013. Ecological novelty and the emergence of evolutionary traps. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:552-560.

CASHEN

12 13
1034
14 Impacts Caused by MM LU-3
Wetlands are attractive to many types of wildlife, including many which rank high on the list of species hazardous to aircraft.89 As a result, the FAA recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited at least 10,000 feet from the nearest aircraft operations area (for airports serving turbine-powered aircraft).90 The wetland mitigation project (“preserve”) proposed in the DEIR would be located approximately 3,000 feet from the aircraft operations area at the Napa County Airport.

MM LU-3 requires a wildlife hazard assessment that would identify measures to reduce the bird attractant potential of the proposed wetland preserve.91 The DEIR does not identify the specific measures that might be implemented to reduce the abundance of birds at the proposed wetland preserve. However, potential measures generally fall into one of three categories: (1) modifying the landscape in order to deter wildlife, (2) hazing, or (3) removal of hazardous wildlife.92 Modifying the landscape to deter wildlife does not appear to be a feasible option because it would preclude implementation of MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 (which require establishment of wetlands in the preserve). In addition, removal (i.e., translocation or killing) of wildlife does not appear to be a feasible option due to legal constraints and the potential abundance of birds at the preserve. Therefore, it appears that implementation of MM LU-3 would (or might) require hazing (e.g., pyrotechnics, propane cannons, or directional sonic/hailing devices). Although hazing may be effective, it could have adverse effects on non-target organisms, including special-status species. As a result, the DEIR must disclose, analyze, and mitigate any potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of MM LU-3.

MITIGATION ISSUES
MM BIO-1a (Swainson’s Hawk)
MM BIO-1a provides conflicting information on the pre-construction survey requirements in relation to initiation of construction activities. MM BIO-1a first states that preconstruction surveys “shall be completed for at least two survey periods immediately prior to commencement of project construction” in accordance with the survey protocol developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. However, MM BIO-1a then states:
“If no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first non-optional survey period starting March 20, then project construction may commence. If during the third surveys (April 5–April 20) Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it shall be assumed the Swainson’s hawk commenced nesting and thus the Swainson’s hawk are

89 Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Hazardous Attractants on or near Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200- 33B. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
90 Federal Aviation Administration. 2020. Hazardous Attractants on or near Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200- 33C. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.
91 DEIR, p. 3.9-52. [emphasis added].
92 Federal Aviation Administration. 2020. Hazardous Attractants on or near Airports. Advisory Circular 150/5200- 33C. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C.

CASHEN

14 15
1035
15 habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site.”
The survey protocol states: “[t]o meet the minimum level of protection for the species, surveys should be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a project’s initiation.”93 Therefore, allowing construction to commence during the first non-optional survey period would violate the protocol and would not ensure protection for the species. Furthermore, the DEIR’s rationale pertaining to habituation of Swainson’s hawks nesting in the Project vicinity is flawed because it assumes: (a) noise, human activity, and other disturbances that may cause nest abandonment would not increase (or change) as construction progresses; and (b) that construction activities have no potential to cause take of “habituated” Swainson’s hawks. These assumptions have not been substantiated and are not necessarily valid. For example, a nesting pair of Swainson’s hawk may tolerate noise and human activity that is dispersed across the Project site (e.g., during the site preparation and grading phases) but not noise and human activity that is concentrated near the nest site (e.g., during the building construction phase).

Furthermore, even if the Swainson’s hawk pair does not abandon their nest in response to Project construction activities, those activities could cause adverse effects that are not readily apparent to humans. For example, a simulation model examining the cost of human disturbance found large reductions in the number of food items captured following disturbance.94 This constitutes take under Fish and Game Code Section 2080.95
MM BIO-1a requires installation of a 1,000-foot buffer around Swainson’s hawk nest sites.

CDFW mitigation guidelines call for a ¼-mile buffer.96 The DEIR does not provide evidence that a 1,000-foot buffer would be sufficient to prevent impacts, nor does it require monitoring to validate the adequacy of the reduced buffer. As a result, and because the DEIR does not require compensatory mitigation for the Project’s impacts to foraging habitat, Project impacts on the Swainson’s hawk remain potentially significant.

MM BIO-1b (Golden Eagle)
MM BIO-1b states:
“No more than 30 days prior to the first ground disturbance activity, preconstruction golden eagle nesting surveys shall be conducted in the project site vicinity. Pre-construction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a 0.5-mile radius around all project activities. If active golden eagle active nests are identified within any trees within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, a qualified Raptor Biologist shall establish a protection buffer at a minimum of 1,000 feet that is adequate to ensure noise or activity from the proposed project would not cause nest disturbance or young or adult bird

93 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000 May 31. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. p. 2. [emphasis added]. 94 Blumstein DT. 2006. Developing an evolutionary ecology of fear: how life history and natural history traits affect disturbance tolerance in birds. Animal Behaviour 71:389-399. 95 California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. pp. 3 and 4. 96 Ibid. p. 11.

CASHEN

15 16a
1036
16 mortality. Buffer zones may vary in size as some golden eagles are more acclimated to disturbance than others. Size of buffer zone may be modified by the qualified Raptor Biologist considering the type of construction activity that may occur and the behavioral factors and extent that golden eagle may have acclimated to disturbance.”
There are several problems with MM BIO-1b. First, the mitigation measure does not require surveys that adhere to the USFWS survey protocol,97 nor does it establish any standards for the survey techniques and level of effort. This is important because golden eagle nests may be difficult to detect unless special techniques (e.g., aerial surveys) are implemented.98 Second, the 1,000-foot buffer proposed in MM BIO-1b is inconsistent with USFWS guidelines, which recommend a one-mile no-disturbance buffer surrounding golden eagle nesting sites.99 Third, the DEIR provides no evidence that a reduced buffer might be sufficient for some eagles, nor does it explain how the qualified Raptor Biologist would be able to make the a priori determination that a particular eagle pair would be able to tolerate forthcoming construction activities. Instead the DEIR allows a trial and error approach with no monitoring or remedial action requirements.

Golden eagles are known to be highly sensitive to many types of disturbance100 and may react to human activity as far as 1,500 meters (4,921 feet) from nesting sites.101 While golden eagles can develop tolerance of some forms of disturbance (e.g., hikers), there is no evidence that golden eagles can tolerate the high levels of disturbance caused by construction activities. Furthermore, Pauli et al. (2017) demonstrated that tolerance for even moderate levels of disturbance may not develop within a population at a sufficient rate to offset the adverse effects of the disturbance activity, particularly because the golden eagle is a long-lived species with low recruitment.102

97 Pagel JE, Whittington DM, Allen GT. 2010 Feb. Interim Golden Eagle inventory and monitoring protocols; and other recommendations. Division of Migratory Birds, United States Fish and Wildlife Service. See also U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. Updated Eagle Nest Survey Protocol. Available at:
<https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/eagle-nest-survey-guidance-updated-protocol.pdf> 98 Ibid, pp. 11 and 12. 99 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021 May. Recommended Buffer Zones for Ground-based Human Activities around Nesting Sites of Golden Eagles in California and Nevada. Available at:
<https://www.fws.gov/cno/conservation/migratorybirds/pdf-files/USFWS-Pacific-Southwest-Region-golden-eaglenest-buffer-recommendations-May2021.pdf> 100 Ruddock M, Whitfield DP. 2007. A Review of Disturbance Distances in Selected Bird Species. A report from Natural Research (Projects) Ltd to Scottish Natural Heritage. 181 pp. 101 Steenhof K, Brown JL, Kochert MN. 2014. Temporal and Spatial Changes in Golden Eagle Reproduction in Relation to Increased Off Highway Vehicle Activity. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38(4):682–688. 102 Pauli BP, Spaul RJ, Heath JA. 2017. Forecasting disturbance effects on wildlife: tolerance does not mitigate effects of increased recreation on wildlands. Animal Conservation 20:251-260. Available at:
<https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/acv.12308>.

CASHEN

16a
16b
1037
17 MM BIO-1c (Northern Harrier)
MM BIO-1c states: “[a]n active northern harrier nest must be protected by implementing a minimum 500-foot radius buffer zone around the nest marked with orange construction fencing.” The DEIR fails to provide evidence that a 500-foot buffer would be sufficient to prevent impacts to northern harrier nests, and thus the proposed buffer appears to be arbitrary.

MM BIO-1d (Burrowing Owl)
MM BIO-1d requires a no-disturbance buffer zone a minimum of 100 feet around any burrows occupied by burrowing owls. However, MM BIO-1d allows the Applicant to passively relocate owls if installation of the buffer zone would preclude construction activities.

The 100-foot buffer required under MM BIO-1d is inconsistent with CDFW mitigation guidelines, which recommend a 500-meter (1,640-foot) buffer between occupied burrows and activities causing a high level of disturbance (e.g., construction activities), regardless of season.103 Because the DEIR allows the Applicant to install a buffer that is substantially (94%) less than the buffer recommended by CDFW, it does not ensure Project construction activities would avoid causing significant impacts to burrowing owls.

Passive Relocation (Burrow Exclusion)
“Passive relocation” involves installation of one-way doors in burrow openings to evict burrowing owls and prevent burrow re-occupation. The DEIR does not disclose or evaluate impacts to burrowing owls due to burrow exclusion, nor does it identify mitigation measures sufficient to reduce such impacts below a level of significance. Consistent with CDFW guidelines, burrow exclusion is a potentially significant impact under CEQA that must be analyzed.104 Specifically, burrow exclusion may result in: (a) significant loss of habitat for reproduction, refuge from predators, and shelter from weather; (b) increased stress on burrowing owls and reduced reproductive rates; (c) increased depredation; (d) increased energetic costs; and (e) risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows.105 The need for full analysis of potential impacts associated with passive relocation (i.e., exclusion) of burrowing owls is further supported by research that indicates most relocation projects have resulted in fewer breeding pairs of burrowing owls at the mitigation site than at the original site, and that relocation projects generally have failed to produce self-sustaining populations.106 Investigators attribute the limited success of relocation to: (a) strong site tenacity exhibited by burrowing owls, and (b) potential risks associated with forcing owls to move into unfamiliar and perhaps less preferable habitats.107

103 California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. p. 9. 104 Ibid, p. 10. 105 Ibid, pp. 10 and 21. 106 Smith BW, JR Belthoff. 2001. Burrowing owls and development: short-distance nest burrow relocation to minimize construction impacts. J. Raptor Research 35:385-391. 107 Ibid.

CASHEN

17 18a
18b
1038
18 MM BIO-2 and BIO-3 (Wetlands)
Mitigation measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 propose compensation ratios of 2:1 and 1:1 for direct impacts to wetlands during Phase I and Phase II of the Project, respectively. The DEIR fails to provide evidence that the proposed ratios would be sufficient to mitigate Project impacts to lessthan-significant levels.

In general, a ratio greater than 1:1 is required, in part due to scientific observations that compensatory mitigation sites often provide reduced functions compared to the impacted aquatic resources.108 In addition, a compensation ratio greater than 1:1 may be needed to account for a project’s indirect impacts, and for its contribution to cumulative impacts. In this case, the Project would have indirect impacts that would significantly reduce the habitat functions at the proposed wetland preserve. Indeed, the DEIR states:
“The proposed project also would include landscaping and on-site drainage facilities that would be designed and managed to discourage wildlife use of the site. MM LU-3 requires the applicant to retain a qualified Biologist to prepare a wildlife hazard assessment that would identify measures to reduce the bird attractant potential of the wetland area, consistent with the ALUCP’s policies.”109
In general, compensatory mitigation projects that are conducted onsite are more likely to replace the ecological functions of the impacted wetlands. In this case, however, implementation of MM LU-3 would preclude the proposed preserve’s ability to replace the wetland habitat functions that would be impacted by the Project. As a result, mitigation measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 do not reduce the Project’s impacts on wetlands to less-than-significant levels.

MM BIO-4 (Breeding Birds)
MM BIO-4 requires a pre-construction breeding bird survey and installation of “appropriate” buffers around all active nests. There are three reasons why MM BIO-4 does not ensure that the Project’s impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant:

First, MM BIO-4 fails to establish standards for the: (a) nest searching techniques, (b) minimum level of effort (i.e., survey hours per unit area), and (c) qualifications of the biologist conducting the survey. As explained below, the ability to successfully locate nests in the Project area is dependent on these three variables.

Although the Project site lacks trees, it provides nesting substrates for ground-nesting birds.

Most ground-nesting birds construct nests that are inconspicuous and thus hard to find.110 As a

108 National Research Council. 2001. Compensating for wetland losses under the Clean Water Act. National Research Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses. National Academy Press, Washington DC, USA. Available at:
<https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10134/compensating-for-wetland-losses-under-the-clean-water-act>. 109 DEIR, p. 3.9-52. [emphasis added]. 110 Galligan EW, Bakken GS, Lima SL. 2003. Using a thermographic imager to find nests of grassland birds.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(3):865-869.

CASHEN

19 20a
1039
19 result, successfully locating nests of ground-nesting birds requires special techniques.111 Because MM BIO-4 does not require implementation of those techniques, it provides no assurances that the Project would avoid take of nesting birds.

Many biologists that conduct pre-construction surveys fail to devote the level of effort needed to locate all bird nests. Locating all nests within the Project site may require a considerable level of effort. To ensure all bird nests that may be affected by the Project are located, the DEIR must establish standards for the survey effort (e.g., minimum number of survey hours per unit area).

The success of any nest-searching method depends on the surveyor’s knowledge of where birds nest, how nesting birds behave, and the best time of day to search for nests.112 Attaining this knowledge requires training and experience.113 Because MM BIO-4 fails to establish standards for the “qualified biologist” that would conduct the nesting bird survey, it does not ensure the biologist would have the qualifications needed to successfully locate all nests within the Project area prior to construction.

Second, the DEIR fails to provide evidence that the buffer sizes proposed in MM BIO-4 would prevent negative impacts to nesting birds. Based on my review of scientific literature, the 50- foot buffer proposed for passerines and other non-raptors is grossly deficient for almost all species. Construction noise levels associated with the Project may reach 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.114 Noise at that level far exceeds the level that is deleterious to most breeding birds.115 Consequently, a 50-foot buffer would be insufficient to avoid significant impacts to nesting birds. For other projects, the CDFW has recommended a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 500 feet for unlisted raptors and 250 feet for other non-listed bird species.116 Third, there are no performance standards, or monitoring and reporting requirements, for MM BIO-4. Monitoring is essential for two reasons: (1) to validate the adequacy of the nest buffers (and implement remedial actions if necessary), and (2) to ensure construction workers comply with the nest buffers. Based on my experience monitoring bird nests at construction sites, it is

111 Ibid. See also Martin TE, Geupel GR. 1993. Nest-Monitoring Plots: Methods for Locating Nests and Monitoring Success. J. Field Ornithol. 64(4):507-519. See also Rodewald AD. 2004. Nest-Searching Cues and Studies of NestSite Selection and Nesting Success. J. Field Ornithol. 75(1):31-39. See also Winter M, Hawks SA, Shaffer JA, Johnson DH. 2003. Guidelines for Finding Nests of Passerine Birds in Tallgrass Prairie. The Prairie Naturalist 35(3):197-211.
112 Winter M, Hawks SA, Shaffer JA, Johnson DH. 2003. Guidelines for Finding Nests of Passerine Birds in Tallgrass Prairie. The Prairie Naturalist 35(3):197-211. 113 Ibid. See also Martin TE, Geupel GR. 1993. Nest-Monitoring Plots: Methods for Locating Nests and Monitoring Success. J. Field Ornithol. 64(4):507-519.
114 DEIR, p. 3.10-17. 115 Kaseloo PA, KO Tyson. 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-HEP-06-016. Available at:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/noise_effect_on_wildlife/effects/effects.pdf>. See also Reijnen R, R Foppen, G Veenbaas. 1997. Disturbance by traffic of breeding birds: evaluation of the effect and planning and managing road corridors. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:567-581. See also Ortega CP. 2012. Effects of Noise Pollution on Birds: A Brief Review of Our Knowledge. Ornithological Monographs 74:6-22. 116 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015 Jan 13. Letter to Merced County Planning and Community Development Department regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Wright Solar Project. p. 3.

CASHEN

20a
20b
20c
1040
20 very difficult to ensure compliance with nest buffers unless a full-time biological monitor is present on site.

This concludes my comments on the DEIR.

Sincerely,
Scott Cashen, M.S.

Senior Biologist
CASHEN

20c
1041
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 1
Scott Cashen, M.S.

Senior Wildlife Biologist
Scott Cashen has 28 years of professional experience in natural resources management. During that time he has worked as a field biologist, forester, environmental consultant, and instructor of Wildlife Management. Mr. Cashen focuses on CEQA/NEPA compliance issues, endangered species, scientific field studies, and other topics that require a high level of scientific expertise.

Mr. Cashen has knowledge and experience with numerous taxa, ecoregions, biological resource issues, and environmental regulations. As a biological resources expert, Mr.

Cashen is knowledgeable of the various agency-promulgated guidelines for field surveys, impact assessments, and mitigation. Mr. Cashen has led field investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the yellow-legged frog, red-legged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and various forest carnivores.

Mr. Cashen is a recognized expert on the environmental impacts of renewable energy development. He has been involved in the environmental review process of over 100 solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy projects. Mr. Cashen’s role in this capacity has encompassed all stages of the environmental review process, from initial document review through litigation support. Mr. Cashen provided expert witness testimony on several of the Department of the Interior’s “fast-tracked” renewable energy projects. His testimony on those projects helped lead agencies develop project alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts associated with the projects.

Mr. Cashen was a member of the independent scientific review panel for the Quincy Library Group project, the largest community forestry project in the United States. As a member of the panel, Mr. Cashen was responsible for advising the U.S. Forest Service on its scientific monitoring program, and for preparing a final report to Congress describing the effectiveness of the Herger-Feinstein Forest Recovery Act of 1998.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
• CEQA, NEPA, and Endangered Species Act compliance issues • Comprehensive biological resource assessments
• Endangered species management
• Renewable energy development
• Scientific field studies, grant writing and technical editing

EDUCATION
M.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Science - The Pennsylvania State University (1998) Thesis: Avian Use of Restored Wetlands in Pennsylvania
B.S. Resource Management - The University of California, Berkeley (1992) CASHEN

21 1042
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 2

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Litigation Support / Expert Witness
Mr. Cashen has served as a biological resources expert for over 125 projects subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a biological resources expert, Mr.

Cashen reviews CEQA/NEPA documents and provides his clients with an assessment of biological resource issues. He then submits formal comments on the scientific and legal adequacy of the project’s environmental documents (e.g., Environmental Impact Report).

If needed, Mr. Cashen conducts field studies to generate evidence for legal testimony, or he can obtain supplemental testimony from his deep network of species-specific experts.

Mr. Cashen has provided written and oral testimony to the California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, and U.S. district courts. His clients have included law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Solar Energy Geothermal Energy
• Abengoa Mojave Solar Project • Casa Diablo IV Geothermal • Avenal Energy Power Plant • East Brawley Geothermal
• Beacon Solar Energy Project • Mammoth Pacific 1 Replacement • Blythe Solar Power Project • Orni 21 Geothermal Project • Calico Solar Project • Western GeoPower Plant
• California Flats Solar Project Wind Energy
• Calipatria Solar Farm II • Catalina Renewable Energy
• Carrizo Energy Solar Farm • Ocotillo Wind Energy Project • Catalina Renewable Energy • SD County Wind Energy
• Fink Road Solar Farm • Searchlight Wind Project
• Genesis Solar Energy Project • Shu’luuk Wind Project
• Heber Solar Energy Facility • Tres Vaqueros Repowering Project • Imperial Valley Solar Project • Tule Wind Project
• Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating • Vasco Winds Relicensing Project • Maricopa Sun Solar Complex Biomass Facilities
• McCoy Solar Project • CA Ethanol Project
• Mt. Signal and Calexico Solar • Colusa Biomass Project • Panoche Valley Solar • Tracy Green Energy Project
• San Joaquin Solar I & II Other Development Projects
• San Luis Solar Project • Cal-Am Desalination Project
• Stateline Solar Project • Carnegie SVRA Expansion Project • Solar Gen II Projects • Lakeview Substation Project
• SR Solis Oro Loma • Monterey Bay Shores Ecoresort
• Vestal Solar Facilities • Phillips 66 Rail Spur
• Victorville 2 Power Project • Valero Benecia Crude By Rail • Willow Springs Solar • World Logistics Center
CASHEN

1043
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 3
Project Management
Mr. Cashen has managed several large-scale wildlife, forestry, and natural resource management projects. Many of the projects have required hiring and training field crews, coordinating with other professionals, and communicating with project stakeholders. Mr.

Cashen’s experience in study design, data collection, and scientific writing make him an effective project manager, and his background in several different natural resource disciplines enable him to address the many facets of contemporary land management in a cost-effective manner.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Wildlife Studies
• Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Resource Use and Behavior Study: (CA State Parks) • “KV” Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Inventory: (USFS, Plumas NF) • Amphibian Inventory Project: (USFS, Plumas NF)
• San Mateo Creek Steelhead Restoration Project: (Trout Unlimited and CA Coastal Conservancy, Orange County)
• Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory: (CA State Parks, Locke)
Natural Resources Management
• Mather Lake Resource Management Study and Plan – (Sacramento County) • Placer County Vernal Pool Study – (Placer County)
• Weidemann Ranch Mitigation Project – (Toll Brothers, Inc., San Ramon) • Ion Communities Biological Resource Assessments – (Ion Communities, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
• Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment – (The Wyro Company, Rio Vista) Forestry
• Forest Health Improvement Projects – (CalFire, SD and Riverside Counties) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (SDG&E, San Diego Co.) • San Diego Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project – (San Diego County/NRCS) • Hillslope Monitoring Project – (CalFire, throughout California)

CASHEN

1044
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 4
Biological Resources
Mr. Cashen has a diverse background with biological resources. He has conducted comprehensive biological resource assessments, habitat evaluations, species inventories, and scientific peer review. Mr. Cashen has led investigations on several special-status species, including ones focusing on the foothill yellow-legged frog, mountain yellowlegged frog, desert tortoise, steelhead, burrowing owl, California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher, Peninsular bighorn sheep, red panda, and forest carnivores.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
Biological Assessments/Biological Evaluations (“BA/BE”) • Aquatic Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Terrestrial Species BA/BE – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Management Indicator Species Report – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Migratory Bird Report – Reliable Power Project (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BE – Lower Cherry Aqueduct (SFPUC) • Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Public Lands Lease Application (Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep)
• Terrestrial and Aquatic Species BA/BE – Simon Newman Ranch (The Nature Conservancy)
• Draft EIR (Vegetation and Special-Status Plants) - Wildland Fire Resiliency Program (Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District)
Avian
• Study design and Lead Investigator - Delta Meadows State Park Special-Status Species Inventory (CA State Parks: Locke)
• Study design and lead bird surveyor - Placer County Vernal Pool Study (Placer County: throughout Placer County)
• Surveyor - Willow flycatcher habitat mapping (USFS: Plumas NF) • Surveyor - Tolay Creek, Cullinan Ranch, and Guadacanal Village restoration projects (Ducks Unlimited/USGS: San Pablo Bay)
• Study design and Lead Investigator - Bird use of restored wetlands research (Pennsylvania Game Commission: throughout Pennsylvania) • Study design and surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird species at a 400-acre site in Napa County (HCV Associates: Napa)
• Surveyor - Baseline inventory of bird abundance following diesel spill (LFR Levine-Fricke: Suisun Bay)
CASHEN

1045
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 5
• Study design and lead bird surveyor - Green Valley Creek Riparian Restoration Site (City of Fairfield: Fairfield, CA)
• Surveyor - Burrowing owl relocation and monitoring (US Navy: Dixon, CA) • Surveyor - Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys (various clients: Livermore, San Ramon, Rio Vista, Napa, Victorville, Imperial County, San Diego County) • Surveyor - Backcountry bird inventory (National Park Service: Eagle, Alaska) • Lead surveyor - Tidal salt marsh bird surveys (Point Reyes Bird Observatory:
throughout Bay Area)
• Surveyor – Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds (various clients and locations)
Amphibian
• Crew Leader - Red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (USFS: Plumas NF)
• Surveyor - Foothill yellow-legged frog surveys (PG&E: North Fork Feather River)
• Surveyor - Mountain yellow-legged frog surveys (El Dorado Irrigation District:

Desolation Wilderness)
• Crew Leader - Bullfrog eradication (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) Fish and Aquatic Resources
• Surveyor - Hardhead minnow and other fish surveys (USFS: Plumas NF) • Surveyor - Weber Creek aquatic habitat mapping (El Dorado Irrigation District:

Placerville, CA)
• Surveyor - Green Valley Creek aquatic habitat mapping (City of Fairfield:

Fairfield, CA)
• GPS Specialist - Salmonid spawning habitat mapping (CDFG: Sacramento River) • Surveyor - Fish composition and abundance study (PG&E: Upper North Fork Feather River and Lake Almanor)
• Crew Leader - Surveys of steelhead abundance and habitat use (CA Coastal Conservancy: Gualala River estuary)
• Crew Leader - Exotic species identification and eradication (Trout Unlimited:

Cleveland NF)
Mammals
• Principal Investigator – Peninsular bighorn sheep resource use and behavior study (California State Parks: Freeman Properties)
CASHEN

1046
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 6
• Scientific Advisor –Study on red panda occupancy and abundance in eastern Nepal (The Red Panda Network: CA and Nepal)
• Surveyor - Forest carnivore surveys (University of CA: Tahoe NF) • Surveyor - Relocation and monitoring of salt marsh harvest mice and other small mammals (US Navy: Skagg’s Island, CA)
• Surveyor – Surveys for Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. Relocation of woodrat houses (Touré Associates: Prunedale)
Natural Resource Investigations / Multiple Species Studies • Scientific Review Team Member – Member of the scientific review team assessing the effectiveness of the US Forest Service’s implementation of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act.
• Lead Consultant - Baseline biological resource assessments and habitat mapping for CDF management units (CDF: San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties)
• Biological Resources Expert – Peer review of CEQA/NEPA documents (various law firms, non-profit organizations, and citizen groups) • Lead Consultant - Pre- and post-harvest biological resource assessments of tree removal sites (SDG&E: San Diego County)
• Crew Leader - T&E species habitat evaluations for Biological Assessment in support of a steelhead restoration plan (Trout Unlimited: Cleveland NF) • Lead Investigator - Resource Management Study and Plan for Mather Lake Regional Park (County of Sacramento: Sacramento, CA)
• Lead Investigator - Biological Resources Assessment for 1,070-acre Alfaro Ranch property (Yuba County, CA)
• Lead Investigator - Wildlife Strike Hazard Management Plan (HCV Associates:

Napa)
• Lead Investigator - Del Rio Hills Biological Resource Assessment (The Wyro Company: Rio Vista, CA)
• Lead Investigator – Ion Communities project sites (Ion Communities: Riverside and San Bernardino Counties)
• Surveyor – Tahoe Pilot Project: Validation of California’s Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Model (University of California: Tahoe NF)

CASHEN

1047
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 7
Forestry
Mr. Cashen has five years of experience working as a consulting forester on projects throughout California. Mr. Cashen has consulted with landowners and timber operators on forest management practices; and he has worked on a variety of forestry tasks including selective tree marking, forest inventory, harvest layout, erosion control, and supervision of logging operations. Mr. Cashen’s experience with many different natural resources enable him to provide a holistic approach to forest management, rather than just management of timber resources.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
• Lead Consultant - CalFire fuels treatment projects (SD and Riverside Counties) • Lead Consultant and supervisor of harvest activities – San Diego Gas and Electric Bark Beetle Tree Removal Project (San Diego)
• Crew Leader - Hillslope Monitoring Program (CalFire: throughout California) • Consulting Forester – Forest inventories and timber harvest projects (various clients throughout California)
Grant Writing and Technical Editing
Mr. Cashen has prepared and submitted over 50 proposals and grant applications.

Many of the projects listed herein were acquired through proposals he wrote. Mr.

Cashen’s clients and colleagues have recognized his strong scientific writing skills and ability to generate technically superior proposal packages. Consequently, he routinely prepares funding applications and conducts technical editing for various clients.

PERMITS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Recovery Permit for the Peninsular bighorn sheep

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS / ASSOCIATIONS
The Wildlife Society
Cal Alumni Foresters
Mt. Diablo Audubon Society

OTHER AFFILIATIONS
Scientific Advisor and Grant Writer – The Red Panda Network Scientific Advisor – Mt. Diablo Audubon Society
Grant Writer – American Conservation Experience
CASHEN

1048
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 8

TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Instructor: Wildlife Management - The Pennsylvania State University, 1998 Teaching Assistant: Ornithology - The Pennsylvania State University, 1996-1997

PUBLICATIONS
Gutiérrez RJ, AS Cheng, DR Becker, S Cashen, et al. 2015. Legislated collaboration in a conservation conflict: a case study of the Quincy Library group in California, USA.

Chapter 19 in: Redpath SR, et al. (eds). Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Towards Solutions. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.

Cheng AS, RJ Gutiérrez RJ, S Cashen, et al. 2016. Is There a Place for Legislating PlaceBased Collaborative Forestry Proposals?: Examining the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. Journal of Forestry.

CASHEN

1049

EXHIBIT D
CASHEN

1050
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]

July 19, 2022
Richard M. Franco
Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Giovanonni Logistics Center
Dear Mr. Franco,
I have reviewed trip generation, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of the proposed Giovanonni Logistics Center Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”). I make the following findings:
1) Given that the tenants have not been identified, trip generation is highly uncertain. The DEIR applies the lowest rate of five different rates for high-cube warehouses in Trip Generation.

Depending on the tenant and type of operation, the actual trip generation rate could be three times the rate used in the DEIR or even higher.
2) The DEIR assumes an unrealistically low employee commute trip length. 3) Given more realistic assumptions about employee commute length, the DEIR should include mitigation strategies to reduce project VMT, and also address workforce housing. 4) The combination of underestimating trip length and underestimating trip generation causes the DEIR to underestimate GHG.

SM

1 1051
2 Project Trip Generation Could Be Much Higher Than Assumed The project is comprised of up to 2.4 million square feet of warehouse. (DEIR, p. 1) The tenants have not been identified, and the nature of the operations are unknown at this time.

The DEIR estimated trip generation using the Trip Generation Manual category: “High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse.” (DEIR, p. 3.12-11) The Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition)1 states:

A high-cube warehouse (HCW) is a building that typically has at least 200,000 gross square feet of floor area, has a ceiling height of 24 feet or more, and is used primarily for the storage and/or consolidation of manufactured goods (and to a lesser extent, raw materials) prior to their distribution to retail locations or other warehouses. A typical HCW has a high level of on-site automation and logistics management. The automation and logistics enable highly efficient processing of goods through the HCS.

The Trip Generation Manual presents trip generation rates for five types of high-cube warehouses:
x High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse (154) – Transload facilities have a primary function of consolidation and distribution of pallet loads (or larger) for manufacturer, wholesalers, or retailer. Short-term HCWs are high-efficiency distribution facilities often with custom/special features built into structure for movement of large volumes of freight with only short-term storage of projects. x High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse (155) – characterized by a significant storage function and direct distribution of ecommerce product to end users o A) Non-sort
o B) Sort
x High-Cube Parcel Hub Warehouse (156) – typically serve as regional and local freightforwarder facilities for time sensitive shipments via airfreight and ground carriers x High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse (157) – facilities typified by temperature-controlled environments for frozen food or other perishable products.

As shown in Figure 1, the trip generation rate per 1,000 square feet of high-cube warehouse varies significantly across these types. The DEIR used the category with the lowest trip rate. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers (2020).

SM

2 1052
3 Figure 1: Weekday Daily Trips for Different Types of High-Cube Warehouses Source: Trip Generation Manual 10th edition
No justification is given for the choice to use the lowest trip generation category. In fact, it appears that the category is unknown now. The DEIR uses only the term “high-cube warehouse” which could be in any of the categories and the DEIR expressly recognizes that the proposed project may include cold storage.

The DEIR states:

As the proposed project is a speculative warehouse development which could accommodate cold storage and accompanying Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU), this analysis considers two project scenarios: a cold warehouse project scenario and a dry warehouse project scenario. (p. 3.6-47)
So, at minimum, the Cold Storage Warehouse trip generation rate should have been used to be conservative as it is 51% higher and possible Cold Storage Warehouse usage is analyzed elsewhere in the DEIR.

A 2019 study of warehouse trip generation was done by WSP for the Western Riverside Council of Governments (“COG”).2
This study was based on counts at 16 warehouses, segmented between 11 fulfillment centers and 5 parcel hubs. The average rate across the 11 fulfillment centers was 2.13 per 1000 square feet, i.e., 50% higher than the rate used in the DEIR. 2 https://wrcog.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02212019-292

1.4 1.81

6.44 4.63

2.12 1.40
Transload and
Short-Term
Storage
Warehouse
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Non-Sort
Fulfillment
Center
Warehouse -
Sort
Parcel Hub
Warehouse
Cold Storage
Warehouse
Rate used in
DEIR
SM

2 1053
4 The data in the Western Riverside COG study are much more variable than the average rates suggest. As shown in the figure below, the different fulfillment center sites have wildly different trip generation rates, with an Amazon facility having an especially high rate.

Figure 2: Western Riverside COG Warehouse Trip Generation Study Exhibit 1 Other businesses are copying many of Amazon’s logistics methods, so the higher rate could be applicable to many new operations. For example, the trip generation at the Walmart site in the study also is higher than the average used in the DEIR. If the Amazon rate were applied to the proposed Giovanonnii Logistics Center warehouses, project trip generation would be three times as high as estimated in the DEIR.

As shown in the figure below, the observed trip generation rates at two of parcel hub sites in the study are even higher, i.e., about ten times the rate used in the DEIR.

SM

2 1054
5 Figure 3: Western Riverside COG Warehouse Trip Generation Study Exhibit 11 The DEIR estimated a total of 2,832 daily trips at buildout. (Table 3-12-5, p. 3.12-12) The DEIR also estimated a total of 3,643 workers at buildout. If it is assumed:
x Workers make round trip commutes (number of workers x 2.0), x Each worker works a 5-day week (x 5/7), and
x Most workers commute in single-occupant vehicles (x 95%), then The 3,643 workers would make 4,944 commute trips on the average day, or more than 2,000 more than the trip generation estimate in the DEIR. And this represents commute trips only. It does not include any truck trips or trips associated with local delivery operations. The DEIR is trying to have it both ways – asserting a high employment count as an economic benefit and asserting a low trip generation estimate that implicitly assumes considerably lower employment.

In the Western Riverside study, the only warehouse site counted with over 2000 employees was the Amazon site which generates over 5000 trips per day.

Truck trip generation also would likely be much higher than assumed in the DEIR. The DEIR states that “the number of truck trips was … validated using local vehicle classification counts conducted in June 2021.” (DEIR Appendix F, p. 13) The classification counts tell us only about the truck percentages in existing traffic today in the facility of the proposed project. These percentages tell us nothing about SM

2 1055
6 truck trip generation for the proposed facility. This apparently is the basis for the 0.22 truck trip rate in the DEIR, but this application of the traffic count data is invalid.

In the Western Riverside study, the average truck generation per 1000 square feet was 0.454 for conventional warehouses and 0.379 for fulfillment centers, i.e., about twice the 0.22 rate assumed in the DEIR.

Project Area Does Not Have Short Average Commute Distances as Asserted in DEIR The DEIR states:

For this study, the regional average VMT is defined as the nine county Bay Area average.

As reported by the City of Vallejo in their CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (dated October 2020), the Nine County Bay Area Average VMT per employee is 23.00 miles per employee. According to Statewide Travel Demand Model estimates, the proposed project is located within a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a projected VMT per employee of 16.24 miles. Because this per capita VMT rate is lower than the significance threshold of 23.0 miles, the proposed project would be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact. It is noted that a more conservative methodology sometimes used by OPR for other employment-based land uses (such as office buildings) states that a project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below the regional average VMT, or 19.55 miles, is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. If this methodology were applied, the project would be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact since the VMT per employee of 16.24 miles is less than the threshold of 19.55 miles (p. 3.12-17)
Regional travel demand models are commonly used to estimate VMT. However, the statewide model is too coarse to reliably estimate VMT for any particular project. The Caltrans statewide model homepage states:

This model is not an appropriate tool for individual project level analysis.3 Most of the California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM) files are not available without making a special request to Caltrans. The TAZ layer is available for download. Figure 4 shows the TAZs in the vicinity of the project along with the area of each TAZ. 3 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of-transportation-planning/data-analyticsservices/statewide-modeling/california-statewide-travel-demand-model SM

2 3
1056
7 Figure 4: CSTDM TAZs in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Along with TAZ Areas (Square Miles) The proposed project is between the American Canyon label and the airport logo, i.e., near the border between two TAZs, each sized about 8 square miles. In calculating model VMT, some workers would live close enough that both workplace and residence would be inside the same TAZ. Any trip completed within a single TAZ is assigned an arbitrary intrazonal trip length that cannot be determined without examining the model files. The model distance could be as small as a quarter mile, but the actual trips could be several miles in length. The travel distance in the model between any two TAZs is determined by where artificial “centroid connectors” are arbitrarily placed within each TAZ In the case of these two SM

3 1057
8 8-square-mile TAZs, it could be as little as a mile or as much as five miles or more. There is no way to know without examining the model files. The TAZs to the east and west are huge – 29 square miles and 60 square miles. The model travel distances to those TAZs are similarly dependent on the arbitrary placement of the centroid connectors. Model distances to more distant TAZs are similarly arbitrary.

Multiplying the number of trips between pairs to TAZs by all these arbitrary distances is not a reliable way of estimating total project trip length or calculating average project trip length – especially when large TAZs are involved. In any event, it is impossible to know how the DEIR arrived at 16.24 as the Project VMT rate using the CSTDM, because neither the DEIR nor its technical appendices contain any detail, analysis or calculations supporting that figure.

It is much more accurate to look at existing commuting data. The U.S. Census Bureau publishes Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data that provide detailed geographic data about workers, jobs, and commutes at the Census Block level. Census Blocks are much smaller than TAZs with 236 Census Blocks in American Canyon City alone.

As shown in Figure 5, there are many long commutes today into American Canyon City.

Figure 5: Home Locations of 2019 American Canyon City Workers (Each Dot Represents 1 Worker)
SM

3 1058
9 Average (mean) commute distances to American Canyon City jobs were estimated from these LODES data by:
x calculating the direct (“crow flies”) distance between the centers of each Census block, x eliminating commutes of over 100 miles where the data may be spurious and would inflate the average, and
x multiplying by 110% to account for actual routing along roads The resulting mean one-way commute distance is 22.0 miles.

However, to compare to daily VMT, this one-way commute distance needs to be factored further:
x x 2.0 to account for round trips,
x x 5/7 to account for 5-day work week, and
x x 95% to account for non-single-occupant auto commutes.

Resulting mean commute VMT per employee per day is 29.9, i.e., much higher than either the 16.24 estimate for the project or the 23.00 nine-county average cited in the DEIR.

The LODES data are segmented across 3 earnings groups:
x $1250/month or less
x $1251/month to $3333/month
x greater than $3333/month
As the lowest income category represents an annual income of only $15,000, most of these workers are either part-time and/or service workers at the bottom of the pay scale. The average one-way commute VMT for the two higher income categories working in American Canyon City is 31.3. This is almost twice the 16.24 value citied in the DEIR. Therefore, the project does not satisfy a low-VMT screen and additional VMT analysis should have been done.

The Project Should Mitigate Employee Commuting VMT
The DEIR states that one of the objectives of the proposed project is to: “Improve American Canyon’s jobs-housing ratio by adding new employment opportunities. “ (p. ES-2) This would make more sense if the anticipated employment were a tenth of the 3,643 the DEIR asserts it will be. The tenants will not be able to fill that many warehouse jobs with the local workforce. Instead, employment at that scale in a limited number of job classifications could only be achieved through the long commutes already taking place and illustrated in Figure 5.

Any employment site with 3,643 employees should have a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program. TDM is challenging in the project area because as the DEIR states:
x Existing [transit] stops are not within an acceptable walking distance of the site … (p. 3.12-15) x Given the nature of the study area and the surrounding industrial land use, it is reasonable to assume that very few project patrons and employees will desire to walk to reach the project site. (p. 3-12-16)
SM

3 4
1059
10 Employer-sponsored vanpools can be very effective in situations like this one where many employees working set shifts are concentrated at one location, but where the workforce is dispersed over a wide area.

Given the long existing commutes to American Canyon City, the applicant also should address workforce housing. The DEIR notes that the issue of “housing for project employees” was raised during the 30-day public review process. (p. ES-3) It does not appear that this issue has been addressed by the applicant.

DEIR Underestimates of Trip Generation and Trip Length Cause Underestimated GHG The GHG emission estimates in DEIR Appendix B are based on the trip generation and trip length assumptions discussed above. The combination of underestimating trip length and trip generation causes the DEIR to also underestimate project GHG. The DEIR takes an unrealistically low average VMT per employee number of 16.24 miles discussed above and translates it to an “average of 8.12 miles per one-way vehicle trip.” (p. 3.6-48) This is even lower than the CalEEMod default value. As discussed above, the actual average commute distance today to American Canyon is almost twice that far. A more realistic and higher average auto trip length would also cause higher estimated GHG emissions.

A higher trip generation rate, and especially a higher truck trip generation rate, would translate into higher estimated GHG emissions. As discussed above, depending on the type of warehouse operation, the actual trip generation rate could be three times as larger as assumed in the DEIR or even larger than that. This further causes the DEIR to underestimate project GHG.

Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
SM

4 5
1060
11 Resume
NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
[email protected]
EDUCATION:

Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science in Mathematics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: (33 Years, 19 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) Norm Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc. in 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. He specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi-modal transportation with land use and community needs.

Regional Land Use/Transportation Scenario Planning
Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System (PACTS) – the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization. Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including AirSage), adding a truck model, and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments.

Loudoun County Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment – Enhanced subarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel.

Vermont Agency of Transportation-Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of closures and delays resulting from severe storm events. Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures.

California Air Resources Board – Led team including the University of California in $250k project that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity-based models and land use models to accurately account for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios including more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing. This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models in use in the U.S. today.

Climate Plan (California statewide) – Assisted large coalition of groups in reviewing and participating in the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional initiatives.

Chittenden County (2060 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region) – led extensive public visioning project as part of MPO’s long-range transportation plan update.

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization – Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model. The bike model includes skimming bike networks including on-road and off-road bicycle facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment.

Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6-county region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced SM

6 1061
12 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts.

Developed multi-class assignment model and used it to analyze freight alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies.

Municipal Planning
City of Grand Rapids – Michigan Street Corridor – developed peak period subarea model including nonmotorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being additional analyzed using the City’s Synchro model City of Omaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for non-motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit, and land use alternatives were modeled.

City of Dublin (Columbus region) – Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for nonmotorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed-use development. The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed in the Bridge Street corridor on both sides of an historic village center.

City of Portland, Maine – Implemented model improvements that better account for non-motorized trips and interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies.

City of Honolulu – Kaka’ako Transit Oriented Development (TOD) – applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture.

City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan – Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing investments and policies on transit, walking, biking and Transportation Demand Management.

Transit Planning
Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicago Metropolis 2020 – evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system-wide transit scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pricing assumptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding.

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin, TX) Transit Vision – analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit-oriented development plan developed by Calthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes (Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.) – analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately-developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on I-95 and I-495 (Capital Beltway) including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines intersecting connecting routes at in-line stations, and hybrid).

Roadway Corridor Planning
I-30 Little Rock Arkansas – Developed enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model I-30 alternatives.

Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than in the base TransCAD model.

SM

1062
13 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) – In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway.

Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT) – Analyzing long term capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the I-90 Patroon Island Bridge where a microsimulation VISSIM model was developed and applied.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS (partial list)
DTA Love: Co-leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Forecasting the Impossible: The Status Quo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Research in Transportation Business and Management 2018.

Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities.

Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

Pre-Destination Choice Walk Mode Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference.

A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the United States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

MEMBERSHIPS/AFFILIATIONS
Associate Member, Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Member and Co-Leader Project for Transportation Modeling Reform, Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) SM

1063

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1064
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-279 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Napa-Solano Residents For Responsible Growth (NSRRG)
Note to Reader: This letter includes the attachment from James Clark (CLARK), Shannon & Wilson Inc. (S&W), Scott Cashen (CASHEN), and Smart Mobility (SM).

Response to NSRRG-1
The organization provided general introductory remarks, summarized the proposed project and asserted the Draft EIR failed to comply with CEQA requirements and expressed general opposition to the proposed project. The organization referenced four attachments from its consultants.

Responses to the four attachments are provided. As will be discussed in the following responses, there is no evidence to support the organization’s claims that the Draft EIR failed to comply with CEQA requirements.

Response to NSRRG-2
The organization provided a statement of interest. No response is necessary.

Response to NSRRG-3
The organization provided general background regarding CEQA. No response is necessary.

Response to NSRRG-4
The organization asserted the Draft EIR failed to adequately describe the proposed project, alleging the project description is inconsistent and unstable, and the buildout horizon changed based on the topic.

The organization’s specific comments in this regard are addressed in Responses to NSRRG-5a through NSRRG-5c.

Response to NSRRG-5a
The organization alleged the Draft EIR used inconsistent buildout assumptions, first citing a statement in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-9 to the effect the Draft EIR would assume Phase 1 would buildout first followed by Phase 2 and then citing a subsequent statement indicating that, as a practical matter, the proposed project would likely buildout over a period of years, if not decades. The organization alleged a prolonged construction schedule that extends over several years increases the potential for construction-related impacts to aquatic resources.

Buildout assumptions are addressed in Master Response 3.

Response to NSRRG-5b
The organization alleged the Draft EIR used a 20-month buildout period for construction air quality modeling instead of an 18-month period as stated in the Draft EIR. The organization also alleged the construction HRA assumed a 24-month buildout, which is inconsistent with 18-month buildout period stated in the Draft EIR.

The text in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-9 has been revised to state 20 to 24 months for consistency. The change is noted in Final EIR Section 5, Errata. The change simply brings the text on page 2-9 into alignment with the construction air quality analysis and does not change any conclusions or mitigation measures.
1065
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-280 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Health risk is measured on an annual basis (i.e., 12-month increments). Hence, a 12-month buildout period for each phase is the closest period available for each phase.

Refer to Master Response 3 for further discussion of buildout assumptions.

Response to NSRRG-5c
The organization alleged that the Draft EIR’s air quality analysis used smaller building square footages than disclosed in Chapter 2, Project Description.

The construction air quality modeling evaluated Phase 1 and Phase 2 at 2.4 million square feet.

Although there were discrepancies with the Phase 1 building square footage, all 2.4 million square feet were captured in the modeling. This is evidenced through the modeling summary and output files included in Appendix B to the Draft EIR (see pages 1, 34, 103, and 111). The Draft EIR disclosed a significant construction air quality impact would occur and set forth mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. Hence, the discrepancies did not materially alter the conclusions and, thus, are harmless.

Response to NSRRG-6
The organization alleged the Draft EIR’s hydrological analysis failed to evaluate construction and operation of Phase 2.

As indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, page 3.8-10, which was based in part on the modeling described in Appendix F to the Draft EIR, the evaluation of construction and operational water quality addressed both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The analysis described construction and operational activities have the potential to cause stormwater pollution and set forth MM HYD1a, which applies to both Phase 1 and Phase 2.

It should be noted that because Phase 2 has not been designed, it was not possible to prepare hydrology calculations as was done for Phase 1. Hence, a qualitative analysis was done for Phase 2’s operational impacts. When Phase 2 is designed, the applicant will commission a hydrology study that will include calculations that will be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Response to NSRRG-7
The organization alleged the Draft EIR’s biological analysis failed to adequately describe the existing baseline conditions.

To preface this response, as discussed on Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, pages 3.3-20 and 3.3-21, three separate biological consulting firms (HBG, Monk & Associates, and LSA Associates) assessed the project site between 2016 and 2021. The studies included biological resource reports, habitat assessments, botanical field surveys, and an aquatic resource delineation. Additionally, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) peer reviewed these biological firms’ work prior to release of the Draft EIR and determined it to be adequate. In sum, the project site is perhaps the most biologically studied site in American Canyon in the last decade and, thus, there is an abundance of information about the baseline biological conditions of the project site. 1066
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-281 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx With that in mind, the Draft EIR used this abundance of information to describe the existing biological conditions in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, on pages 3.3-1 through 3.3-7. This discussion included (1) climate; (2) hydrology; (3) topography and soils; (4) plant communities; (5) wildlife; (6) special-status plant and wildlife species; and (7) wetlands descriptions. Draft EIR Exhibit

3.3-1 provided a soils map and Exhibit 3.3-2 provided a plant communities map. Photographs of the project site were provided in Draft EIR Exhibit 2-3. By any objective standard, this constitutes an adequate description of the existing baseline conditions of the project site and is supported by substantial evidence.

Response to NSRRG-8
The organization reiterated Comments S&W-5a through S&W-5c about the wetland delineation.

Refer to Response to S&W-5a through Response to S&W-5c.

Response to NSRRG-9
The organization reiterated Comments S&W-5a through S&W-5c about the wetland delineation.

Refer to Response to S&W-5a through Response to S&W-5c.

Response to NSRRG-10
The organization reiterated Comments S&W-5a through S&W-5c about the wetland delineation.

Refer to Response to S&W-5a through Response to S&W-5c.

Response to NSRRG-11
The organization reiterated Comment CASHEN-2 about vernal pools and Comments CASHEN-5a and CASHEN-5b about rare plants.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-2, CASHEN-5a, and CASHEN-5b.

Response to NSRRG-12
The organization asserted that the Draft EIR failed to disclose, analyze, and mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. No specific examples were provided.

Refer to Response to NSRRG-13 through Response to NSRRG-36.

Response to NSRRG-13
The organization asserted that the Draft EIR failed to disclose or adequately analyze transportation impacts and reiterated Comments SM-2 and SM-3
Refer to Response to SM-2, Response to SM-3, and Master Response 4.

Response to NSRRG-14
The organization asserted the VMT threshold is not based on substantial evidence and noted it differed from a VMT threshold used for the SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.
1067
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-282 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRG-15
The organization alleged the VMT analysis provided no justification the threshold of 23 miles per employee and improperly used the California Statewide Travel Demand Model. The organization referenced the VMT analysis for a 217,000-square-foot wine distribution warehouse (SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project) less than 2 miles, which employed a different methodology and thresholds.

The VMT analysis is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to NSRRG-16
The organization reiterated Comment SM-2 about trip generation and Comment SM-3 about VMT.

Refer to Response to SM-2 and Master Response 4.

Response to NSRRG-17
The organization asserted that the Draft EIR failed to adequately analyze GHG impacts.

Refer to Response to NSRRG-18 through Response to NSRRG-20.

Response to NSRRG-18
The organization cited BAAQMD guidance for evaluation of GHG emissions and stated that the VMT threshold for that analysis is not supported by substantial evidence.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to NSRRG-19a
The organization describes the approach taken in Impact GHG-2 of the Draft EIR to address the proposed project’s consistency with applicable plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The organization argues the consistency analysis against the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Plan Bay Area 2050, and the City’s Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP) is inappropriate because it is not clear whether any of these plans are “qualified” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

The organization is incorrect in its assertion the consistency analysis contained in Impact GHG-2 must utilize a plan that is “qualified” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As identified under Impact GHG-1, the EECAP is not considered “qualified” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). As such, the EECAP is not capable of satisfying Criterion B of the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds utilized in Impact GHG-1. While the EECAP is not “qualified” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) and thus cannot satisfy an analytical pathway for analyzing GHG emission impacts under Impact GHG-1, it is still necessary to identify applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions under Impact GHG-2 and analyze the proposed project’s consistency with those plans, whether those plans are considered “qualified” or not.

One of the primary benefits of having a “qualified” plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 is the ability to streamline the cumulative impact analysis in environmental documents for later development projects. As subdivision (b)(2) of Section 15183.5 explains, “[a] plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, once adopted 1068
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-283 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx following certification of an EIR or adoption of an environmental document, may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects. An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project. If there is substantial evidence that the effects of a particular project may be cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding the project’s compliance with the specified requirements in the plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, an EIR must be prepared for the project.” The Draft EIR for the Giovanni Logistics Center project has not attempted to use a qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases for such streamlining purposes. Rather, the Draft EIR includes a full section on the subject of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy (refer to Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy).

Another benefit of relying on a qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases is the ability to rely on the policies of such a plan as sufficient mitigation for GHG-related impact. As subdivision (b) of Section 15183.5 explains, “a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program.”
The City of American Canyon has not done so here. Rather, Section 3.6 includes mitigation measures that have been formulated independent of any qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Section 15183.5, then, is simply not relevant to the discussion of GHG emissions in the EIR.

The Draft EIR’s discussion of Impact GHG-2 explores the broader question of whether the proposed project would conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. This broader question applies to a universe of planning documents larger than the limited universe of GHG reduction plans that are “qualified” under Section 15183.5. Notably, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, subdivision (b)(3), requires lead agencies, in assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, to consider “[t]he extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.” Plans for the reduction of GHG emissions that are qualified pursuant to Section 15183.5 are just one example of the kinds of Statewide, regional, or local “regulations or requirements” that should be considered in this context. Section 15064.4, subdivision (b)(3), further provides that “[i]n determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s longterm climate goals or strategies[.]” Such strategies are embodied in documents such as the ARB 2017 Scoping Plan. Indeed, the California Supreme Court, in Cleveland National Forest Foundation v.

SANDAG (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 519, stated that planning agencies “must ensure that CEQA analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and State regulatory schemes.” In summary, the commenter incorrectly suggests the City erred by considering the proposed project’s consistency with the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, and the City ’s 1069
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-284 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx EECAP. All three of these plans, though not “qualified” under Section 15183.5, were adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Notably, moreover, significance criterion b—the potential the proposed project would conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions —was not the sole significance criterion in Section 3.6. Rather, the City applied another entirely separate criterion, which is consistent with the questions posed about GHGs in the Initial Study checklist found in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines: whether the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Additionally, Section 3.6 also applied two more significance criteria that, though expressly focused on energy usage, indirectly implicated GHG emissions: (i) whether the project would result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, and (ii) whether the project would conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, it cannot be fairly argued that the City evaded a good faith consideration of GHG-related impacts by focusing on consistency with plans that fall short of being “qualified” under Section 15183.5.

Response to NSRRG-19b
The organization states that even if the plans identified under Impact GHG-2 were considered “qualified” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), the “analysis is riddled with holes and cannot support a finding of no significant impact. With respect to the MTC Plan Bay Area, the Draft EIR’s analysis simply makes no sense . . . ” The organization quotes a segment of the analysis contained in Impact GHG-2 and states that vague assertions that the proposed project is consistent with the overall goals of the MTC Plan Bay Area to support a finding of consistency.

As discussed in Impact GHG-2 of the Draft EIR, the MTC’s Plan Bay Area is a high-level regional planning document that takes into account local government planned development areas to focus growth. The MTC does not stipulate specific actions that individual land use development projects must take to reduce GHG emissions; therefore, the fact that the proposed project is located within a planned development area for focused growth makes it generally consistent with the overall growth scenario and subsequent regional GHG emission forecasts that rely on the MTC’s Plan Bay Area.

Although the Draft EIR arguably need not have considered the proposed project’s consistency with Plan Bay Area, there was certainly no harm in doing so. The analysis provided additional relevant information for the public and City decision-makers.

Response to NSRRG-19c
The organization comments the Draft EIR’s GHG analysis does not sufficiently support a finding of no significant impact related to consistency with the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan due to the presence of inapplicable measures contained in the 2017 Scoping Plan as they relate to individual land use development projects.

As discussed in Impact GHG-2 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is analyzed for consistency with all applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, the EECAP is the most applicable plan adopted for this purpose as it identifies local actions that individual land use 1070
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-285 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx can implement or otherwise demonstrate consistency with. The City found it prudent also to provide a consistency analysis for not just the EECAP but also the MTC Plan Bay Area as well as the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. As noted in Response to NSRRG-19a, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, subdivision (b)(3), provides that “[i]n determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies[.]” The fact that those regional and Statewide plans contain many measures that are not applicable to the proposed project does not make the City’s consideration of these plans a useless exercise. Notably, Table 3.6-6 identified one measure from the 2017 Scoping Plan—the Sustainable Freight Action Plan—that did apply to the proposed project, and with which the proposed project is consistent. (Draft EIR, page 3.6-67.) On this issue, the Draft EIR explained that “[t]his measure applies to owners and operators of trucks and freight operations. While the proposed project is industrial in nature and would support truck and freight operations, neither the proposed project’s design nor nature would prevent truck fleet owners and operators from utilizing zero-emission or near-ZEVs by 2030.

Moreover, as required by MM GHG- 1e, the proposed project would design and construct all automobile and truck parking areas to meet the Tier 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure requirements of CALGreen. MM GHG- 1e would further accelerate the possible adoption of EVs and support this measure.”
As with consideration of MTC Plan Bay Area, consideration of consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan was a useful exercise because, by finding that the proposed project did not conflict with any policies or measures found in the Scoping Plan, the City was able to find the proposed project would not conflict with those two plans.

Response to NSRRG-19d
The organization purports the EECAP is not considered “qualified” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). The organization further states the solar-ready roof and water efficiency measures included in the proposed project are not binding or enforceable and therefore cannot support a finding of consistency with the EECAP.

Please refer to Response to NSRRG-19a for a response to the “qualified” aspect of this comment. The solar-ready roof and water efficiency measures included in the proposed project are enforceable and mandatory in that the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the California Building Standards Code (CBC) and CALGreen standards, which require such measures, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy, Section 3.6.3, Regulatory Framework.

Response to NSRRG-20
The organization cited the energy analysis and reiterated prior comments about the VMT significance threshold being unsubstantiated.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to NSRRG-21
The organization reiterated Comments CLARK-3 through CLARK-7 about the air quality analysis.

Refer to Response to CLARK-3 through Response to CLARK-7. 1071
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-286 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRG-22
The organization reiterated Comments CLARK-4 through CLARK-6 about the HRA, though with references to two CEQA decisions, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522, and Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1369–1371. The organization cited the first of these cases for the proposition that “CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.” The organization cited the second case for the proposition that “an EIR must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.”
As is explained in Response to CLARK-4 through Response to CLARK-6, the analyses in the EIR meet the standards of these two court cases, in that the EIR adequately considered potential health effects of toxic air contaminants through the preparation of an HRA considering the effects of both on-site and off-site project emissions consistent with the BAAQMD’s December 2020 Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. Those responses explain why the technical critique offered by Clark & Associates failed to point out any actual flaws in the City’s analyses.

On the issue of potential effects associated with regional pollutants, the Draft EIR had the following to say about its strategy for complying with Sierra Club v. Fresno on pages 3.2-30–3.2-31:

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, LP) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510, 517- 522, the California Supreme Court held generally that an EIR should “make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project' s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.” A possible example of such a connection would be to calculate a project’ s “impact on the days of nonattainment per year ” (Id. at pp. 521). But the court recognized that there might be scientific limitations on an agency’s ability to make the connection between air pollutant emissions and public health consequences in a credible fashion, given limitations in technical methodologies (Id. at pp. 520- 521). Thus, the court acknowledged that another option for an agency preparing an EIR might be “to explain why it was not feasible to provide an analysis that connected the air quality effects to human health consequences” (Id. at p. 522).

Here, the BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring the health and welfare of sensitive individuals to elevated concentrations of emissions in the Air Basin. At present, the BAAQMD has not provided any methodology to assist local governments in reasonably and accurately assessing the specific connection between mass emissions of ozone precursors (e.g., ROG and NOX) and other pollutants of concern on a regional basis and any specific effects on public health or regional air quality concentrations that might result from such mass emissions. The City has therefore concluded that it is not feasible to predict how mass emissions of pollutants of regional concern from the proposed project could lead to specific public health consequences, changes in pollutant concentrations, or changes in the number of days for which the SFBAAB will be in nonattainment for regional pollutants.

Ozone concentrations, for instance, depend upon various complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground- level ozone concentrations related to the NAAQS and 1072
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-287 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx CAAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). However, if a project within the BAAQMD exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the Air Basin.

On the other hand, it is technically feasible to predict with reasonable accuracy the potential localized health consequences of localized pollutants such as TACs and PM2.5. As discussed below, the consultants who prepared this section prepared a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) that addresses the potential for additional incidences of cancer resulting from both the construction-related emissions and the operational emissions of the proposed project.

Response to NSRRG-23
The organization reiterated Comment CLARK-4 about building downwash.

Refer to Response to CLARK-4.

Response to NSRRG-24
The organization reiterated Comment CLARK-7 about feasible mitigation.

Refer to Response to CLARK-7 and Response to SWAPE-2e.

Response to NSRRG-25
The organization reiterated Comments S&W-12 through Comment S&W-16b about MM BIO-3a through MM BIO-3d.

Refer to Response to S&W-12 through Response to S&W-16b.

Response to NSRRG-26
The organization reiterated Comments S&W-6a through Comment S&W-11 about wetland impacts.

Refer to Response to S&W-6a through Response to S&W-11.

Response to NSRRG-27
The organization reiterated Comments S&W-6a through S&W-6b, Comments SW&-12 through S&W16b, and CASHEN-6 about wetlands.

Refer to Response to S&W-6a through Response to S&W-6b, Response to S&W-12 through Response to S&E-16b, and Response to CASHEN-6.

Response to NSRRG-28
The organization reiterated Comments CASHEN-7a through CASHEN-7c about the Swainson’s hawk.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-7a through Response to CASHEN-7, as well as Master Response 1.

Response to NSRRG-29
The organization reiterated Comments CASHEN-8 and CASHEN-16 about the golden eagle. 1073
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-288 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Refer to Response to CASHEN-8 and Response to CASHEN-15, as well as Master Response 1.

Response to NSRRG-30
The organization reiterated Comments CASHEN-9 and CASHEN-17 about the northern harrier.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-9 and Response to CASHEN-17.

Response to NSRRG-31
The organization reiterated Comment CASHEN-11 about the ferruginous hawk.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-11.

Response to NSRRG-32
The organization reiterated Comments CASHEN-20a through CASHEN-20c about MM BIO-4.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-20a through Response to CASHEN-20c.

Response to NSRRG-33
The organization reiterated Comment CASHEN-14 about MM LU-3.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-14.

Response to NSRRG-34
The organization reiterated Comments CASHEN-13 about cumulative impacts to biological resources.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-13.

Response to NSRRG-35a
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with Municipal Code Section 19.42.202 D.5, which states that a project will not be materially detrimental to the general health, safety, and welfare. The organization reiterated its previous comments about the alleged deficiencies of the HRA.

Refer to Response to CLARK-3 through Response to CLARK-7 Response to NSRRG-35b
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with Municipal Code Sections 19.41.050 C and 19.42.020 D1, which requires projects to be consistent with General Plan policies. The organization alleged the proposed project is inconsistent with Circulation Policy 1.1, citing its previous comments about the VMT analysis.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to NSRRG-35c
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with General Plan Natural and 1074
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-289 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Historic/Cultural Resources Policy 8.21, which requires evaluation and mitigation for impacts to sensitive natural resources. The organization cited its previous comments about the biological resources analysis.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-2 through Response to CASHEN-20c.

Response to NSRRG-35d
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with General Plan Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Policy 8.31, which requires a 100-foot buffer for riparian zones. The organization alleged that the Draft EIR does not show the 100-foot buffer for No Name Creek.

Refer to Response to S&W-16a.

Response to NSRRG-35e
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with General Plan Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Policy 8.41, which requires development projects to incorporate all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid significantly impacting vernal pools. The organization reiterated previous comments about the alleged deficiencies of the functional assessment of wetlands.

Refer to Response to S&W-5a through Response to S&W-7.

Response to NSRRG-35f
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the posed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with General Plan Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Policy 8.42, which requires preservation, where possible, of habitat for special-status species. The organization alleged the proposed project is inconsistent with this Policy, citing its previous comments about foraging habitat.

Foraging habitat is addressed in Master Response 1.

Response to NSRRG-35g
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with General Plan Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Policy 8.43, which encourages activities to control alien plants. The organization reiterated previous comments about invasive plant species.

Refer to Response to CASHEN-12.

Response to NSRRG-36
The organization cited comments in its letter that the Draft EIR is wholly inadequate under CEQA and must be revised and recirculated.
1075
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-290 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As indicated in Response NSRRG-1 through Response to NSRRG-35g, none of the alleged deficiencies is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, there is no legal basis to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR.

Response to CLARK-1
The commenter provided introductory remarks and no further response is required.

Response to CLARK-2
The commenter re-states the project description and provides the project site plan. No further response is required.

Response to CLARK-3
The commenter states the Draft EIR concludes significant and unavoidable impacts would occur related to Consistency with an Air Quality Management Plan and Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions. The commenter asserts the Draft EIR’s conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence and there are other project impacts and feasible mitigation measures that were not discussed in the Draft EIR. The comment concludes that a revised Draft EIR should be prepared to address these issues they identified.

The Draft EIR impact analysis is based on the City-approved Project Description and applicant provided site plans and information. This information was provided by architects, engineers, and planners with extensive knowledge of the proposed project and project operations. As described in Impact AIR-1, the Draft EIR considered project impacts in relation to the applicable AQP, the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan. As described in Impact AIR-2, the Draft EIR considered the cumulative impact of criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed project. The commenter does not provide a specific example of what significant impacts were not addressed. Furthermore, all potential mitigation measures were considered and ultimately, the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR would be only measures that could feasibly be implemented by the City. The commenter does not elaborate on what specific feasible mitigation measures the City did not consider in the Draft EIR. See also Response to comment SWAPE-2e, in which the City addressed a long list of proposed additional mitigation measures suggested by another commenter.

Response to CLARK-4
The commenter states the air dispersion modeling tool used to model the proposed project’s health risk impacts (AERMOD) does not account for the impact of building downwash. The commenter explains that building downwash could increase health risk impacts on nearby sensitive receptors and should be considered in a revised Draft EIR.

As disclosed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, as well as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the HRA modeling onsite and off-site project emissions is consistent with the BAAQMD’s December 2020 Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol, which states that “Building downwash for point sources that are within the area of influence of a building must be considered when running AERMOD. A building is considered sufficiently close to a stack to cause wake effects when the distance between the stack and the nearest part of the building is less than or equal to five times the lesser of the building 1076
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-291 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx height or the projected weight of the building (PBW) . . . ”3 Because of the frequent mobilization of equipment and vehicles across the approximately 161-acre site during both construction and operation of the proposed project, project emissions were included in the HRA modeling as area sources rather than point sources. In addition, during Phase 1 construction, no building was present on-site that would create the downwash effect described by the commenter. Because the BAAQMD recommends the consideration of building downwash in air dispersion modeling when modeling point sources and because the proposed project did not include point sources, building downwash was not considered in the HRA modeling.

Moreover, as shown in Draft EIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, tables 3.2-14 and 3.2-15, the proposed project would not exceed applicable thresholds for health risks at the maximally impacted receptor or community wide. The Draft EIR considered both construction and operation when determining impacts related to health risks on nearby sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the HRA concluded that the main source of a cumulative community health risk within 1,000 feet of the project site are existing sources, not the proposed project. Thus, the addition of any building downwash impacts would be minimal and would not lead to exceedances of BAAQMD health risk thresholds.

Response to CLARK-5
The commenter states the Draft EIR must assess the impact for all toxic air compounds (TACs) that would be released during construction and operation of the project. The commenter describes types of TACs that could be emitted by the proposed project, the health risks those TACs pose to humans, and that the Draft EIR did not adequately consider all TACs that could be emitted. The commenter explains that only analyzing diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions as part of the health risk analysis deems the Draft EIR incomplete and the City should prepare a revised Draft EIR.

The commenter is incorrect in asserting that “the City’s analysis ignores the presence of TACs being emitted with diesel exhaust during the construction and operational phases of the project without making any attempt to quantify the impacts.” The Draft EIR considered DPM as the primary TAC to contribute to health risks because of the proposed project’s anticipated truck traffic and a 10-year ARB research program demonstrated that exhaust from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic long-term health risk. In addition, as described in the Draft EIR and by the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs for the State of California can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is exhaust from diesel-fueled engines.

Moreover, as described in the ARB’s Consolidated Table of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values, the cancer potency factor of 1.1 attributed to DPM, which was utilized in the HRA prepared for the proposed project, considers all speciated TACs included in DPM.
4 Therefore, the use of the cancer potency factor of 1.1 for DPM in the HRA incorporated consideration of the additional diesel-related TACs that would be emitted during project construction and operation.
3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. BAAQMD Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. December.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-riskreduction/documents/baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed August 2, 2022. 4 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. Table 1: Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values.

October 2. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/healthval/contable.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2022. 1077
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-292 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to CLARK-6
The organization summarizes the requirements of MM AQ-2d and suggests the City should mandate the proposed project utilize newer model year heavy-heavy-duty (HHD) truck fleets. The organization explains it is possible to estimate emissions from on-road mobile sources in California using the ARB EMFAC model and presents their analysis for how using model year 2018 HHD trucks would reduce emissions from the proposed project truck operations.

As noted in the Draft EIR, the reason model year 2014 HHD trucks were used as the basis for MM AIR-2d is because this is the first model year that would result in a reduction in trucking emissions, assuming a worst-case scenario of 100 percent of trucks accessing the site to be that specific model year. More stringent and alternative trucking mitigation measures were considered for the proposed project but were ultimately determined to be financially infeasible due to the size of the proposed project and the anticipated volume of trucks. At present, few potential end users for the proposed project have entire fleets that, on an overall basis, meet the emissions profile for model years of 2018 or later. This economic reality reflects the substantial cost associated with the purchase of each new truck. Fleets typically contain trucks purchased in different years. Older trucks are gradually retired. Operators purchase new trucks with the expectation and need to get many years of use from each truck in order to justify the cost of the purchase. Because 2014 is now eight years in the past (as opposed to only four), and because some additional time will pass before the proposed project can be approved and become operational, the City determined that requiring the use of a fleet that meets the emissions profile for model year 2014 during project operation was a reasonable, if aggressive, mitigation measure. The City reasonably concluded that to require fleets to meet the emissions profiles for even newer model year trucks would be infeasible. The objective of MM AIR2d is to require the proposed project to result in emission reductions from trucking activities without imposing unrealistic and infeasible burdens on future end users and the proposed project itself. The commenter’s suggestion to alter the required minimum model year from 2014 to 2018 is unrealistic in the current marketplace and would place unreasonable financial burdens on the applicant and future tenants. If the City approves the proposed project, the City will want the project to succeed in the marketplace and thereby benefit the local and regional economies, generating employment and taxes that can fund government services.

Response to CLARK-7
The commenter lists mitigation measures recommended by the ARB and Air Districts that reduce operational nitrogen oxide (NOX) and GHG emissions that were not included in the Draft EIR. The organization states the Draft EIR did not consider feasible mitigation measures that would further reduce NOX and GHG emissions.

Only operational criteria pollutant emissions were found to have a significant unavoidable impact after mitigation. As such, no additional mitigation is required for construction criteria pollutant emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, or GHG emissions because they would be less than significant after mitigation. Table 3-2 provides an analysis of the feasibility of implementing the additional mitigation measures suggested by the commenter. As indicated in the table, the proposed mitigation measures are either (1) not necessary; (2) not feasible; (3) already included as mitigation; or (4) included as new mitigation measures.
1078
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-293 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Table 3-2: Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measure Analysis
Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires tenants to use the
cleanest vehicle technologies available, and to
provide the necessary infrastructure to support
zero-emission vehicles and equipment on-site.

Already Included as Mitigation: The fleet operator would be required to comply with MM Air-2d (truck fleets must meet or exceed model year 2014 for all heavy-duty trucks during operation of the proposed project), existing
regulations such as Advanced Clean Trucks, ARB's HeavyDuty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program. Transition to zeroemission fleet would advance with the technology and regulation. Furthermore, MM GHG-1d requires that
parking areas for passenger vehicles shall be designed to accommodate EV charging stations, and each loading
dock at the project site is required to be outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and
Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) charging and/or
electrical power connection while goods are being loaded and unloaded from trucks.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires all TRUs entering the
project site be plug-in capable.

Not Feasible: Project end users are unknown at the time of Final EIR publication and, thus, it would be speculative to place restrictions on on-site equipment. Furthermore, imposing onerous requirements on the potential
equipment of future unknown users could put the
project at a competitive disadvantage by limiting the
universe of potential future end users, and may also be technologically infeasible due to the performance needs of the end user. However, to support the transition to
plug-in capable TRUs, MM GHG-1d requires that each
loading dock at the project site be outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and TRU
charging and/or electrical power connection while goods are being loaded and unloaded from trucks.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires future tenants to
exclusively use zero-emission light and mediumduty delivery trucks and vans.

Not Feasible: Project end users are unknown at the time of Final EIR publication and, thus, no information is
known about what types of light- and medium-duty
vehicles would be used as part of business operations.

Imposing onerous requirements on the potential vehicles of future unknown users could create hardships for
future employees and visitors of the project site, could put the project at a competitive disadvantage by limiting the universe of potential future end users, and may also be technologically infeasible due to the performance
needs of the end user.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires all TRUs, trucks and cars
entering the project site be zero-emission.

Not Feasible: Project end users are unknown at the time of Final EIR publication and, thus, it would be speculative to place restrictions on fleet equipment. Furthermore,
imposing onerous requirements on the potential fleet of future unknown users could put the project at a
competitive disadvantage by limiting the universe of
1079
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-294 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Proposed Mitigation Measure Analysis
potential future end users, and may be technologically
infeasible due to the performance needs of the end user.

An absolute prohibition on the use of vehicles with
internal combustion engineers could create hardships for future employees and visitors of the project site. The
State of California is the appropriate level of government for creating incentives and/or mandates regarding the
electrification of the State vehicle fleet.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires all heavy-duty trucks
entering or on the project site to be model year
2019 or later, expedite a transition to zeroemission vehicles, and be fully zero-emission beginning in 2030.

Not Feasible: Project end users are unknown at the time of Final EIR publication and, thus, it would be speculative to place restrictions on fleet equipment. Furthermore,
imposing onerous requirements on the potential fleet of future unknown users could put the project at a
competitive disadvantage by limiting the universe of
potential future end users, and may be technologically
infeasible due to the performance needs of the end user.

However, MM AIR-2d does require that truck fleets meet
or exceed model year 2014 for heavy-duty trucks used
during project operation, and MM AIR-2g requires that
the project applicant provide information on available
incentives to support the advanced deployment of clean
fleets.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires the tenant be in, and
monitor compliance with, all current air quality
regulations for on-road trucks including ARB's
Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas
Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program
(PSIP), and the Statewide Truck and Bus
Regulation.

Not Feasible: ARB regulations are enforced by the State and local agencies, and operators must comply with State rules and regulations to legally operate in California. The measure would be onerous and difficult to enforce due
to the unknown future operators of the proposed project and may put the project at a competitive disadvantage
through the requirement of additional leasing terms,
while not providing effective or quantifiable air quality or GHG emission reduction benefits.

Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements restricting trucks and support
equipment from idling longer than 5 minutes
while on-site.

Already Included as Mitigation: MM AIR-2e limits idling to no more than 5 minutes of idling in accordance with
State law.

Include rooftop solar panels for each proposed
warehouse to the extent feasible, with a capacity
that matches the maximum allowed for
distributed solar connections to the grid.

Already Included as Mitigation: MM GHG-1d requires
the proposed project to be powered with 100 percent
carbon-free electricity. This requirement could be met by installing on-site solar photovoltaic systems.

Have truck routes clearly marked with trailblazer
signs, so that trucks will not enter residential
areas.

Not Necessary: Both Devlin Road and Green Island Road
are designated truck routes. Thus, whichever way trucks turn, they would be on a truck route that connects to SR29. Hence, this mitigation measure would not reduce emissions.

Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the
proposed project to levels analyzed in the CEQA
document. If higher daily truck volumes are
anticipated to visit the site, the City as the Lead
Not Necessary: As explained in Master Response 4, the
traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project
utilized the best available research studies to develop conservative estimates of the number of truck trips that 1080
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-295 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Proposed Mitigation Measure Analysis
Agency should commit to reevaluating the
proposed project through CEQA prior to allowing
this land use or higher activity level.
would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed
land uses for the project. The modeling for the project appropriately reflects the proposed land uses and
anticipated traffic associated with the proposed land use.

The transportation impact for the proposed project was
found to be less than significant. CEQA only requires
mitigation for significant impacts, therefore further
mitigation is not necessary.

Ensure that any check-in point for trucks is well
inside the project site to ensure that there are no
trucks queueing outside of the facility.

Not Effective: This mitigation measure does not reduce
emissions. However, the proposed project site plan does include adequate on-site roads and parking to ensure
that any truck queueing would not be expected to occur
outside of the facility.

Establish overnight parking within the industrial
building where trucks can rest overnight.

Not Effective and Not Feasible: This mitigation measure does not reduce emissions, and because the potential
end users of the facility are unknown, it would be
onerous to require that a portion of the interior
warehouse space be dedicated to truck parking.

Establish area(s) within the project site for repair
needs.

Not Effective: This mitigation measure does not reduce
emissions. Furthermore, as the potential end users of the project site are unknown, could put the project at a
competitive disadvantage by limiting the universe of
potential future end users, it would be onerous to
require the establishment of a repair center when the
operational details of the end user are unknown.

However, it should be noted that the proposed project
site plans do include adequate truck parking to ensure
that vehicles potentially needing repair would be able to park on-site while repairs were being completed, in the event such an occurrence was a part of the future project operations.

Response to CLARK-8
The commenter suggests the on-site diesel-powered generator usage could increase compared to the Draft EIR analysis and result in further DPM emissions due to usage during extreme heat events (EHE) and subsequent Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS). The commenter describes what an EHE is and how they occur, as well the resulting impacts on diesel generator usage.

As described in the Draft EIR, the BAAQMD regulates backup emergency generators, fire pumps, and other sources of TACs through its New Source Review (Regulation 2, Rule 5) permitting process.5 The Draft EIR states the proposed project would include three backup diesel generators and three dieselfueled fire pumps, each assumed to be rated at 50 horsepower and operate for a 4-hour maintenance period one day per month, totaling an estimated 48 hours of operation per year. In addition, the project applicant would be required to submit a permit application for each generator 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. New Source Review Permitting Guidance. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/permits/permitting-manuals/nsr-permitting-guidance. Accessed May 18, 2021. 1081
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-296 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to the BAAQMD and ensure compliance with the permit requirements. The regulation and permitting of backup generators is the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. Renewable permits are issued by the BAAQMD, and compliance with permitting conditions is enforced by the air district. As such, compliance with the permit would satisfy all requirements of the BAAQMD and would not warrant a revised Draft EIR. It should be further noted that the commenter does not provide substantiating evidence to support the claim that backup (emergency) generators will be utilized on an increasing basis into the future, and this is a speculative assertion without supporting evidence.

Response to CLARK-9
The organization concludes that their facts identified in the comment letter demonstrates a revised Draft EIR should be prepared and must re-evaluate the significant impacts that would occur. As stated in Response to CLARK-3 through CLARK-8, none of the organization’s statements change the validity of the Draft EIR and a revised Draft EIR is not warranted.

Response to CLARK-10
The organization’s credentials are presented, and no further response is required.

Response to S&W-1
The comment consists of a cover letter. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-2
The comment consists of the Table of Contents. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-3
The commenters provided introductory remarks. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-4
The commenters provided a list of documents supporting their comments. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-5a
The commenters summarized the methodology Monk & Associates used to delineate the aquatic sources/wetlands on the project site. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-5b
The commenters reviewed the Monk & Associates 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation appended to the Draft EIR for consistency with the delineation methodology referenced in Comment S&W-5a.

The commenters noted what they regard as errors in data points such as miscalculated absolute percent cover and incorrectly identified hydric soil indicators. The commenters noted data point (DP) DP-40, -97, -98, -105, and -110 incorrectly identified Helminthotheca echioides as Facultative Upland (FACU) when it should have been identified as Facultative (FAC). The commenters pointed out this error would change the findings at these data points from an upland to a wetland.

The City acknowledges the 2016 Monk & Associates delineation contains some minor errors mentioned by the commenter. Helminthotheca echioides was misidentified as FACU at those data points. DP-40, -98, -105, and -110 were also incorrectly identified as uplands. For DP-97 Helminthotheca echioides was misidentified, which would change the hydrophytic vegetation indicator from a “no” to a “yes”; however, this data point was lacking wetland hydrology and hydric 1082
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-297 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx soils, so the conclusion that DP-97 was an upland is correct. The errors at issue, however, do not undermine the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR did not rely on the Monk & Associates 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation report. Instead, wetland impacts were calculated using the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Approved Jurisdictional Delineation dated October 25, 2016.

Response to S&W-5c
The commenters noted the Approved Jurisdictional Delineation (AJD) was valid for 5 years and has since expired. The commenters stated the proposed project would need to obtain an updated AJD.

The project applicant submitted an application to the USACE prior to the AJD expiring and received confirmation from the USACE Project Manager, Mr. Bryan Matsumoto, (via a phone call to HBG) that, because the application was submitted prior to the AJD expiring, the USACE will be using the AJD dated October 25, 2021, to process the permit. The AJD therefore remains valid and sufficient for the USACE.

The commenters also stated they reviewed Google Earth aerial imagery and it is their opinion, based on Google Earth aerial imagery, that wetland conditions may not have been identified in Monk & Associates 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation report. The commenters do not indicate what year the Google Earth aerial imagery was reviewed, so the City is unable to confirm if this is a valid point. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR did not rely on the Monk & Associates 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation report. Wetland impacts were calculated using the USACE AJD dated October 25, 2016. It should also be noted the USACE must submit a proposed AJD to the EPA for review prior to the USACE officially approving the jurisdictional delineation. This means that not only did the USACE review the Monk & Associates 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation report and conduct their own site visit and analysis, but also that the EPA reviewed the USACE’s determination and approved the AJD.

Response to S&W-6a
The commenters stated that Phase 1 will impact 0.496-acre of wetlands and Phase 2 will impact 3.7- acres, and that the Draft EIR based its assessment on Phase 1 and 2 being constructed concurrently over an 18-month period as the worst-case scenario. The commenters suggested a prolonged construction period that extends beyond 18 months and extends over several years (multiple nesting seasons, multiple “rainy seasons”) increases the potential for construction-related impacts to aquatic resources (e.g., water quality issues and in-air construction noise) and requests an explanation to support this assumption.

Constructing Phase 1 and 2 concurrently over an 18-month period would impact 0.496-acre of wetlands for Phase 1 and 3.7 acres of wetlands for Phase 2 for a total of 4.196 acres of wetlands, which is the worst-case scenario, meaning the maximum acreage of wetland impacts would be 4.196 acres. The “worst-case scenario” assumption is not linked to the number of months it would take to complete each Phase but rather is a function of the acreage of wetland impacts. Phase 2 wetland impacts were assessed based on a full buildout with a maximum impact of 3.7 acres of wetlands. It is possible that, once Phase 2 has gone through the entitlement process, the site plan may be modified to reduce impacts to under 3.7 acres, just as Phase 1 has avoided impacts. 1083
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-298 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The project construction would occur over at least two nesting periods. If nesting does occur in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it should be assumed the nesting bird(s) are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site. Therefore, a prolonged construction period that extends beyond 18 months would not increase constructionrelated impacts. It should be noted that if construction takes 18 months to complete or longer, all mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR would apply for the entirety of the construction period, including additional nesting bird surveys if construction is paused for more than seven (7) days. Therefore, there is no basis to assume new impacts would occur if Phases 1 and 2 take two months to complete or 24 months, or if it is split to where Phase 1 is constructed first and then Phase 2 is begins the following year. Regardless, for consistency and to address the commenters concerns, MM BIO-4 is revised to include the following language:

If construction activities are discontinued for more than 7 days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed.

The change is noted in Section 5, Errata.

See also Master Response 3.

Response to S&W-6b
The commenters stated the Draft EIR does not include a functional assessment of the wetlands or a functional impact analysis. The commenters suggested a wetland impact analysis is incomplete without a functional assessment that evaluates hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions of the site wetlands.

Functional assessments were conducted to determine plant and animal communities supported on the project site, and these functional assessments were used in the impact analysis and subsequent mitigation requirements. The Draft EIR acknowledges the project site contains one upland plant community described as Annual Grassland, and two wetland plant communities, Seasonal Wetlands and Vernal Pools, as shown in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, Exhibit 3.3-2. Plant communities are assemblages of plant species growing in an area of similar biological environmental factors. One of the functions of wetlands are the plant communities they support. To determine whether the wetlands or uplands supported special-status plants, in support of CEQA and agency requirements, Helm Biological Consulting (HBC) conducted botanical survey assessments during spring 2021. As described in their rare plant survey, HBC identified the three plant communities. In addition to this plant communities assessment/rare plant survey conducted by HBC, the Draft EIR acknowledges that, based on a spring season site reconnaissance survey conducted on April 16 and May 24, 2021, HBG determined the site was suitable foraging habitat for State listed threatened Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle. HBG also made an assessment of the potential for the wetlands to support each animal species noted in the CNDDB as occurring within a 10-mile radius of the project site, or that is known to occur in the general vicinity based on the knowledge of HBG Biologists. Over 40 animals were included in this assessment, as is discussed in the HBG report (Draft EIR, Appendix C), and this information was used to assess impacts to wetlands and species that could be using the wetlands or uplands. Therefore, a number of “functional” assessments were conducted 1084
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-299 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to determine CEQA impacts and recommend mitigation measures to offset these impacts to less than significant.

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) requires approved mitigation plans contain performance standards that assess whether the proposed project is achieving its objectives. Performance standards, according to the Procedures, must be based on objective and verifiable attributes using a functional assessment method, such as the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). The purpose of the CRAM referenced in the Draft EIR in Section

3.3, Biological Resources, on page 3.3-34 is to satisfy this requirement. The Performance Standards listed in the Draft EIR in MM BIO-3d on page 3.3-33 are based on completed biological assessments (plant survey, wetland delineation, general habitat assessment etc.), and they include objective and verifiable attributes based on completed assessments and structured to assess whether the proposed project is achieving its objectives. Once CRAM is completed and the RWQCB has reviewed and commented on the mitigation plan, the Performance Standards may be modified to include additional attributes and performance standards, if warranted, to satisfy the Procedures.

Response to S&W-7
The commenters noted discrepancies in wetland acreages, shapes of wetlands, and numbering of each individual wetland when you compare the Monk & Associates 2016 wetland delineation maps and data to the USACE’s AJD and the Draft EIR. One discrepancy noted is the Draft EIR provides the impact area to W-89 as 189 square feet while the AJD map has it listed as 195 square feet.

The Draft EIR impact calculation of 189 square feet is correct. The impact is based on the limit of fill material placed within the wetland. Based on calculations made by HBG, the fill material would impact 189 square feet and would avoid 6 square feet of W-89.

The commenters also noted that IW-9 was not included on the AJD map, which was used in the Draft EIR. The commenters questioned whether or not the USACE omitted IW-9 purposely or if it was an oversight, because there was not a data point supporting this change.

It is common for the USACE to request edits to a wetland delineation map after reviewing wetland delineation report data and conducting a site visit(s). The USACE may increase or decrease wetland area, which may change a wetland shape, add wetland areas that were missed, and/or remove areas mapped as wetlands that the USACE may determine not to meet the definition of a wetland. When the USACE staff conducts site visits to verify wetland delineation, they will often take data to verify changes they request. The data may be in the form of a wetland data sheet(s), notes, and/or photographs. The fact that Monk & Associates updated the numbering of all the wetlands on the AJD map based on this change, and the fact that the EPA had to review the data prior to the USACE finalizing the AJD, makes it very unlikely this was an oversight by the USACE.

Response to S&W-8
The commenters stated that treated stormwater would be delivered to newly created wetlands on the Wetland Preserve. The commenters suggested without a pre- and post-project water budget 1085
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-300 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx analysis for the wetlands, the determination that additional wetlands would not be impacted is not supported.

The main source of hydrology for the unimpacted wetlands is direct precipitation and a significant amount of water flow from a culvert near the northeastern boundary which flows east to west toward No Name Creek. In addition, the site generally slopes from east to west across the Phase 1 and 2 project sites. The Phase 2 project also has topography that slopes from south to north. With the main sources of hydrology being direct precipitation and waterflow from a culvert near the northeastern boundary, and the topography of the site generally sloping from east to west, there is no basis to assume that proposed project development would indirectly impact the wetland hydrology of the remaining wetlands.

With respect to wetland mitigation, new wetlands would be created/established up and downstream of the remaining wetlands. As part of the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan that would be submitted to the RWQCB during the application review process, a water budget analysis would be conducted to ensure that the position of created/established wetlands do not indirectly impact the hydrology of existing wetlands.

Response to S&W-9
The commenters stated that the project proposed the use of specialized bio soils in the bioretention facility to remove pollutants. The commenters referenced a statement in the Draft EIR in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 3.8.6 that suggests that the Wetland Preserve would facilitate the natural sequestration of pollutants of stormwater that is leaving the project site.

The proposed project would not discharge untreated stormwater into the Wetland Preserve or created/established wetlands or the remaining unimpacted wetlands. Instead, all stormwater would be treated to City of American Canyon and RWQCB standards prior to being discharged off-site into the Wetland Preserve. The use of specialized bio soils in bioretention facilities are a standard practice that allow them to function optimally to remove solids and sequester contaminants in sitespecific runoff before stormwaters leave the site. The fact that wetland preserve would contain biosoils is not an indication that water quality control is an intended primary function of the preserve.

Response to S&W-10a
The commenters suggested that the USACE “requires” a 100-foot buffer around vernal pools and references the draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools that was released for public comment in 2016.

The USACE currently does not require buffers around vernal pool preserves or mitigation sites. The stated objective of the USACE’s draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools is to provide “guidance” to select appropriate compensatory mitigation sites, construct compensatory vernal pools and complexes, and establish a monitoring program that will adequately assess compliance with the performance standards established in the mitigation plan. Within the guidance under “Construction Technique,” a minimum 100-foot buffer around a vernal pool preserve or mitigation site is suggested. These are guidelines, not requirements. More importantly, these 1086
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-301 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx guidelines have not been finalized or incorporated into the South Pacific Division Final Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines. Specific to this project site and the Wetland Preserve, the two unimpacted vernal pools’ main source of hydrology are direct precipitation and surface water flow from a culvert near the northeastern boundary, which flows east to west toward No Name Creek. Therefore, the surface hydrology feeding the two unimpacted vernal pools and the proposed created/established vernal pool would not be impacted by the proximity of the proposed development to the vernal pools. In addition, although the bioretention basins may require periodic maintenance, the bioretention basins would also provide a minimum 100-foot buffer from the two unimpacted vernal pools.

Response to S&W-10b
The commenters noted that the buffer areas surrounding the unimpacted IW-7, -8, -9, and -10 appear to show an approximately 100-foot buffer and are labeled as “Proposed Landscaped Area.” The commenters stated it is unclear if the buffer adjacent to IW-7, -8, -9, and -10 will consist of native or ornamental vegetation or if it will be intensely maintained as manipulated landscaped areas. The commenters stated indirect impacts through a disturbed or landscaped buffer are not discussed.

The final buffer widths would be determined during the permitting process with the RWQCB. The landscaping within the buffers would consist of native grasses and shrubs, approved by the RWQCB, that would require no maintenance once established. The mitigation plan would include temporary watering until the grasses and/or shrubs are established and then watering would cease.

Maintenance may include invasive low intensity tasks such as removing trash and replacing grasses or shrubs as needed. Establishing a buffer with native grasses and or shrubs is not anticipated to indirectly impact the unimpacted wetlands IW-7, 8, 9, and 10. Therefore mitigation measures are not required.

Response to S&W-10c
The commenters suggested that development surrounding the unimpacted wetlands IW-7, -8, -9, and -10 will isolate these wetlands from the remaining wetland complex to the north, and that this disconnection and overall reduction in buffer widths is not analyzed or discussed.

Wetlands IW-7, -8, -9, and -10 are currently hydrologically isolated from the wetlands to the north, which was determined by Monk and Associates, verified by the USACE and EPA and reflected in the AJD. This hydrological isolation is an existing condition, and therefore does not warrant a discussion or mitigation measure. Given the small area of these wetlands, the currently isolated nature of the wetlands, and the non-native annual grasses surrounding these wetlands, the reduced buffer would not have an adverse effect on the hydrology or plant composition to wetlands IW-7, -8, -9, and -10.

Therefore, mitigation measures are not required.

The Draft EIR does analyze and discuss in Impact BIO-4 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3- 37 how the proposed development would impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, migratory wildlife corridors or use of wildlife nursery sites on the site.

Although this analysis does not specifically reference IW-7, 8, 9, and 10, it does reference sensitive habitats and “wetlands,” which would include IW-7, 8, 9, and 10. 1087
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-302 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to S&W-11
The commenters referenced language in the Procedures that requires compensatory mitigation to be developed using a watershed profile and requires that the watershed profile include information sufficient to evaluate direct, secondary (indirect), and cumulative impacts of project. The commenters stated that the Draft EIR does not address impacts to wetland functions associated with reduced buffer widths, increased noise, lights, and traffic compared to existing conditions.

Refer to Response S&W-6b, Response to S&W-10a through Response to S&W-10c regarding impacts to wetland functions associated with reduced buffer widths.

HBG determined that an increase in noise, lights and traffic generated by the project compared to existing conditions would not result in significant direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to wetland functions, and therefore do not require mitigation under CEQA Guidelines. This assessment is based on the following:

The project site is currently surrounded an all four sides by commercial development and is bisected by a new road and public trail extension, all of which generates noise, light, vehicle traffic and pedestrian noise and traffic. The entire northern boundary of the Wetland Preserve directly abuts the recently-constructed Napa Logistics Park commercial warehouse development. This development exposes the Wetland Preserve to vehicle and semi-truck noise, lights and traffic 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The eastern boundary of the Wetland Preserve abuts railroad tracks and commercial development and is less than 1,200 linear feet from SR 29, which generates a significant amount of traffic noise 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The western boundary of the Wetland Preserve is adjacent to a wine distribution warehouse and an ongoing construction site for a new warehouse that is part of the Napa Logistics Park project. The existing wine distribution warehouse and ongoing construction of the new Napa Logistics Park warehouses also exposes the Wetland Preserve to noise, light and traffic. The southern and southwestern boundary of the project site is bounded by railroad tracks, commercial development and Green Island Road. Green Island Road is a route semi-trucks use to deliver and receive goods from the many warehouses that currently surround the project site and Wetland Preserve. In addition, the City of American Canyon recently completed the Devlin Road and Vine Trail Extension Project. This project consists of a new road bisecting the project site and Wetland Preserve connecting Green Island Road with Devlin Road abutting the Napa Logistics Park commercial development. The new Devlin Road Extension and Vine Trail Extension directs semi-truck traffic, vehicle traffic and pedestrians through the project site bisecting the Wetland Preserve generating noise, light, vehicle traffic and pedestrian noise and traffic. Although the proposed project would increase noise, light and traffic, the Wetland Preserve is surrounded on all four sides by commercial development, and bisected by a road and pedestrian trail. Therefore, the avian and terrestrial species that use the wetlands and uplands within the Wetland Preserve have habituated to the significant level of noise, light, traffic and pedestrian disturbances that currently exist and the levels of disturbances that the proposed project would not result in significant direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to wetland functions, and therefore do not require mitigation under CEQA Guidelines.

The commenters also stated that the Draft EIR does not address cumulative wetland impacts that incorporate current development trends in the area and continued aquatic habitat fragmentation. 1088
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-303 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As discussed on pages 4-5 and 4-6 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would potentially contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources in the City of American Canyon and the effects of ongoing urbanization in the region. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development planned in the City of American Canyon and Napa County, would contribute to the cumulative loss of ruderal/annual grassland and wetland habitat for resident and migratory wildlife species and federal and State listed plants and animals. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, would reduce the impact of the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impacts to less than significant. Therefore, a mitigation measure specific to cumulative wetland impacts is not required.

Response to S&W-12
The commenters suggested that they are unable to evaluate if the proposed mitigation will adequately replace lost wetland functions because the Draft EIR does not provide assessment of wetland functions, water budget analysis, and, in general, information necessary to determine whether the wetlands can be successfully created.

Refer to Response to S&W-6b and Response to S&W-8 regarding impacts to wetland functions and water budget analysis.

Response to S&W-13a
The commenters suggested that creating vernal pools is difficult and successful wetland creation is largely driven by ability to provide appropriate hydrology, and referenced federal and State guidelines which also speak of the difficulty in creating vernal pools. The commenters stated a hydrologic analysis that demonstrates wetland creation potential in the proposed mitigation area is not provided in the Draft EIR.

Establishing an appropriate hydroperiod (i.e., the timing and duration of inundation) is particularly critical to vernal pool ecosystems and can be difficult to create. Topographic and geologic factors can have a significant effect on vernal pool hydroperiod. The topography within the Wetland Preserve is relatively flat, which, topographically, makes this area ideal for creating/establishing vernal pools; and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) soil survey maps indicate the majority of the Wetland Preserve does support clay soils, which are also ideal for creating vernal pools. To ensure excavated depressions 1 to 3 feet below grade support clay soils and could pond and hold water for a duration long enough to support vernal pools, HBG and HBC conducted an assessment of the soil profile. Using a backhoe, 25 soil pits were dug to approximately 4 feet in depth. Soil texture and color were then recorded throughout the profile for each soil pit. Results indicated a restrictive layer composed of clay soil is found 12-30 inches below the surface. This layer of clay soil supports the existing vernal pool hydrology and would allow the establishment of vernal pools within the Wetland Preserve. Based on the Wetland Preserve’s flat topography, restrictive layer of clay soil just below the surface, and the fact that the site currently supports vernal pools, HBG is confident vernal pools can be successfully established and functioning within a 5-year monitoring period. The location of each established vernal pool would be selected based on the soil profile, and water budget analysis referenced to Response to S&W-8.

Response to S&W-13b
1089
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-304 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx S&W suggests that the Procedures and the USACE may require mitigation ratios greater than 1:1 for impacts to vernal pools, and the information in the Draft EIR does not support the conclusion that the proposed established/created wetlands would replace all the wetland functions at the time of Phase 2.

The proposed 1:1 wetland establishment mitigation ratio for permanent wetland impacts meets the federal and State “no-net-loss” of wetland area policy. Typically, the USACE and RWQCB will require a mitigation ratio greater than 1:1 if wetland mitigation is implemented after or concurrent with the start of project construction and if there is a low level of confidence a selected site can support wetlands.

S&W suggests that the Draft EIR does not support the conclusion that the proposed established/created wetlands would replace all the wetland functions at the time of Phase 2.

The impact analysis discussed in the Draft EIR under Impact BIO-2 states “to offset the loss of the

2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools from Phase 2, and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland or vernal pool area, the applicant shall establish/create 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and of 1.13 acres of vernal pool wetlands (1:1 ratio) for Phase 2 at least 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction.” As discussed above in Response to S&W-13a, HBG has a high level of confidence that the Wetland Preserve can support the establishment of vernal pools, and that, when constructed a minimum of 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction, these vernal pools will be functioning (e.g., providing flood storage, avian and terrestrial habitat, provide habitat suitable for vernal pool plants, etc.) similar to the vernal pools that would be impacted by Phase 2. Based on HBG’s assessment, the Wetland Preserve is ideal for establishing vernal pools, and the vernal pools will begin functioning as vernal pools within 1 year after construction, and the 1:1 mitigation ratio that was proposed to offset wetland impacts for Phase 2 will be considered adequate.

Response to S&W-14
The commenters suggested that the 1990 Federal Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement between the USACE and EPA requires the applicant to complete a thorough mitigation sequencing wherein impacts to aquatic resources are first avoided, then minimized, and unavoidable impacts mitigated.

The commenters stated the Draft EIR does not address how the proposed project completed this sequencing.

The 1990 Federal Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement is a federal process and an agreement, as stated by S&W, between two federal agencies. Although the requirements in this agreement will be assessed by the USACE and EPA during the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting process, during the design process “practicable” alternatives were assessed to first avoid impacts to wetlands, then minimize impacts to wetlands, and where impacts were unavoidable, mitigation measures were proposed. The term ‘practicable’ was applied in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 230.3(q) meaning “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” During the design process, alternative site designs proposed to avoid and minimize impacts considered several specific constraints of a practicable project site plan that were needed in order to satisfy the overall project 1090
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-305 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx purpose. These specific site design constraints included the need to: (1) provide sufficient building square footage capable of accommodating large manufacturing, and/or fulfillment and distribution tenants that require large surface and vertical area structures (i.e., high-cube warehouse buildings), (2) provide sufficient area to accommodate loading docks and circulation routes that can accommodate tractor-semitrailers and delivery vans, and parking to accommodate tractorsemitrailers, vans and personnel vehicles, (3) provide sufficient space to comply with Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, (4) provide for water, sewer, and electric utilities sufficient for an industrial facility, or in an area where those utilities may be practicably extended to the project site, and (5) provide sufficient area to implement wetland mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources.

Considering these constraints, the proposed Phase 1 design avoided 0.350 acres of wetlands and both Phase 1 and Phase 2 designs minimized impacts to existing wetlands within the Wetland Preserve area by positioning the bioretention basins between the Wetland Preserve and warehouse development.

Response to S&W-15a
The commenters stated that the proposed 5 years of mitigation monitoring is the minimum requirement in the State’s Procedures. The commenters referenced the 10-year monitoring guidelines for vernal pools suggested in the draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools.

The guidelines that the commenters referenced are in draft form and have not been finalized or incorporated into the South Pacific Division Final Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines, and currently the USACE does not require 10 years of monitoring for vernal pools.

Regardless, as discussed previously in Response to S&W-13a, the Wetland Preserve can support the establishment of vernal pools, and once constructed, these vernal pools will provide functions (e.g., provide flood storage, avian and terrestrial habitat, provide habitat suitable for vernal pool plants, etc.) similar to the vernal pools impacted within a short period of time. Based on HBG’s assessment, the Wetland Preserve is ideal for establishing vernal pools, and the vernal pools will begin functioning as vernal pools within 1 year after construction, a 5-year monitoring period is sufficient to determine whether the vernal pools have met the performance standards and have replaced the functions of the vernal pools impacted.

Response to S&W-15b
The commenters summarized the Draft EIR MM BIO-3d and suggests that without an understanding of the impacted wetland functions, there is not a basis for establishing mitigation goals or ecological performance standards.

Refer to Response to S&W-6b.

Response to S&W-15c
The commenters suggested that the Draft EIR does not describe use of reference wetlands in the mitigation approach, which is needed to define the performance standards. 1091
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-306 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The Draft EIR acknowledges in MM BIO-3d that the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Procedures. The Procedures require the use of “reference aquatic resources,” as correctly stated by S&W. Therefore, MM BIO-3d requires, by referencing the Procedures in MM BIO-3d, the use of “reference aquatic resources” to assist in developing performance standards.

Response to S&W-16a
The commenters stated that City policy requires riparian corridors to be protected by an adequate buffer width and references the buffer guidelines for vernal pools suggested in the draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools.

Although No Name Creek is referenced as a creek on the USGS map, it does not support riparian vegetation and is a seasonal wetland, therefore the City riparian corridor policy does not apply. As shown on the Draft EIR Exhibit 3.3-2 Plant Communities map, the area where No Name Creek occurs is labeled as a Seasonal Wetland Community, and it is also labeled as a wetland on the USACE AJD.

Thus, the City’s riparian corridor buffer policy does not apply on this project site. With respect to the vernal pool buffer comment please refer to Response to S&W-10a.

Response to S&W-16b
The commenters suggested that the lack of project buffer impact analysis makes it difficult to evaluate if the proposed buffer plantings referenced on the Draft EIR Exhibit 3.3-4 are adequate compensation to replace the lost buffer.

The purpose of the proposed tree and shrub plantings referenced on the Draft EIR Exhibit 3.3-4 is to provide vertical structure within the Wetland Preserve to enhance its habitat value. Currently there are no trees within the Wetland Preserve and few shrubs. The tree and shrub plantings were not proposed as “mitigation” or proposed to provide a “buffer” between the project site and the Wetland Preserve. With respect to buffers around unimpacted wetlands and vernal pools, please refer to Response to S&W-10a through Response to S&W-10-c and Response to S&W-11.

Response to S&W-17
The commenters summarized the resources used in their groundwater review. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-18a
The commenters summarized the findings of the Water Supply Assessment and noted that the City of American Canyon does not use groundwater as part of its municipal water supply. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-18a
The commenters summarized the findings of the Water Supply Assessment. No response is necessary.
1092
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-307 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to S&W-18c
The commenters summarized the findings of the Water Supply Assessment. The commenters noted that the Water Supply Assessment indicated that the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Zero Water Footprint Policy and the Draft EIR did not address this requirement.

The Draft EIR’s water supply analysis, which was based on the Water Supply Assessment, concluded that adequate water supplies would be available to serve the project and no mitigation was necessary. Hence, the Draft EIR’s analysis did not rely on the City’s Zero Water Footprint Policy to reach this CEQA conclusion.

The neighboring Napa Logistics Park Project, which involves similar types of end users as the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center, achieved compliance with the Zero Water Footprint Policy.

Therefore, it would be expected that the proposed project could achieve compliance as well.

Regardless, how the applicant achieves compliance with the City’s Zero Water Footprint Policy is outside the scope of the Draft EIR.

Response to S&W-19
The commenters stated that the loss of pervious surface coverage would not have a significant effect on groundwater recharge and, thus, would not change the groundwater budget for the basin. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-20
The commenters summarized the resources used in their high-level stormwater review. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-21
The commenters summarized the findings of their stormwater review and noted that Phase 2 does not appear to benefit from Devlin Road in terms of stormwater retention and, therefore, the stormwater basins and bioretention will likely have to be larger than Phase 1.

Phase 2 encompasses 113 acres and would support up to 1.3 million square feet. By virtue of having more square footage than Phase 1, it will likely have more impervious surface coverage and, thus, need larger basins and bioretention areas.

Response to S&W-22
The commenters reiterated their findings. Refer to Response to S&W-5 through Response to S&W21.

Response to S&W-23
The commenter listed the references used. No response is necessary.

Response to S&W-24
The commenter provided his curriculum vitae. No response is necessary.

Response to CASHEN-1
The commenter provided introductory remarks. No response is necessary. 1093
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-308 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to CASHEN-2
The commenter disputed the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the proposed project would not have any impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp. The commenter stated that the project site provides potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat and alleged that the 2016-2017 surveys for this species that did not find presence of this species are outdated. The commenter claimed that thousands of vernal pool shrimp were detected in vernal pools located 2,700 feet northwest of the project site.

Generally, when surveys are older than 5 years the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may request new surveys to be conducted, or they may not. Nonetheless, the referenced vernal pool branchiopod protocol surveys were less than 5 years old when the Draft EIR was released and, from a biological standpoint, the surveys were reliable and sufficient to support the conclusion that federally listed threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp do not occur on the project site. As the commentor notes, thousands of vernal pool fairy shrimp have occurred within 2,700 feet of the project site for many years, but the surveys show they have not become established within the project site. This indicates that the on-site seasonal wetland and vernal pool habitats are likely not sufficient to support vernal pool fairy shrimp. Therefore, no impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp would result from construction of the proposed project.

Response to CASHEN-3
The commenter claimed that the Draft EIR failed to evaluate the following Bird Species of Conservation Concern: California gull, savannah sparrow, and marbled godwit. The commenter also stated that the Draft EIR failed to evaluate impacts to cackling geese, which likely occur on the project site because they have been detected at the neighboring Napa Logistics Park.

Marbled godwit, California gull, and savannah sparrow have all been documented within or flying over the project site by biologists with HBG and Monk & Associates. Marbled godwit is an abundant wintering shorebird found along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, ocean beaches, and wetlands.

They nest in the Northern Plains and are not included on CDFW’s Special Animals List (latest update in July 2022). There is no reason that impacts to this abundant species needs to be a topic for evaluation in the EIR. California gull is a common wintering species in the San Francisco Bay Area that nests at primarily inland bodies of water in the American west. It is considered a CDFW Watch List species with respect to nesting colonies, none of which occur on or near the project site. By mentioning savannah sparrow, it appears that the commenter is referring to Bryant’s savannah sparrow, a subspecies of the widespread and common savannah sparrow, which is considered a species of special concern in California primarily because of its limited range. The Bryant’s subspecies of savannah sparrow occupies tidal marshes, moist grasslands and some adjacent ruderal areas within a narrow coastal strip between Humboldt Bay and Morro Bay, and would not be expected within the Giovannoni project site in American Canyon.

Cackling goose (Branta hutchinsii) is a goose species once considered conspecific with the common Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Cackling goose is a common species; however, the Aleutian subspecies of cackling goose was listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act until its recovery to a population of over 100,000 individuals and its delisting from the Act in 2001.

The Aleutian subspecies remains on the CDFW Watch List. 1094
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-309 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Note that MM BIO-4 requiring nesting surveys for all bird species during the breeding season would ensure significant impacts to all nesting bird species would not occur.

Response to CASHEN-4
The commenter disputed the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the short-eared owl does not occur on the project site because of lack of suitable habitat. The commenter claimed that the project site does in fact provide suitable habitat including voles, freshwater marshes, and ungrazed grassland and noted that one was observed during a survey at the neighboring Napa Logistics Park.

The Draft EIR Appendix C.1 Biological Resources Report determined the project site did not support suitable habitat for the short-eared owl (a California Species of Special Concern and USFWS Bird Species of Conservation Concern), at least in part because the property is currently surrounded on all four sides by commercial development or heavily trafficked roadways and is bisected by a new road and public trail extension that create disturbances, all of which would not be conducive to nesting by this sensitive species. Although nesting by this species is not likely for this reason, nesting by short-eared owl, a species that resembles northern harrier in its habitat requirements and foraging habits (northern harrier by day and short-eared owl at night), is possible. For this reason, recommended nesting surveys for northern harrier (see MM BIO-1c) should include concurrent searches for nesting short-eared owl and mitigate for the presence of nesting birds, if found. Refer to Response to CDFW-8a for revised wording of MM BIO-1c, which now provides for the possibility of finding nesting short-eared owl as well as northern harrier. Implementation of MM BIO-1c would ensure potential impacts to short-eared owl, as well as those for northern harrier, would be less than significant.

Response to CASHEN-5a
The commenter noted that the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would not impact rare plants and stated that the rare plant surveys that were the basis of this conclusion are invalid because they were conducted in 2021, which was a drought year.

The Draft EIR did not rely solely on HBC’s 2021 botanical surveys. Referenced in the Draft EIR Appendix C.1 Biological Resources Report, the biological evaluation also considered plant data in the aquatic resources delineation prepared by Monk & Associates, and Biological Resource Reports prepared by Monk & Associates for the Devlin Road and Vine Trail Extension Project and the Green Island Road Reconstruction and Widening Project. In addition, HBG’s biological evaluation considered plant data in the CNDDB to determine whether populations of endangered, threatened, or rare species have occurred on the site historically or are currently known to exist in the project vicinity. All of this data was sufficient to analyze the proposed project’s potential impacts to plant species. The data relied on included data taken in wet years as well as drought years.

Response to CASHEN-5b
The commenter claimed the rare plant surveys did not encompass the blooming periods of all target species, including Napa bluecurls and pappose tarplant and, thus, the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the proposed project would not impact rare plants are not supported by sufficient evidence.

The blooming periods listed in Appendix A of the 2021 HBC rare plant survey report are general approximations provided by the California Native Plant Society and may vary depending on weather 1095
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-310 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx patterns. Because of blooming periods varying from year to year, and in accordance with the CDFW’s protocol, HBC conducted visits to several reference sites with known special-status plants targeted for field surveys to determine whether those special-status plants were identifiable at the times of year the botanical field surveys took place. HBC conducted botanical surveys during the spring of 2021 and survey dates were chosen based on the reference sites and when the special-status plants would likely be in bloom or otherwise visible. Because of significant early fall rainfall in 2020, lack of spring rainfall in 2021 and warm weather, the flowering periods were several months in advance of normal blooming periods. The last rainfall event that was not trace amounts, occurred on March 18, 2021. Based on the weather patterns leading up to the spring surveys for 2021 and based on the reference sites known to support the target plants, the dates HBC conducted the surveys on were reliable and sufficient to capture blooming periods or a visual image of the target species.

Response to CASHEN-6
The commenter noted the Draft EIR indicated that the proposed project would impact 3.7 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools but did discuss the ecological functions of wetlands or evaluate indirect impacts on wetlands outside the development footprint.

The commenter claimed that the proposed Wetland Preserve would function as an island surrounded by urban development and would be subject to human disturbance. The commenter also noted MM LU-3 seeks to reduce the avian attractants and, thus, would further diminish the Wetland Preserve’s functions. The commenter alleged that because of these reasons, MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 would not reduce the proposed project’s impacts on wetlands to a less than significant level.

Functional assessments were conducted to determine plant and animal communities supported on the project site, and these functional assessments were then used in the impact analysis and subsequent mitigation requirements. Refer to Response to S&W-6b for further discussion.

As shown in Draft EIR Exhibit 3.3-3, the Wetland Preserve would contain No Name Creek, which is hydrologically connected to the Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve to the north. It would also be contiguous to wetland areas within the Biaggi Bros. property to the west. Thus, the commenter’s claims that the Wetland Preserve would be an island are his opinion not supported by evidence.

With respect to the commenter’s suggestion that MM LU-3 seeks to reduce the avian attractants and, thus, would further diminish the Wetland Preserve’s please refer to CASHEN-14 for further discussion on the implications of MM LU-3.

Response to CASHEN-7a
The commenter noted the MM LU-3 would incorporate measures to reduce bird attractant potential of the wetland area and, therefore, it is reasonable to assume the wildlife hazard reduction measures required under MM LU-3 would include measures to reduce the attraction of Swainson’s hawks to the Wetland Preserve. The commenter referenced the Draft EIR’s discussion of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and disputed the statement that there have been a limited number of occurrences of the species within a 10-mile radius of the project site. The commenter claimed that both the California Natural Diversity Database and eBird database have numerous records of Swainson’s hawk occurrences within 10 miles of the project site. 1096
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-311 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx With respect to the commenter’s suggestion that MM LU-3 would include measures to reduce the attraction Swainson’s hawks to the Wetland Preserve, refer to Response to CASHEN-14. The California Natural Diversity Data Base is a reliable source of scientific data and was used to determine the number of occurrences of Swainson’s hawk within a 10-mile radius of the project site.

The commenter references the eBird data base, which shows multiple sightings of Swainson’s hawk in the project area; but a knowledgeable person’s interpretation of the eBird data would recognize that the multiple sightings of Swainson’s hawk are of multiple observers seeing the same bird(s) over and over. Based upon the limited number of known Swainson’s hawk to occur within a 10-mile radius of the project site, the acreage of existing foraging habitat currently protected, and the addition of a 45-acre open space area providing suitable foraging habitat for the species, there is more than sufficient foraging habitat near the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to foraging habitat nor affect the nesting populations of Swainson’s hawk near the project site either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. Refer to Master Response 1—Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat, for further discussion.

Response to CASHEN-7b
The commenter alleged that the Draft EIR’s biological survey on included a single survey for the Swainson’s hawk and did not adhere to Swainson’s hawk survey protocol, which require three independent surveys to be completed.

Two surveys were conducted to analyze project impacts, not one as suggested by the commenter.

The Draft EIR acknowledges in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-4 that HBG conducted spring season site reconnaissance surveys on April 16 and May 24, 2021, and HBG drove about 10 miles of local roads surrounding the project site during both the April and May 2021 field reviews to inspect trees for raptor nest structures. No Swainson’s hawk nest structures were observed during either reconnaissance. The Draft EIR also acknowledges, by referencing Appendix C.1 Biological Resources Report, that the analysis relied on CNDDB data of Swainson’s hawk locations, and Biological Resource Reports prepared by Monk & Associates for the Devlin Road and Vine Trail Extension Project and the Green Island Road Reconstruction and Widening Project. This data was sufficient to analyze potential impacts the project may have on Swainson’s hawk. Some mitigation measures developed in the Giovannoni Draft EIR were in part based on the mitigation requirements spelled out in the Monk & Associates environmental reports, which were certified by the City of American Canyon for projects that have been constructed or a currently in construction.

Implementation of MM BIO-1a and MM BIO-4 would ensure project impacts to Swainson’s hawk are less than significant.

Response to CASHEN-7c
The commenter disputed a statement that there is sufficient Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the project vicinity such that the development of the proposed project would not cause a significant loss of this habitat. The commenter referenced CDFW mitigation guidelines for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and claimed that the proposed project would result in an unmitigated significant impact in this regard.
1097
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-312 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation is addressed in Master Response 1 (Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat).

Response to CASHEN-8
The commenter noted that the Draft EIR indicated that a golden eagle was spotted during a field survey and indicated the development of the proposed project would result in the loss of golden eagle foraging habitat.

Development of the proposed project would remove some foraging area for this species.

Development of the proposed project would also provide and preserve in perpetuity approximately 45 acres of open space that would include habitat currently suitable for foraging by the golden eagle, as indicated by the observation of a golden eagle foraging on the site in spring 2021. The adjacent Napa Logistics Park Project has preserved 37 acres of grassland and wetlands in perpetuity that provides foraging habitat for golden eagle. Between these two preservation areas abutting and directly adjacent to the project site, approximately 82 acres of suitable habitat would be available for the golden eagle. In addition, there are several large open space preserves within 2 and 5 miles of the project site that combined provide approximately 2,000 acres of suitable foraging habitat. Based upon the limited number of golden eagle records within a 10-mile radius of the project site, there is sufficient foraging habitat in and within the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the limited number of known golden eagle to occur within a 10-mile radius of the project site, the acreage of existing foraging habitat currently protected, and the addition of a 45-acre open space of suitable golden eagle foraging habitat as part of the project, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to foraging habitat directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted for golden eagle foraging habitat.

Importantly, the Golden Eagle Protection Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle . . . [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part (including feathers), nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." Regulations further define "disturb" as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior" (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 22.6). Although the proposed project would result in a net loss of foraging habitat, such a net loss occurring in the particular area in which the project site is located would not result in a “take” as defined by the Golden Eagle Protection Act.

For further discussion refer to Master Response 1 (Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat Mitigation).

Response to CASHEN-9
The commenter claimed that the northern harrier forages and may nest at the project site. The commenter claimed that MM BIO-1c would do nothing to mitigate loss of habitat and the potential 1098
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-313 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx loss of breeding territory. The commenter claimed that the proposed Wetland Preserve would not mitigate the loss of habitat for the species because it does not contain the requisite habitat.

Development of the proposed project would remove some foraging and breeding habitat for this species. Development of the proposed project would also provide and preserve in perpetuity approximately 45 acres of open space that would include habitat currently suitable for foraging and breeding habitat by the northern harrier as indicated by the observation of a northern harrier foraging in the site. The adjacent Napa Logistics Park Project has preserved 37 acres of grassland and wetlands in perpetuity that provides foraging habitat for northern harrier and there are several large open space preserves within 2 and 5 miles of the project site that combined provide approximately 2,000 acres of suitable foraging and breeding habitat. Based upon the number of known northern harrier to occur within a 10-mile radius of the project site, the acreage of existing northern harrier habitat currently protected, and the addition of a 45-acre open space area of suitable northern harrier foraging habitat as part of the project, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to northern harrier directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, therefore no mitigation is warranted for northern harrier foraging or breeding habitat.

The operative significance threshold for impacts to northern harrier, an unlisted species, is whether the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on the species, either directly or through habitat modifications. Although the proposed project would result in a net loss of potential northern harrier foraging habitat, such a net loss occurring in the particular area in which the project site is located would not cause a substantial adverse effect on the species. There is no need to “net out the impact of a proposed project” for that impact to be less than significant. (See, Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 529.) Response to CASHEN-10
The commenter stated that MM BIO-1d does not require habitat compensation if burrowing owls are detected and stated that the proposed Wetland Preserve would not mitigate the loss of habitat.

Similar to Response to CASHEN-8 and CASHEN-9, based upon the lack of burrowing owls and burrowing owl habitat on the project site, the number of known burrowing owls to occur within a 10-mile radius of the project site and the acreage of existing suitable habitat currently protected within 2 and 5 miles of the project site, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to burrowing owl habitat directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, therefore no mitigation is warranted for burrowing owl habitat. It should be noted the applicant agrees that, if burrowing owl is ultimately found on the site and burrow eviction/relocation of burrowing owls during the non-nesting season is a selected strategy to move forward with the project without direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals, the applicant will coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl. Modifications to MM BIO-1d, as shown in the Errata, confirm this requirement.

Also note that mitigation recommendations in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report do not carry the force of law, as burrowing owls are not listed under CESA, and the Staff Report was not subject to any formal rulemaking process. Moreover, the operative significance threshold for impacts to burrowing owl, an unlisted species, is whether the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on the 1099
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-314 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx species, either directly or through habitat modifications. Although the proposed project would result in the loss of burrowing owl nests or a net loss of potential burrowing owl foraging habitat, such losses would not cause a substantial adverse effect on the species. There is no need to “net out the impact of a proposed project” for that impact to be less than significant. (See, Save Panoche Valley v.

San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 529.)
Response to CASHEN-11
The commenter claimed the merlin and ferruginous hawk have been detected north of the project site and stated the project site provides foraging habitat. The commenter alleged MM LU-3 would directly functionally eliminate habitat for these two species.

Merlin and ferruginous hawk are raptor species on the CDFW Watch List with respect to wintering habitat. Both of these raptors are species with widespread winter ranges that include much of the western United States and beyond, including portions of the San Francisco Bay Area and inland valleys. They occur in small numbers throughout and can be found in grasslands, pastures, undeveloped and even developed urban to rural sites, golf courses, etc. Occasional use of the project site by either of these species is likely to occur, but there is nothing peculiar about the property that would warrant protection or mitigation on the basis of the site being an important wintering site for either species. In addition, similar to Response to CASHEN-8 and CASHEN-9, based on the acreage of existing suitable habitat currently protected within 2 and 5 miles of the project site, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to merlin or ferruginous hawk habitat directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, therefore no mitigation is warranted for merlin or ferruginous hawk habitat. The operative significance threshold for impacts to these unlisted species is whether the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on the species, either directly or through habitat modifications. Although the proposed project would result in the loss of potential foraging habitat, such losses would not cause a substantial adverse effect on the species. There is no need to “net out the impact of a proposed project” for that impact to be less than significant. (See, Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 529.) In addition, implementation of MM LU-3 will not functionally eliminate the habitat for these two species. Refer to Response to CASHEN-14 for further discussion on the implications of MM LU-3.

Response to CASHEN-12
The commenter alleged the proposed project has the potential to introduce invasive plant species or facilitate their spread during construction. The commenter claimed that because the proposed project does not set forth mitigation for invasive plant species, it does not comply with General Plan Policy 8.4.3.

Based on the fact that the majority of the project site, once developed, will consist of hard surfaces (building foundations, asphalt parking lots, access roads etc.) that do not provide a growth medium for plants, the proposed developed portion of the project site could not support invasive plant species even if they were inadvertently introduced during or after construction. The managed landscaped areas within the development could provide a limited opportunity for an invasive plant; however, these areas are managed landscaped areas with planted trees and shrubs that would be managed, by techniques such as weeding, to allow for the growth of the plants, included in the landscape plan once proposed. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted for invasive plant species 1100
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-315 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx during construction or after construction on the developed portion of the project site. If an invasive plant is introduced into the Wetland Preserve, the Draft EIR set forth mitigation measures under MM BIO-3d. MM BIO-3d provides mitigation measures in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page

3.3-36 to monitor for the establishment of an invasive plant species in wetlands and provides a contingency measure on page 3.3-37 to address invasive plant species should the invasive plant performance standard not be met.

Response to CASHEN-13
The commenter noted that a 0.5-mile radius was used as the geographical area for the Draft EIR’s cumulative biological analysis and no justification was provided as to why this was appropriate. The commenter claimed the Draft EIR discussed foraging habitat using a much larger geographical area and, thus, used two different geographical areas for the cumulative analysis. The commenter reiterated previous comments about loss of foraging habitat and Impact MM LU-3 would have on the Wetland Preserve as foraging habitat.

In Chapter 4, Cumulative Effects, the geographic scope for each topic is identified and the rationale for it is explained. For Biological Resources, 0.5-mile was used because of the project site’s location between the marshes associated with the Napa River and urban development with the City of American Canyon. Thus, 0.5-mile would encompass this geographical area.

The discussion of the abundance of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the project vicinity in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, was a separate analysis. Regardless, much of that foraging habitat is within 0.5-mile of the project site. The discussion of impacts to the ability of the Wetland Preserve to provide foraging habitat is discussed below in CASHEN-7a.

Refer to Master Response 1 for further discussion of foraging habitat.

Response to CASHEN-14
The commenter alleged that MM LU-3 would preclude implementation of MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 because it would require modification of the landscape, hazing, or removal of hazardous wildlife species. The commenter suggested that implementation of MM LU-3 would require the use of pyrotechnics, propane cannons or directional sonic/hailing devices, the effects of which were not evaluated in the Draft EIR.

MM LU-3 is patterned after a similar mitigation measure set forth in the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 EIR to minimize the avian attractant attributes of that project’s 37-acre Wetland Preserve. In the case of Napa Logistics Park, the intent was to minimize the avian attractant attributes of where standing water would occur through design practices (i.e., employing certain shapes that are not appealing to avian species). Importantly, hazing or hazardous wildlife species removal was not employed in the Napa Logistics Park. Given that Napa Logistics Park is nearly built out and the Wetland Preserve has been established for several years, there is evidence that the successful implementation of MM LU-3 and MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 can be achieved. Furthermore, a Wildlife Hazard Assessment has already been prepared, in accordance with MM LU-3, and demonstrates that the construction of the proposed project would not cause an increase above the existing level of activity of birds or other wildlife, and would not present a hazard to Napa County Airport flight operations. It is predicted that 1101
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-316 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx the overall wildlife activity on the property would remain at or below current levels. The Wildlife Hazard Memo is included in Appendix L of this Final EIR.

Lastly, the commenter’s claim that pyrotechnics, propane cannons, or directional sonic/hailing devices would be used is speculative, unsupported by any statements in the Draft EIR.

Response to CASHEN-15
The commenter referenced MM BIO-1a and claimed it violates the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Committee survey protocol by allowing construction to commence after the first survey, which may cause impacts on the species. The commenter also alleged that MM BIO-1a only requires a 1,000- foot buffer, whereas CDFW mitigation guidelines call for a 0.25-mile buffer.

There are no trees on the project site and, thus, the Swainson’s hawk does not have the potential to nest on-site. Instead, MM BIO-1a applies to Swainson’s hawk nesting within the zone of influence, which is generally defined as within 1,000 feet of the project site. Refer to Response to CDFW-5a and Response to CDFW-5b for further discussion.

See also Master Response 1 (Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat Mitigation).

Response to CASHEN-16
The commenter referenced MM BIO-1b and claimed that it does not require that the surveys adhere to USFWS survey protocol, does not include 1-mile non-disturbance buffer, and does not provide evidence that a reduced buffer would be sufficient to mitigate impacts on golden eagles.

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-25, there are no trees on the project site and, thus, the golden eagle does not have the potential to nest on-site. Instead, MM BIO1b applies to golden eagle nesting within the zone of influence, which is generally defined as within 1,000 feet of the project site. The USFWS Interim Golden Eagle inventory and monitoring protocols provides recommendations for determining and evaluating potential golden eagle use of habitat, including nest sites, roosts, and territories, as well as the rationale for identifying and evaluating foraging locations during breeding and non-breeding periods and buffer recommendations. The purpose of the data gathered is to provide information on the baseline circumstances for evaluation of permit applications and foundation for permit conditions during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. A Pre-construction Notification was submitted to the USACE with information regarding golden eagle foraging habitat on the project site, known golden eagle sightings within a 10-mile radius of the project site, proposed 1,000-foot minimum buffer from a nest, and proposed pre-construction surveys that would be implemented prior to the start of construction. Based on the USACE’s assessment, initiation of an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation for golden eagle was not warranted. Regardless, MM BIO-1b establishes a minimum 1000-foot buffer zone, which means the qualified Raptor Biologist could require a larger buffer than 1000 feet or adhere to the USFWS 1-mile buffer recommendation or establish a buffer greater than 1 mile if it is determined, by the qualified Raptor Biologist, that a larger buffer is warranted.

Construction activities vary and may include low disturbance activities such as engineering surveys, high levels of disturbance such as large-scale grading, or there may be areas that may have no disturbances for long periods. The qualified Biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer to avoid 1102
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-317 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx project impacts that could result in nest abandonment, loss of young, and/or injury or mortality of burrowing owls. Implementation of MM BIO-1b would ensure project impacts to golden eagle are less than significant.

Response to CASHEN-17
The commenter referenced MM BIO-1c and claimed that it does not provide evidence that a 500- foot buffer would be sufficient to protect northern harrier nest.

MM BIO-1c states the northern harrier nest must be protected by implementing a minimum 500- foot radius buffer zone around the nest, and that the qualified Raptor Biologist could modify the buffer zone considering the type of construction activity that may occur, physical barriers between the construction site and active nest, and the behavioral factors and extent that northern harrier may have acclimated to disturbance. This means the minimum buffer is a 500-foot radius; however, according to MM BIO-1c the qualified Raptor Biologist could increase the buffer radius if deemed necessary to protect the nest. Implementation of MM BIO-1c and MM BIO-4 would ensure project impacts to northern harrier are less than significant.

Response to CASHEN-18a
The commenter referenced MM BIO-1d and claimed that the 100-foot non-disturbance buffer for an occupied burrowing owl nest is inconsistent with CDFW mitigation guidelines, which recommend a 500-meter buffer from occupied burrows and activities causing a high level of disturbance.

As stated above, the CDFW mitigation guidelines recommend a 500-meter buffer from activities causing a high level of disturbance. Construction activities vary and may include low disturbance activities such as engineering surveys, high levels of disturbance such as large-scale grading, or there may be areas within a large construction site, such as the project site, that may have no disturbances for long periods. MM BIO-1d establishes a minimum 100-foot buffer zone, which means the qualified Raptor Biologist could require a larger buffer than 100 feet or 500 meters if it is determined, by the qualified Raptor Biologist, that a larger buffer is warranted based on the location of a nest, reaction of the burrowing owl to the disturbance, and the activity being conducted from the occupied nest to avoid project impacts that could result in nest abandonment, loss of young, and/or injury or mortality of burrowing owls.

Response to CASHEN-18b
The commenter referenced MM BIO-1d and claimed that passive relocation may have adverse impacts associated with loss of habitat, increased stress on burrowing owls, increased depredation, increase energetic costs, and competition for fewer available burrows.

MM BIO-1d does not allow passive relocation of burrowing owls during the breeding season. The passive relocation effort outlined in MM BIO-1d is restricted to relocating owls during the nonbreeding season often referred to as overwintering owls. If burrowing owl are found to be present during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed project grounddisturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 Staff Report recommended avoidance protocol whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a non-disturbance buffer. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-1d would ensure project impacts to overwintering owls and breeding pairs would be reduced to less than significant.
1103
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-318 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx It should be noted that the applicant agrees that, if burrowing owl is ultimately found on the site and burrow eviction/relocation of burrowing owls during the non-nesting season is a selected strategy to move forward with the project without direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals, the applicant will coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl. Modifications to MM BIO-1d, as shown in the Errata, confirm this requirement.

The operative significance threshold for impacts to burrowing owl, an unlisted species, is whether the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on the species, either directly or through habitat modifications. Although the project could lead to the loss of a burrowing owl nest during the nonbreeding season, such an impact will not cause a substantial adverse effect on the species. There is no need to “net out the impact of a proposed project” for that impact to be less than significant. (See, Save Panoche Valley v. San Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 503, 529.) Response to CASHEN-19
The commenter referenced MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 and claimed they failed to demonstrate why the mitigation ratios would be sufficient to mitigate wetland impacts. The commenter reiterated previous comments about MM LU-3 precluding implementation of MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3.

With respect to the mitigation ratio comment please refer to Response to S&W-13b; with respect to the MM LU-3 comment refer to Response to CASHEN-14.

Response to CASHEN-20a
The commenter referenced MM BIO-4 and claimed it failed to established standards for nest searching techniques, minimum level of effort, and qualifications of the Biologist.

MM BIO-4 does establish standards for conducting pre-construction breeding bird survey. Standards include timeframes when the survey can begin, provides a specific survey geographic range outside of the project site for ground nesting birds, passerines, accipiters, and other raptors. MM BIO-4 establishes a standard for repeating surveys should project construction get delayed, and requires a qualified Biologist to conduct the survey. As correctly stated by CASHEN-20a, actually detecting a physical nest can be difficult especially for ground nesting birds. Typically, an experienced Biologist will mark the nest location but if a nest is not found the qualified Biologist would mark an area where a bird exhibiting nesting behavior is active.

Response to CASHEN-20b
The commenter referenced MM BIO-4 and claimed it failed to provide evidence that buffer sizes would prevent negative impacts to nesting birds. The commenter claimed construction noise levels may reach 90 A-weighted decibel (dBA) at a distance of 50 feet and, thus, a 50-foot buffer would not be sufficient.

To clarify, Draft EIR Section 3.10, Noise, page 3.10-17, disclosed construction noise levels may be as high as 90 dBA maximum noise/sound level (Lmax) (i.e., instantaneous noise level). Actual average noise levels during construction activities would be lower. Regardless, the buffers outlined in MM BIO-4 are minimum buffers and may be increased should the qualified Biologist determine a larger buffer is warranted to protect a nest. Construction activities vary and may include low disturbance 1104
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-319 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx activities such as pedestrian engineering surveys, high levels of disturbance such as large-scale grading or pile driving, or there may be areas within a large construction site, such as the project site, that may have no disturbances for long periods. MM BIO-4 establishes minimum buffer zone requirements, which means the qualified Raptor Biologist could require a 500-meter buffer for a passerine nest if it is determined, by the qualified Raptor Biologist, that a larger buffer is warranted based on the location of a nest, reaction of the bird species to the disturbance, and the activity being conducted from the occupied nest.

Response to CASHEN-20c
The commenter referenced MM BIO-4 and claimed it does not contain performance standards for validation of the adequacy of the nest buffers or compliance for construction workers.

The MM BIO-4 requires buffer zones to be maintained until it can be documented that either the nest has failed, or the young have fledged, which is the industry standard approach. The Biologist must document the nest has either failed or the young have fledged prior to the buffer being removed. With respect to ensuring construction crews abide by the nesting bird buffers, this would be required to be noted on construction plans and, thus, construction personnel would be aware of this requirement.

Response to CASHEN-21
The commenter provided his curriculum vitae. No response is necessary.

Response to SM-1
The commenter summarized the findings of his review. Refer to Response to SM-2 through Response to SM-5, as well as Master Response 4.

Response to SM-2
The commenter alleged that project trip generation could be much higher than assumed because it used the lowest Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip rate a warehouse land use. The commenter asserted that a Cold Storage Warehouse trip rate should have been used, which would have resulted in more peak-hour trips. The commenter referenced a study from Western Riverside County that showed that an Amazon warehouse with more than 2,000 employees generated more than 5,000 trips per day. The commenter also claimed that truck trip generation was under counted, citing the same study.

Although the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) provides multiple rates for various types of HighCube land uses, the "High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage Warehouse" land use was selected because these rates were based upon a compilation of approximately 100 separate surveys sites whereas the published rates for the other High-Cube land uses (High-Cube Fulfillment Center, High-Cube Parcel Hub, and High-Cube Cold Storage) consisted of five or fewer site surveys each. Therefore, the rates for the "High-Cube Transload and Short-term Storage Warehouse" were applied since they were the most statistically robust data set available when compared with the other remaining options.

Response to SM-3
The commenter claimed that the VMT analysis improperly used the Statewide model, which is too coarse for a particular project. The commenter claimed a regional travel demand model should have 1105
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-320 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx been used and said a one-way commute VMT for the two higher income categories working in American Canyon is 31.3 miles.

The applied commute VMT per employee data of 16.24 miles was obtained from the California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM), which as noted in above responses produces VMT performance metrics that are directly comparable to those suggested for use in the OPR Technical Advisory, and accounts for local and regional demographic characteristics including the locations of jobs and housing. The alternative methodology suggested by the commenter entails using Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) information developed from US Census data, which while informative, does not produce results that can be directly compared to the applied significance threshold. This is evidenced by the substantial amount of factoring and adjusting used by the commenter to develop alternative estimates. The use of data produced by the CSTDM as applied is preferable since it similarly accounts for demographic patterns, more accurately accounts for actual driving distances on roadways, and requires substantially fewer assumptions and factoring adjustments than the approach suggested by the commenter.

Response to SM-4
The commenter stated that the Draft EIR should have required a TDM Program and noted some challenges for the proposed project in this regard.

This Final EIR includes a new mitigation measure, MM AIR-2f, which requires the implementation of a TDM Program. This change is included in Section 5, Errata.

The Draft EIR did discuss project accessibility to transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in Impact TRANS-1 and found that the proposed project would be accessible to these modes of transportation.

Response to SM-5
The commenter reiterated prior remarks about trip generation and alleged that the GHG emissions analysis may be underestimated. Refer to Response to SM-3.

Response to SM-6
The commenter provided his curriculum vitae. No response is necessary. 1106
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Planning Commission Meeting Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec04-00 Responses to Planning Commission Meeting.docx SECTION 4: RESPONSES TO JUNE 23, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING COMMENTS

4.1 - Introduction
City of American Canyon solicited public comments on the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021010104) on June 23, 2022, at a Planning Commission meeting at American Canyon City Hall. Comments were provided in oral form and summarized in meeting minutes. Although the City of American Canyon is not obligated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to provide written responses to oral comments, the City has nonetheless elected to respond to the comments made at the meeting in order to address concerns and questions related to the evaluation of the proposed project’s environmental impacts in the Draft EIR. These written responses become part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

This section is organized as follows:
• Section 4.1—Introduction. Provides an overview of the section. • Section 4.2—List of Speakers. Provides the list of individuals who provided comments at the June 23, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.
• Section 4.3—Planning Commission Transcript.
• Section 4.4—Responses to Planning Commission Comments. Provides responses to all applicable verbal and written comments received at the Community Meetings.

4.2 - List of Speakers and Authors
A list of the speakers who provided verbal comments on each community meeting is presented below. Each speaker has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses.

June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting
Speaker
Chris James
Joe Livaich
Planning Commission Chair Crystal Mallare
Planning Commission Vice Chair Tammy Wong
Planning Commissioner Tyrone Navarro

4.3 - June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting minutes are reproduced in the following pages are from the June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting.
1107

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Planning Commission Meeting Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec04-00 Responses to Planning Commission Meeting.docx

4.4 - Responses to June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Comments

4.4.1 - Introduction
Responses to comments made at the June 23, 2022, Planning Commission meeting are provided through both master responses and individual responses. Master responses are provided in Section 2 of this document.

4.4.2 - Responses to Comments
Individual Responses
Responses have been prepared for all comments pertaining to the Draft EIR. An individualized response has been provided to each comment.

Chris James
Summary of Comments
Mr. James noted that that “this has come up so quickly” and lamented that State Route (SR) 29 has been turned into a “concrete thoroughfare.” Mr. James expressed concern about air pollution from idling trucks and traffic congestion. He expressed general displeasure with the project vicinity being the “Warehouse District for Napa County.”
Response to Comments
The applicant filed the application to develop the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project with the City of American Canyon in November 2020. The environmental review process began in January 2021 with the issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The Draft EIR was released for public review on May 20, 2022. By the time of the June 23, 2022, Planning Commission meeting, 19 months had elapsed since the filing of the application. When compared to the entitlement timeline of other recent development projects (e.g., Napa Logistics Park Phase 2, Napa Airport Corporate Center, and Broadway District Specific Plan), the timeline for the Giovannoni Logistics Center was equal to, if not a bit more prolonged, than the timelines for those projects. This greater amount of time devoted to the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project demonstrates that the City conducted a deliberate review of the project application and by no means has rushed it through the process.

Air pollution, including diesel particulate matter (DPM) from trucks, was addressed in the Draft EIR in Section 3.2, Air Quality. Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2d requires that the truck fleet serving the proposed project meet or exceed the emissions profile of Model Year 2014 heavy trucks.

Furthermore, State law limits diesel engine idling to no more than 5 minutes and many truck fleets are equipped with auxiliary power units that allow the diesel engine to be shut off but still allow electrical systems to be powered. The Draft EIR found that impacts on nearby sensitive receptors from DPM emissions would be less than significant.

Lastly, the Green Island Business Park, as well as the Napa County Airport Industrial Area, are the two largest industrially zoned areas in Napa County. This reflects the following: (1) proximity to the SR-12/SR-29 junction; (2) compatibility with the Napa County Airport, the Napa Sanitation District Soscol Water Recycling Facility, and the Devlin Road Transfer Station; (3) the availability of freight rail 1113
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Planning Commission Meeting Comments Final EIR 4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec04-00 Responses to Planning Commission Meeting.docx service; and (4) the land use restrictions set forth in Measure P, which make it extremely difficult to rezone agricultural, open space, and watershed land in unincorporated Napa County to urban use.

Likewise, sensitive receptor land uses such as residential, schools, and convalescent facilities would be incompatible in the Green Island Business Park. In sum, light industrial/heavy commercial land uses (including warehouse) are the highest and best uses for the Green Island Business Park.

Joe Livaich
Note to Reader: Mr. Livaich is a representative of the applicant Buzz Oates Summary of Comments
Mr. Livaich noted that Buzz Oates is a vertically integrated developer, signifying that it would entitle, develop, and operate the proposed project. He indicated that the types of tenants are “open ended” and could include bio tech, wine-related businesses, and advanced manufacturing.

Response to Comments
None of these issues pertain to the Draft EIR and, thus, no response is necessary.

Planning Commission Chair Crystal Mallare
Summary of Comments
Chair Mallare inquired about how Buzz Oates identifies tenants. Mr. Livaich noted that regional consolidation of separate smaller spaces into a single larger space is a trend Buzz Oates has observed and expects to see played out at the proposed project.

Response to Comments
None of these issues pertain to the Draft EIR and, thus, no response is necessary.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Tammy Wong
Summary of Comments
Vice Chair Wong inquired about how employment was calculated. Mr. Livaich noted employment was calculated using standard employment rates that are based on employees per square feet.

Response to Comments
The methodology used to calculate employment is explained in Response to GSEJA-8a in Section 3, Response to Written Comments.

Planning Commissioner Tryonne Navarro
Summary of Comments
Commissioner Navarro expressed concern about traffic from a project of this size.

Response to Comments
Transportation impacts were evaluated in Draft EIR Section 3.12, Transportation. The analysis found that all of the proposed project’s transportation impacts were less than significant and did not require mitigation.
1114
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx SECTION 5: ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).

5.1 - Changes in Draft EIR
Section 2, Project Description

A statement on Page 2-9 has been revised to reflect the schedule used in the air quality analysis. The text edit does not change any conclusions in the Draft EIR.

For the purposes of providing a conservative, worst-case scenario, this Draft EIR assumes that Phases 1 and 2 would be developed concurrently over a period of 20 to 2418 months.

Section 3.2, Air Quality

Mitigation Measures (MM) AIR-2e, MM AIR-2f, and MM AIR-2g have been added to reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions. However, the residual significance of Impact AIR-1 and AIR-2 remain significant and unavoidable.

MM AIR-2e Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each building with dock doors, signage shall be posted identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to the building manager.

MM AIR-2f Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each building with a separate end user, the City shall confirm that the end user has prepared a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan). The TDM Plan shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant and identify strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. Examples of TDM strategies may include but are not limited to:
• Ridesharing/Ride Matching
• Vanpools
• Transit subsidies
• Preferential parking for rideshare or vanpool vehicles • Employee lockers
• Secure bicycle parking
• Employee locker rooms
• Provide TDM information in employee breakroom
1115
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Errata Final EIR
5-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx MM AIR-2g As a part of future lease agreements, the project proponent shall provide all future tenants at the project site information on available California Air Resources Board (ARB) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and the Voucher Incentive Program, that support upgrading truck fleets to clean air technology equipment.

Section 3.3, Biological Resources

The first sentence has been corrected to indicate that Huffman Broadway Group (HBG) conducted Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys in April and May 2021.

Although eucalyptus and other large trees located within about 0.25 mile from the project site provide potential nesting habitat, no nesting by Swainson’s hawk (or any raptor species) was noted during surveys for Swainson’s hawk conducted by HBG Helm Biological Consulting in April and May 2021.

Pages 3.3-26 and 3.3-27, Mitigation Measure BIO-1a
MM BIO-1a has been revised to address comments made by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

MM BIO-1a Pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk shall be conducted in the project site vicinity prior to initiation of project construction activities, and each year following initiation of construction if project activities are delayed or discontinued for 7 or more days prior to the second survey period (March 20 to April 5), and are scheduled to recommence construction activities during the second survey period but before August 1. These pre-construction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a half-mile radius around all project activities and shall be completed for at least two survey periods immediately prior to commencement of project construction. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) “Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley” (CDFW 2000) follow California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines for conducting surveys for Swainson’s hawk that were developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee to maximize the potential for locating nesting Swainson’s hawk and reduce the potential for nest failures due to project activities and/or disturbances.

If no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first non-optional second survey period starting March 20, then project construction may commence. If during the third surveys (April 5–April 20) Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it shall be assumed the Swainson’s hawk commenced nesting and thus the Swainson’s hawk are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site. 1116
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-3 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx If Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting within 1,000 feet of the project site, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established to keep all construction activities a minimum of 1,000 feet from the nest site. The CDFW shall be consulted regarding the adequacy of the buffer established by the qualified Raptor Biologist. At that time the necessity for acquiring a Fish and Game Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) authorization would be determined. An ITP authorization shall be required if there were a valid concern the project activities would result in the “take” of an adult Swainson’s hawk, eggs, or nestlings.

Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Raptor Biologist with at least 2 years of experience surveying for and detecting Swainson’s hawk pursuant to “Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley” survey protocol. No disturbance such as construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1b has been revised to address comments made by the CDFW.

MM BIO-1b No more than 30 days prior to the first ground disturbance activity, pre-construction golden eagle nesting surveys shall be conducted in the project site vicinity by a qualified Raptor Biologist. The qualified Raptor Biologist shall have at least 2 years of experience surveying for and detecting nesting golden eagles. Pre-construction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a survey area determined by the qualified Raptor Biologist, but no less than a 0.5-mile radius around all project activities. survey area for golden eagle be determined by the qualified Raptor Biologist. If active golden eagle nests are identified within any trees within the survey areas a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, a qualified Raptor Biologist shall establish a protection buffer at a minimum of 1,000 feet that is adequate to ensure noise or activity from the proposed project would not cause nest disturbance or young or adult bird mortality. Buffer zones may vary in size as some golden eagles are more acclimated to disturbance than others. Size of buffer zone may be increased modified by the qualified Raptor Biologist considering the type of construction activity that may occur and the behavioral factors and extent that golden eagle may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young golden eagles have fledged or that the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Raptor Biologist.

Pages 3.3-27 and 3.3-28, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c
MM BIO-1c has been revised to address comments made by the CDFW. 1117
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Errata Final EIR
5-4 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx MM BIO-1c Prior to ground disturbance, a pre-construction nesting survey shall be conducted for northern harrier and short-eared owl by a qualified Raptor Biologist if construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1). The qualified Raptor Biologist shall have at least 2 years of experience surveying for and detecting nesting northern harrier and short-eared owl. To determine whether northern harrier or short-eared owl is nesting on-site, a qualified Raptor Biologist(s) shall conduct walking transects through the project site grassland habitat searching for nests and minimum 500-foot radius from the project site. Where the survey area encroaches onto private property not accessible to the public (e.g., fenced in commercial property, residential backyard, etc., the qualified Biologist shall either contact the property owner for permission to physically access the property or conduct a visual survey of adjacent areas by scanning with binoculars or a spotting scope. An active northern harrier or short-eared owl nest must be protected by implementing a minimum 500-foot radius buffer zone around the nest marked with orange construction fencing. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. Size of buffer zone could be modified increased considering the type of construction activity that may occur, physical barriers between the construction site and active nest, and the behavioral factors and extent that northern harrier or short-eared owl may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is otherwise determined to be complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Raptor Biologist.

MM BIO-1d has been revised to address comments made by the CDFW.

MM BIO-1d Prior to any ground disturbance, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within a minimum of 150 meters of the project site. Where the survey area encroaches onto private property not accessible to the public (e.g., fenced in commercial property, residential backyard, etc.), the qualified Biologist shall either contact the property owner for permission to physically access the property or conduct a visual survey of adjacent areas by scanning with binoculars or a spotting scope. The pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 2 weeks prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 staff report survey methods and Biologist qualifications to establish the status of burrowing owl on the project site.
• If burrowing owl are found to occupy the project site during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing a no-disturbance buffer zone a minimum of 100 feet around the burrow. Buffers may be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the 1118
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-5 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx impact assessment approach described in the CDFW 2012 staff report. If a qualified Raptor Biologist determines the location of an occupied burrow/s may be impacted even with a 100-foot buffer, or the burrow(s) are in a location(s) on the project site where a buffer cannot be established without preventing the proposed project from moving forward, then a passive relocation effort may be instituted to relocate the individual(s) out of harm’s way pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with the CDFW 2012 staff report. • If burrowing owl are found to be present during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed project ground-disturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 staff report recommended avoidance protocol whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a no-disturbance buffer.
• If burrowing owls are ultimately found on the site and burrow eviction/ relocation of burrowing owls during the non-nesting season is a selected strategy to move forward with the project without direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals, the applicant shall coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl.

MM BIO-4 has been revised to address comments made by the CDFW.

MM BIO-4 If construction occurs during the breeding season of migratory and resident birds (February 1 to August 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey in areas of suitable habitat within 15 7 days prior to the onset of construction activity. Nesting bird surveys shall cover the proposed project footprint and adjacent areas. Surveys shall be conducted within the project footprint and 50 feet from the construction limits for nesting passerines, 250 feet from the construction limits for nesting accipiters and 1,000 feet from the construction limits for nesting raptors. If the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, no further mitigation would be required. However, if construction activities are delayed by more than 7 days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. If bird nests are found, appropriate buffer zones shall be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from direct or indirect impacts related to project construction disturbance. Size of buffer zones shall be determined per recommendations of the qualified Biologist based on site conditions and species involved. At a minimum a 1,000-foot buffer shall be established for nesting Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle; 500-foot buffer for nesting tricolored blackbirds, northern harriers and other non-listed raptors; 250-foot buffer for nesting accipiters; and minimum 50-foot buffers shall be established for nesting passerines and all other non-raptor or passerine nesting birds. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. Buffer zones shall be maintained until it can be documented that either the nest has failed, or the young have fledged. 1119
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Errata Final EIR
5-6 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx Section 3.4, Cultural Resources

MM CUL-2b has been revised to strike the phrase ‘and historical research’ at the request of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation.

MM CUL-2b An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be present on-site during all earth disturbing activities. If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet of the find shall halt and the City of American Canyon shall be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of American Canyon. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, and site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The Level of Significance Before Mitigation statement has been corrected. 1120
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact. Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Section 3.12, Transportation
Exhibit 3.12-5
A corrected version of Exhibit 3.12-5 is provided.

Section 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project

The Phase 1 Only Alternative heading has been corrected.

5.6 - Alternative 43—Phase 1 Only Alternative
1121

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1122
1123
54600001 08/2022 | 3.12-5_Future_Traffic_Vol.cdr • CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.12-5
Future Traffic Volumes
Source: W-Trans, 4/2021.
1124
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix J:

Travel Behavior Memorandum
ATTACHMENT 1.L
1125

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1126
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: June 16, 2022
To: Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

From: Kevin Johnson & David Robinson, Fehr & Peers
Subject: American Canyon Industrial Warehouse Travel Behavior Data WC22-3900
This memorandum describes the travel behavior data collected for the proposed 208-acre high-cube industrial warehouse project (the Project) in American Canyon, CA. Fehr & Peers understands the uniqueness of warehousing and logistics facilities that make them extremely difficult to study with traditional data collection methods. Fehr & Peers combined traffic count data previously collected in San Joaquin County for similar warehousing uses with new mobile device origin-destination data from StreetLight for similar industrial warehouse sites around the Bay Area to provide Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. with detailed trip generation, vehicle origin-destination pattern, and average trip length data. This data will be used to support the ongoing VMT and GHG analyses. In the Draft EIR, heavy duty truck trips were not accounted for in either the VMT analysis or the GHG analysis, which relied in part on the VMT analysis. This omission of heavy-duty truck trips in the VMT analysis is consistent with guidance from the Office of Planning and Research. A primary objective of the analysis in this memorandum is to address whether VMT from such heavy-duty truck trips would be more or less than 15 percent below the regional average for the Bay Area.

Trip Generation Data Collection
The following section describes the traffic count data source used to understand the potential trip generation of the Project.
1127
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

San Joaquin Countywide Warehousing Data Collection Effort The data used to estimate the trip generation of the Project is from the San Joaquin Countywide Warehousing Data Collection effort. This data collection effort was undertaken by Fehr & Peers in June 2021 to better understand the travel behavior of existing warehousing buildings across San Joaquin County, as a review of local and regional planning studies revealed a lack of data and understanding of the travel characteristics of these types of facilities. Specifically, there was a lack of local or national trip generation data for warehousing uses, a lack of understanding of the travel patterns and demographics of warehouse users, and a lack of inclusion of these facilities in regional travel forecasting models.

Fehr & Peers coordinated the collection of 72 hours of driveway vehicle classification count data at 39 warehousing buildings across San Joaquin County in June 2021. The data collection was performed by National Data & Surveying Services (NDS) using cameras to count and classify vehicles entering and exiting the individual building driveways. Fehr & Peers staff visited each of the 39 warehousing buildings on one day during the data collection to observe the following:
• Check traffic and weather conditions
• Confirm the placement of the cameras
• Observe activity levels at the surveyed buildings
• Count the number of truck bays
• Classify the buildings
• Observe general operations and travel behavior
Fehr & Peers used this data to develop average trip generation rates per thousand square feet (KSF) for warehousing uses in San Joaquin County. The 39 warehousing buildings, including their occupying tenant, type of warehouse, and square footage, are listed below. 1128
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Warehousing Trip Generation Data
The average trip generation rates per KSF of building space from the June 2021 San Joaquin Countywide Warehousing Data Collection effort, stratified by autos, medium-duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks, are provided in Table 1. The trip generation rates were checked for reasonableness against trip generation data from the Institute of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, which are also provided.

As shown in Table 1, the average daily trip generation per KSF of building space for all 39 buildings in San Joaquin County where driveway count data was collected in June 2021 is 0.078 medium-duty truck trips, 0.447 heavy-duty truck trips, and 0.995 auto trips. The average daily total trip generation rate of 1.52 vehicle trips per KSF is generally consistent with ITE trip generation data, being roughly ten percent lower than Code 152 from the 9th Edition and roughly nine percent higher than Code 154 from the 10th Edition. The average AM peak hour and PM peak hour total trip generation rates of 0.18 and 0.21 trips per KSF are both higher than ITE trip generation data and comprise a higher percentage of total daily trip generation. ITE does not provide trip generation rates for warehousing uses by vehicle classification for comparison. 1129
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Table 1: San Joaquin County Warehousing Trip Generation Rates per KSF Source
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total
All 39 Buildings 0.147 0.007 0.028 0.18 0.183 0.005 0.024 0.21 0.995 0.078 0.447 1.52 ITE Trip Generation
Manual – 9th Edition
(Code 152 – HighCube Warehouse)
- 0.14 - 0.16 - 1.68
ITE Trip Generation
Manual – 10th Edition
(Code 154 – HighCube Transload)
- 0.12 - 0.16 - 1.40
Source: Fehr & Peers.
1130
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Trip Length Data Collection
The following section describes the mobile device data obtained from StreetLight used to understand the origin-destination patterns and average trip lengths of heavy-duty truck trips generated by similar industrial warehousing sites around the Bay Area.

Mobile Device Data from StreetLight
Fehr & Peers obtained StreetLight’s GPS-based commercial vehicle data product for 23 existing industrial warehousing sites around the Bay Area, including eight sites in Napa County of which four were located within the City of American Canyon. We relied on StreetLight’s “O-D to Pre-set Geography” product to analyze travel patterns to and from the land use zone system at the census block group level, which has over 23,000 zones within California.

Zone System
A land use zone system was developed for the 23 existing industrial warehousing sites, each of which included a separate zone for each of the existing buildings or groupings of buildings. The analysis tracked all heavy-duty truck trips starting or ending at one of these zones. The start of trips coming to the zones and end of trips leaving the zones were tagged to the national census block group system, allowing for aggregation to any desired geography such as the city or county level.

The land use zone system consisted of eight industrial warehousing sites in Napa County, which are listed below, and include similar existing warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period. These sites were selected to understand the potential average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the Project.
• Biagi Brothers - Napa County
• Valley Wine - American Canyon
• Vin Lux - American Canyon
• WineDirect - American Canyon
• Napa Corporate Center Warehouses - Napa
• American Canyon Warehouses
• Napa County Airport Warehouses
• Wineshipping - Napa County
1131
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

The land use zone system also consisted of 15 industrial warehousing sites in other parts of the Bay Area, which are listed below, and include similar existing warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period. These sites were selected to understand how the potential average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the Project compares to the existing average trip length for similar sites around the Bay Area.
• San Francisco County - Bayview Area
• San Mateo County - Brisbane Area
• San Mateo County - Prologis SFO Area
• Santa Clara County - Western Milpitas Area
• Santa Clara County - Milpitas I-680 Area
• Santa Clara County - San Jose Area
• Alameda County - Livermore Area
• Alameda County - Prologis Port of Oakland Area
• Alameda County - San Leandro Area
• Contra Costa County - Pittsburg Area
• Contra Costa County - Richmond Area
• Solano County - Benicia Area
• Solano County - Vacaville Area
• Sonoma County - Petaluma Area
• Sonoma County - Santa Rosa Area
The comparable industrial warehousing sites zone system is illustrated on Figure 1. 1132
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Figure 1: Comparable Industrial Warehousing Sites Zone System Data Product
Fehr & Peers obtained the GPS-based origin and destination to pre-set geography data product from StreetLight for heavy-duty truck trips generated by similar industrial warehousing sites around the Bay Area.
1133
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Data Periods
Data was obtained for the Fall 2021 (September 1 through November 30) data period.

The data was stratified as described below.
• Day Type – average weekday (Tuesday to Thursday) and average weekend day (Saturday and Sunday)
• Day Part - Early AM, AM Peak Period (6 AM to 10 AM), Mid-Day, PM peak period (3 PM to 7 PM), Late-Night, and Daily 24-Hour
Premium trip metrics were also obtained for the origin-destination data, providing trip length and trip time information.

Data Analysis
The mobile device data from StreetLight was then analyzed to understand overall heavy-duty truck travel patterns at the census block group level. Trip length information was also analyzed to determine an average trip length associated with heavy-duty truck trips generated by the existing industrial warehousing sites.

Average Trip Length Data
StreetLight Data Sample Size
The data obtained from StreetLight included roughly 10,000 heavy-duty truck data samples for the Fall 2021 data period.

Warehousing Average Trip Length Data
The average trip lengths of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the 23 existing industrial warehousing sites over the daily 24-hour period on an average weekday (Tuesday to Thursday) from the Fall 2021 data period are summarized in Table 2. 1134
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Table 2: Heavy-Duty Truck Average Trip Lengths
Comparable Industrial
Warehousing Site
Sample Size
(Observed Trips)
Average
Trip Length (miles)
Comparison to
“All Bay Area Sites”
Biagi Brothers - Napa
County
18 19.7 -66%
Valley Wine - American
Canyon
80 18.7 -68%
Vin Lux - American
Canyon
55 49.7 -15%
WineDirect - American
Canyon
29 30.3 -48%
Napa Corporate Center
Warehouses - Napa
37 38.7 -34%
American Canyon
Warehouses
351 46.1 -21%
Napa County Airport
Warehouses
194 28.8 -50%
Wineshipping - Napa
County
90 19.7 -66%
Napa County Warehouses 854 35.6 -39%
San Francisco County -
Bayview Area
85 41.7 -28%
San Mateo County -
Brisbane Area
957 28.1 -52%
San Mateo County -
Prologis SFO Area
15 114.4 97%
Santa Clara County -
Western Milpitas Area
10 8.8 -85%
Santa Clara County -
Milpitas I-680 Area
771 54.1 -7%
Santa Clara County - San
Jose Area
749 69.5 19%
Alameda County -
Livermore Area
629 91.3 57%
Alameda County -
Prologis Port of Oakland
Area
61 76.9 32%
Alameda County - San
Leandro Area
744 78.2 34%
Contra Costa County -
Pittsburg Area
30 48.1 -17%
1135
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Table 2: Heavy-Duty Truck Average Trip Lengths
Comparable Industrial
Warehousing Site
Sample Size
(Observed Trips)
Average
Trip Length (miles)
Comparison to
“All Bay Area Sites”
Contra Costa County -
Richmond Area
196 114.0 96%
Solano County - Benicia
Area
320 63.4 9%
Solano County - Vacaville
Area
219 38.4 -34%
Sonoma County -
Petaluma Area
147 59.9 3%
Sonoma County - Santa
Rosa Area
92 44.9 -23%
Other Bay Area
Warehouses
5,025 62.0 7%
All Bay Area Warehouses 5,879 58.2 0%
West Tracy Warehouses 3,840 56.1 -4%
Note: This table provides sample size and average trip length data for the daily 24-hour period on an average weekday (Tuesday to Thursday) from the Fall 2021 data period. Green font indicates the heavy-duty truck average trip length for the site is greater than the average trip length for all 23 Bay Area warehouses combined. Red font indicates the heavyduty truck average trip length for the site is less than the average trip length for all 23 Bay Area warehouses combined.

Source: Fehr & Peers.

As shown in Table 2, the average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the eight existing Napa County industrial warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period is 35.6 miles, which is roughly 39 percent lower than the average trip length for all 23 Bay Area warehousing sites combined. Furthermore, all eight industrial warehousing sites in Napa County had an observed heavy-duty truck average trip length less than the average trip length for all 23 Bay Area warehousing sites combined. This data suggests that industrial warehousing sites constructed in Napa County are intended to serve a more local area than warehouses built in other parts of the Bay Area.

Data for similar warehousing sites in West Tracy from the San Joaquin Countywide Warehousing Data Collection effort are provided for comparison and reasonableness checking purposes.

Heavy-Duty Truck Distribution Patterns
The heavy-duty truck inbound and outbound origin-destination distribution patterns generated by the 23 existing industrial warehousing sites from the Fall 2021 data period is presented on Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively.
1136
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Figure 3: Heavy-Duty Truck Inbound Distribution Pattern Figure 4: Heavy-Duty Truck Outbound Distribution Pattern 1137
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Key Findings
The following key data findings from the American Canyon industrial warehouse travel behavior data collection effort are suitable for use in the ongoing air quality analysis:
• The average daily trip generation per KSF of warehousing building space is 0.078 medium-duty truck trips, 0.447 heavy-duty truck trips, 0.995 auto trips, and 1.52 total vehicle trips.
• The average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the eight existing Napa County industrial warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period is

35.6 miles.
• The average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the eight existing Napa County industrial warehousing sites is roughly 39 percent lower than the average trip length for all 23 Bay Area warehousing sites combined.
1138
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix K:

Fire Fiscal Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT 1.M
1139

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1140

M EMORANDUM
To: Joseph Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

From: Jamie Gomes and Sean Fisher
Subject: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center
Fire Services Fiscal Analysis; EPS #222024
Date: May 6, 2022
Introduction
Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. (Applicant) retained
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to evaluate the fiscal impacts of the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (Project) on the American Canyon Fire Protection District (Fire District). The Project is anticipated to be an entirely non-residential development project with up to approximately 2.4 million square feet of buildings that may be constructed. This memorandum summarizes an
evaluation of the estimated fiscal impacts of the Project on the Fire District.

This fiscal impact analysis (Analysis) examines the Project’s estimated fiscal impact on the Fire District’s annual
operating budget. Specifically, the Analysis estimates
whether projected revenues from the Project will
adequately cover the costs of delivering fire and emergency medical services to the Project’s structures, employees and visitors. As described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project, this Analysis is based on the assumption that the Fire District will provide these services.

The technical analysis, including data, assumptions, and detailed calculations underlying the Analysis, is provided in Appendices A through D.

Project Land Uses
The Project entitlement includes the ability to construct up to 5 buildings containing up to approximately 2.4 million building square feet. Table A-2 in Appendix A
summarizes the Project’s land use plan at buildout.
1141
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
2 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Overview of Results
As shown in Table 1, the Project (at buildout) is estimated to generate approximately $198,000 in annual revenues to the Fire District as compared to approximately $306,000 in new Fire District expenditures for an annual estimated deficit of $108,000. Separately, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately $2.5 million in one-time Fire Mitigation Fee revenues for new Fire District capital equipment and facilities.

Table 2 provides more detail regarding the annual revenue and expenditure estimates in this fiscal analysis. The remainder of this memorandum briefly summarizes the methodologies used to derive these annual revenue and expenditure estimates.

Methodology and Assumptions
This section briefly summarizes the underlying methodology and assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impact of the Project on the Fire District. It describes assumptions concerning estimating the cost of fire service delivery and the methodology used to forecast the Project’s anticipated revenues to the Fire District.

General Assumptions
The Analysis is based on the Fire District’s Budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021–22 and information on the Fire District’s Fire Mitigation Fee and Fire Services Fee. All costs and revenues are shown in constant 2022 dollars. General fiscal and demographic assumptions are detailed in Table A-1 in Appendix A. This Analysis also used information from the following sources: Project Applicant, County Assessor and Auditor-Controller, and State Department of Finance (DOF).

It is important to note that the actual fiscal impacts of new development in the Project will vary from those presented in this Analysis if development plans or other assumptions (e.g., assessed valuations, building square footages) change from those presented in this Analysis.

General Fund Revenue- and Expenditure-Estimating Assumptions The primary focus of this Analysis considers only discretionary revenues that will be generated by the Project. Discretionary revenues to the Fire District include the Fire District’s share of the ad-valorem property tax plus payment of the Fire Services Fee. Separately, this report also quantifies the total estimated fire mitigation fees payable by the Project.
1142
DRAFT
Table 1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudySummary of Annual Surplus/Deficits (2022$)Item Annual Fiscal Impact Annual Revenues $198,000Annual Expenditures $306,000Net Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($108,000) One Time Fee Revenues
Fire Mitigation Fee $2,523,000Total One Time Revenues $2,523,000 sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated
Revenues/Expenditures
(Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
3 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1143
DRAFT
Table 2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Revenues and Expenditures (2022$)Item Annual Revenues Property Taxes $186,000Fire Service Fee $12,000Total Annual Revenue $198,000 Annual Expenditures
General Operations Fund
Personnel $240,000Supplies and Services $48,000Subtotal General Operations Fund $288,000 Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Facilities $10,000Equipment $8,000Subtotal Capital Fund $18,000 Total Annual Expenditures $306,000
Net Surplus/(Deficit) ($108,000)One Time Fee Revenues
Fire Mitigation Fee $2,523,000Total One Time Revenues $2,523,000 Source: EPS.

Estimated Revenues/
Expenditures (Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
4 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1144
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
Development Assumptions
Listed below are brief summaries of land use and other development-related assumptions:
 Land Use: The Project is entitled to accommodate non-residential development as described above.
 Employee Estimates: Using an assumed 1,000 building square foot per employee, EPS estimated the total number of employees that may work within the Project. In estimating certain annual revenues and expenditures (service demands) related to the Project, EPS developed a “persons-served” population estimate to approximate the impacts of an employee in the Project relative to a resident. EPS uses a factor of 0.5 for every employee to derive the Project’s persons-served population. Table A-3 in Appendix A shows the estimated persons served anticipated to be generated by the Project.  Project Assessed Value: The estimated assessed valuation of the Project was provided by Project Applicant based on comparable projects. Estimated buildout assessed values for the Project are calculated in Table D-1 in Appendix D.

Revenue-Estimating Methodology
As described in more detail below, EPS used a marginal-revenue case-study approach to estimate Project-related revenues. The marginal-revenue case-study approach simulates actual revenue generation resulting from new development.

Table B-1 in Appendix B summarizes estimated annual and one-time revenues resulting from the Project. Ongoing annual revenues include property tax and the Fire Services Fee. One-time revenues include the Fire Mitigation Fee.

Property Tax
Estimated annual property tax revenue resulting from development in the Project is presented in Table B-2 in Appendix B. The Fire District appears to receive approximately 4.8 percent of the total 1-percent ad-valorem property tax that is levied on assessed value. As shown in Table B-2, the Project is estimated to generate annual property tax revenue to the Fire District of approximately $186,000.

Fire Service Fee
Table B-3 shows the Project’s estimated annual Fire Services Fee revenues of approximately $11,800 based on the Project’s building characteristics and equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) calculations (See Table B-4) applicable for the Fire Services Fee.
1145
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
6 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
One-Time Fire Mitigation Fee Revenue
Using the Fire District’s fee schedule, Table B-5 calculates the estimated Project’s Fire Mitigation Fee payments of approximately $2.5 million.

Expenditure-Estimating Methodology
Average-Cost Expenditures
Expenditure estimates are based on the City’s FY 2021-22 budget and EPS’s estimates of persons served within the Project – as described earlier. This Analysis estimates expenditure impacts of the Project using an average-cost approach, which uses the City’s FY 2021-22 budgeted expenditures on a Fire District-wide basis and calculates an average cost per-persons-served basis to forecast expenditures required to serve new development.

Table C-1 in Appendix C shows the two Fire District expenditure categories for which the average-cost method was used – General Operations Fund and Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund.

General Operations Fund
Table C-1 shows the FY 21-22 General Operations fund budget by category of expenditure and EPS’s calculation of the average cost per-person-served. As depicted on Table C-1, the Analysis incorporates one adjustment to the averagecost approach specifically as it relates to Personnel costs. An adjustment factor of 70% was used for Personnel costs reflecting the fact that certain Fire District personnel costs (e.g., chief, assistant chief, administrative, etc.) are generally fixed and will not incrementally increase as a result of the Project. The adjustment factor in Table C-1 accounts for the estimated fixed portion of personnel costs.

Based on the information in Table C-1 and on the estimated persons-served in the Project, Table C-2 calculates the estimated annual expenditures required to serve the Project at buildout is provided in Table C-2.

Fleet, Facilities and Equipment Capital Fund
In addition to the General Operations Fund, this Analysis also considers the Fleet, Facilities and Equipment Capital Fund. This fund was included in the Analysis to be comprehensive noting that in the past the Fire District has elected to use a portion of its discretionary revenue to make periodic contributions to fleet, facilities, and equipment (i.e., capital items). With a project of this size and scale that will pay approximately $2.5 million in Fire Mitigation Fees to the Fire District, there may be discussions between the Applicant and Fire District whether the need to include this component in the Analysis is warranted or duplicative. As noted elsewhere in this Analysis, the Fire Mitigation Fee already includes a $0.50 per building square foot fee addition accounting for the size (height) of proposed buildings.
1146
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
Technical Appendices
The technical calculations used in this Analysis are shown in Appendices A through D (Tables A-1 through D-3):
 Appendix A indicates the proposed land uses and general assumptions used in this Analysis.
 Appendix B identifies the projected revenues that will be generated by the Project for the Fire Districts funds.
 Appendix C details the estimated expenditures for the Fire District to provide services to the Project.
 Appendix D shows the projected assessed value of the Project, which serves as the basis for calculating property tax revenues.
1147
APPENDICES:

Appendix A: General Assumption Tables
Appendix B: Revenue Estimating Tables
Appendix C: Expenditure Estimating Tables
Appendix D: Supporting Tables for Revenue and
Expenditure Estimating Tables
1148
APPENDIX A:

General Assumption Tables
Table A-1 General Assumptions ..................................................... A-1 Table A-2 Project Land Uses and Estimated Persons Served ............... A-2 1149
DRAFT
Table A-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyGeneral AssumptionsItem AssumptionGeneral Assumptions Fiscal Year FY 2021-22
General Demographic Characteristics
American Canyon Fire Department
Service Population [1] 19,454District Persons Served 19,454 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; EPS.
[1] Service population provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District. As a conservative assumption, no visitor estimates are included in service population estimates.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
A-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1150
DRAFT
Table A-2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyProject Land Uses and Estimated Persons ServedLand Use CategoryLogistics Center Land Uses [1] Building A 600,243 1,000 600
Building B 469,512 1,000 470Building C 715,489 1,000 715Building D 292,480 1,000 292Building E 322,240 1,000 322Total Logistics Center 2,399,964 2,399 Total Persons Served [2] 1,200
Source: Buzz Oates; Colliers International; EPS
Total
Project
Employees
[1] Land uses included are based on the preliminary Project site plan dated November 12, 2020.

Total
Building
Square Feet
Square Feet Per
Employee
[2] Persons served is defined as half of total employees based on the assumption that an employee in the District would have an impact on fire service, but at a lower rate than a standardresident.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
A-2
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1151
APPENDIX B:

Revenue-Estimating Tables
Table B-1 Estimated Annual Fire Department Revenues .................... B-1 Table B-2 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues ......................... B-2 Table B-3 Estimated Annul Fire Service Fee Revenues ....................... B-3 Table B-4 Estimated Annual Fire Service Fee EDU Estimates .............. B-4 Table B-5 Estimated One-Time Fire Mitigation Fee Revenues ............. B-5 1152
DRAFT
Table B-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Fire Department Revenues (2022$) Case Study
Revenue Category Reference
Annual Revenues
Property Taxes Table B-2 $185,715
Fire Service Fee Table B-3 $11,774Total Annual Revenues $197,489 One Time Fee Revenues
Fire Mitigation Fee Table B-5 $2,522,842
Total One Time Revenues $2,522,842
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; EPS.

Estimated
Annual Revenue
(Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1153
DRAFT
Table B-2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Property Tax Revenues (2022$) Assumption/
Item Source Formula
Assessed Value of Project Table D-1 a $383,994,240
Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.0000% b = a * 1.00% $3,839,942 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [1]
American Canyon Fire Protection District Allocation 4.8364% c = b * 4.84% $185,715 Other Agencies/ERAF 95.1636% d = b * 95.16% $3,654,227
Total Fire District Property Tax e = c $185,715
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Napa County Auditor-Controller; EPS.

Property Tax
Revenues
(2022$)
[1] Property tax allocation based on existing tax allocation to the American Canyon Fire Protection District for existing TRA 005-029 as provided by the Napa County Auditor Controller.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-2
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1154
DRAFT
Table B-3American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Fire Service Fee Revenues (2022$) Item
Fire Service Fee per EDU (FY 2013-14) $86.38Fire Service Fee per EDU (FY 2021-22) [2] $106.31Logistics Center Land Uses Building A 25.00 $2,658Building B 22.25 $2,365Building C 27.50 $2,924Building D 17.50 $1,860Building E 18.50 $1,967Total Logistics Center 110.75 $11,774 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Buzz Oates; EPS.[1] Refer to Table B-4 for details.

Estimated
EDUs per
Building [1]
Fire Service Fee
Revenues
(2022$)
[2] Fire service fee escalated to FY 2021-22 based on the annual growth of California CPI.

Rate per
EDU
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-3
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1155
DRAFT
Table B-4American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Fire Service Fee EDU Estimates (2022$) Item
Assumption
Ordinary
Construction Table A-2 Low Hazard No Exposure Yes [2] [3] Logistics Center Land Uses
Building A 1.50 600,243 0.80 1.00 0.75 12,551 25.00Building B 1.50 469,512 0.80 1.00 0.75 11,100 22.25Building C 1.50 715,489 0.80 1.00 0.75 13,703 27.50Building D 1.50 292,480 0.80 1.00 0.75 8,761 17.50Building E 1.50 322,240 0.80 1.00 0.75 9,196 18.50Total Logistics Center 2,399,964 55,312 110.75 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Buzz Oates; EPS.[3] Per the American Canyon Fire District Ordinance 2013-01, 500 GPM equates to one EDU. Rounded to the nearest 0.25 EDUs Fire
Protection
System Factor
Required Fire
Flow (GPM)
Building
EDUs
[2] Required Fire Flow (GPM) is estimated based on the formula provided by the American Canyon Fire District Ordinance 2013-01.

Construction
Type Factor Floor Area
Occupancy
Hazard
Classification
Factor [1]
[1] Hazard factor based on the 2010 California Fire Code Classification (California Code Of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9) for similar uses.

Exposure
Factor
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-4
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1156
DRAFT
Table B-5American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated One-Time Fire Mitigation Fee Revenues (2022$) Assumption/
Item Source
Fire Mitigation Fee per Square Foot [1] $1.0512Logistics Center Land Uses Table A-2 Building A 600,243 $630,975Building B 469,512 $493,551Building C 715,489 $752,122Building D 292,480 $307,455Building E 322,240 $338,739Total Logistics Center 2,399,964 $2,522,842 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Buzz Oates; EPS.

Fire Mitigation
Fee Revenues
(2022$)
Building Square
Footage
[1] The fire mitigation fee is a one-time service fee charged by the American Canyon Fire Protection District.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-5
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1157
APPENDIX C:

Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table C-1 Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on
American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Budget .............. C-1 Table C-2 Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures .................... C-2 Table C-3 Estimated Capital Expenditure Multiplier ........................... C-3 1158
DRAFT
Table C-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyExpenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Budget (2022$) FY 2021-22 Population
Estimating Budgeted or Persons FY 2021-22 Adjustment Net FY 2021-22 Item Procedure Expenditures [1] Served Avg. Cost Factor [1] Avg. Cost General Operations Fund
Personnel Persons Served $5,556,688 19,454 $285.63 70% $199.94Supplies and Services Persons Served $779,707 19,454 $40.08 100% $40.08 Capital Outlay [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA
Transfers Out [2] $173,891 19,454 NA 100% NA Debt Service [2] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Subtotal General Operations Fund $6,510,286 $240.02
Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Heavy Rescue [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Type 6 Engine [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Facilities Case Study $2,000 19,454 NA 100% $8.27 Equipment Case Study $91,000 19,454 NA 100% $6.55
Command Vehicle [3] $85,000 19,454 NA 100% NA
Type 1 Engine [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Subtotal Capital Fund $178,000 $14.83Total Expenditures $6,688,286 Source: American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Final Budget; EPS.[2] Expenditure category not anticipated to be impacted by Project development. [3] Specific for capital expenditures required due to Project development are not known at this time. As such, en estimate of facilities and equipment spending are estimates using a per persons served methodology based on the long term average cost for each category. Refer to Table C-3 for details.[1] An adjustment factor may be used to reflect the fact that new persons served may not increase certain expenditures at a 1:1 ratio. This analysis assumes an adjustment factor for personnel expenditures as costs pertaining to certain positions, such as the Fire Chief and Assistant Chief are fixed and would not grow with additional development within the District.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
C-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1159
DRAFT
Table C-2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual General Fund Expenditures (2022$)Expenditure Category General Operations Fund
Personnel $239,831Supplies and Services $48,075Subtotal General Operations Fund $287,906 Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Facilities $9,924Equipment $7,860Subtotal Capital Fund $17,784 Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $305,690
Source: American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Final Budget; Buzz Oates EPS.

Estimated Annual
Expenditures [1]
[1] Annual expenditure estimated on a per persons served or per capita basis. Refer to Table C-1 for estimating procedure and Table A-2 for population estimates.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
C-2
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1160
DRAFT
Table C-3American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Capital Expenditure Multiplier (2022$)Expenditure Category FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Average Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Facilities $26,447 $128,303 $71,080 $576,901 $2,000 $160,946 19,454 $8.27 Equipment $89,480 $101,476 $92,684 $262,757 $91,000 $127,479 19,454 $6.55 Total $288,426 $14.83
Source: American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Final Budget; EPS.

Annual Expenditures
Persons Served
Cost per
Persons Served
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
C-3
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1161
APPENDIX D:

Supporting Table for Revenue- and
Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table D-1 Project Assessed Valuation ............................................. D-1 1162
DRAFT
Table D-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyProject Assessed Valuation (2022$)ItemLogistics Center Land Uses per Unit Building A $160 $96,038,880Building B $160 $75,121,920Building C $160 $114,478,240Building D $160 $46,796,800Building E $160 $51,558,400Total Assessed Value $383,994,240 Source: Buzz Oates; EPS
Rounded
Value per
Sq. Ft.

Total Assessed
Value (2022$)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
D-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 1163
1164
1165
1166
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix L:

Wildlife Hazard Assessment
ATTACHMENT 1.N
1167

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1168
To:

Joe Livaich, Senior Project Manager
Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 900
Sacramento, CA
95814
AECOM
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 400
Oakland, CA
94612
Project name:

Giovannoni Logistics Center
From:

AECOM Technical Services
Date:

September 27, 2022
Memo
Subject: Wildlife Hazard Assessment for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Property Dear Mr. Livaich,
This memorandum describes the methods and results of the wildlife hazards assessment that was conducted for the Giovannoni Logistics Center (project), in the City of American Canyon, California (Figure 1). The 208-acre project site is semi-rectangular in shape, and is bounded by industrial development in the Green Island Business Park (west), the Napa Logistics Project and Devlin Road (north), the Napa Branch Line (east), and Green Island Road, a stone supply business, and a wine distribution warehouse (south). The airfield of the Napa County Airport is located less than one mile north of the project site.

The proposed project would develop a 2.4 million square foot logistics center on approximately 161 acres of the project site (Figure 2). The remaining 47 acres would be preserved as open space. In conjunction with the proposed project, the City of American Canyon would extend Devlin Road through the project site.

Phase 1 is comprised of the 94.7 acre-area east of the Devlin Road extension. This area will support two warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet. A total of 0.496 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands will be permanently filled in Phase 1. As such, 0.992 acres of wetlands (a 2:1 ratio) will be established in the Proposed Wetland Preserve area in the northern portion of the project site. Phase 2, the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road, is conceptually proposed for the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high cube warehouse. Phase 2 would commence once Phase 1 is completed. If constructed, Phase 2 would impact approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands, which would be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio. The wetlands created within the 44.8 acre Proposed Wetland Preserve as part of project mitigation would total approximately 4.7 acres (Biological Resources Report for Giovannoni Logistics Center, Huffman-Broadway Group, May 28, 2021; Figures 3 and 4).

Policy 3.3.5 of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Napa County Airport and Parrett Field provides as follows:

Land uses which may produce hazards to aircraft in flight shall not be permitted within any airport' s planning area. Specific characteristics to be avoided include: (1) glare or distracting lights which could be mistaken for airport lights; (2) sources of dust, steam, or smoke which may impair pilot visibility; (3) sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation; and (4) any use which may attract large flocks of birds, especially landfills and certain agricultural uses. 1169
The Draft EIR for the Giovannoni Logistics Center includes Mitigation Measure LU-3, which is intended to ensure compliance with ALUCP Policy 3.3.5. That mitigation measure reads as follows:

Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall retain a qualified Biologist to assess potential wildlife hazards to aviation. The assessment shall evaluate the characteristics of the emergent wetlands, drainages, other potential wildlife attractant features (i.e., ponded water) located within the open space area and identify management practices (e.g., storm drainage, vegetation, etc.) to prevent the creation of attractants for large flocks or birds or other wildlife species that may present safety hazards to aviation activities. As part of the assessment, the applicant shall consult with Napa County Airport and Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) representatives, as appropriate, regarding findings and recommendations. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of American Canyon prepared by a qualified Biologist that confirms the wildlife hazard assessment’ s findings and recommendations are incorporated into the design of the open space preserve.

This memorandum is intended to satisfy the requirement from Mitigation Measure LU-3 for the preparation of a wildlife hazard assessment for the project. The memorandum specifically addresses whether, and to what extent, the proposed land uses, including the wetland preserve component, could attract large flocks of birds or other wildlife species that may present safety hazards to the Napa County Airport.

Methods
A desktop review of project background documents, aerial imagery, and wildlife occurrence databases including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted on September 22, 2022 to identify habitats and species with potential to occur within the survey area. The survey area encompassed the 208-acre parcel and an additional 250-foot buffer extending beyond the parcel boundaries.

A pedestrian reconnaissance-level survey was conducted on September 22, 2022 by AECOM biologist Ranie Shreckengost. Hand-written notes, binoculars, and the ArcGIS Field Maps application were used to navigate the site,record observations, and document habitat types/quality and site conditions.

Results
The project site is surrounded by urban development in the City of American Canyon to the north, east, and south, with an adjacent, undeveloped, grassland-dominant parcel bordering Devlin Road immediately west of the project site. The vegetation is dominated by non-native annual grasses. Evidence of vegetation management and stormwater management channels was observed along Devlin Road which divides the property into eastern and western halves. A dry, ephemeral drainage channel was observed within the northern portion of the property and appeared to flow from east to west. This feature flows underneath Devlin Road via a stormwater management channel and shallow bridge. Small, intermittent, seasonal wetland features and hydrology was observed in the form of drainage patterns, microtopographic relief, and hydrophytic vegetation concentrated along the northern portion of the property. These features are primarily located within the extents of the Proposed Wetland Preserve area shown in Figure 2.

A large, square, elevated earthen mound was observed in the southeastern portion of the property at the approximate location of Proposed Building A (Phase 1) within the proposed project site (Figure 2). The vegetation growing upon and around this mound appeared to be mostly ruderal. Tarps were observed on the ground covering portions of the mound.

A single Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) was observed during the survey. Cooper’s hawk is a CDFW Watch List species, and like most nesting birds and raptors, their nests are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. No special-status species were observed during the survey. No active or historic bird nests were observed.

Wildlife and vegetation species observed during the field survey are listed below in Table 1.

A map depicting the location of the proposed development site is included as Figure 1, and the site plan, wetland impacts, and proposed wetland mitigation areas are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Representative site photographs are provided in Attachment A.
1170
2022 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Table 1. Plant and wildlife species observed during the September 22, 2022 reconnaissance survey.

Scientific Name Common Name
Amphibians and Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard
Birds
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk
Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow (12 individuals)
Mammals
Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit
Canis latrans Coyote
Plants
Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusa-head grass
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle
Poa sp. Annual grasses
Avena barbata California wild oat
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly oxtongue
Hemizonia congesta Hayfield tarweed
Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitfoot grass
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Nigella arvensis Wild fennel
1171
Discussion
The buildings associated with the project development site are not expected to result in a significant attraction of birds or other wildlife to the property. Some vegetation will be removed and replaced with buildings, resulting in the reduction of existing non-native grassland habitat within the development site. Anticipated changes to the existing wildlife habitat associated with the proposed construction activities include grading, excavation, permanent development, storm water controls, lighting, irrigation, noise, and increased human presence.

The development of Phase 1 and Phase 2 features is unlikely to result in an increase in wildlife activity due to the disturbances caused by the lighting, human presence, and noise associated with the new development site, in addition to the existing baseline noise and activity from nearby vehicular traffic and the Napa County Airport air and vehicular traffic. Natural or man-made features that could attract wildlife to the property post-construction include the proposed stormwater retention basins; however, the stormwater retention basins are unlikely to result in significant additional wildlife attraction because the systems are designed for quick drainage, and because the basins will be surrounded by development.

A majority of the wetland impacts will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio, with only 0.496 acres of net gain in palustrine emergent wetlands across the site. The impacted wetlands are located within a contiguous grassland landscape and are, on average, no more than 1,500 feet south of the Proposed Wetland Preserve, where mitigation wetlands would be created among approximately 45 acres of existing wetlands. The creation of wetlands associated with the project is not expected to cause an overall increase in the current level of bird or other wildlife activity at the project site, because a majority of the wetlands being filled within the parcel would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio and would be located among existing wetland features that dominate the northern portion of the project site.

In summary, the construction and development associated with the Giovannoni Logistics Center would not cause an increase above the existing level of activity of birds or other wildlife. Therefore, the project land uses would not present a hazard to Napa County Airport flight operations. It is predicted that the overall wildlife activity on the property would remain at or below current levels, based on our understanding of the planned development and our best professional assessment of the existing habitat. 1172
Figure 1. Project Location
1173
Figure 2. Project Site Plan
1174
Figure 3. Impacted and Unimpacted Wetlands
1175
Figure 4. Proposed Mitigation Wetlands
Figure
1176
2022 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Attachment A. Site Photographs
Photograph 1: Western portion of the property, facing west (Potential Future Phase 2 Area).

Photograph 2: Proposed Wetland Preserve area in the foreground, facing south. 1177
2022 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Photograph 3: Stormwater management channel located within the proposed Wetland Preserve Area. 1178
NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Environmental Impact Report
City of American Canyon, Napa County, California
Prepared for:

City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
707.647.5345
Contact: Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Grant Gruber, Project Manager
Report Date: October 31, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1.O.
1179

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1180
City of American Canyon–Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Preface
FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx

PREFACE
Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) whenever it adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in conjunction with a project approval.

The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures occurs during project implementation.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared for the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project) concluded that project implementation could result in potentially significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project or are required as a condition of project approval that reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. This MMRP documents how and when the mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency will be implemented and confirms that potential environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant levels as identified in the Draft EIR.

This document does not discuss those subjects that the environmental analysis demonstrates would result in less than significant impacts and for which no mitigation was proposed or necessary. 1181

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1182
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 3 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Table 1: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial

3.1 Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
MM AES-3: Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval which demonstrates that all exterior light fixtures would be directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to minimize light spillage and avoid interference with aviation operations at the Napa County Airport. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

Approval of plan Prior to issuance of
building permits for the
proposed project
City of American
Canyon

3.2 Air Quality
MM AIR-2a: The following Best Management Practices
(BMPs), as recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), shall be included in the
design of the project and implemented during construction:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least two times per day.
• All exposed non-paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least three times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non-paved surfaces. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.
• All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.

Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection
During construction City of American
Canyon
1183
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 4 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage
regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
• The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to
contact regarding dust complaints. The City and the
construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM AIR-2b: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the use of “Low-VOC”
architectural coatings during the proposed project's
construction. “Low-VOC” architectural coatings used during project construction shall not exceed 50 grams of reactive organic gases (ROG) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
grading or building
permits
City of American
Canyon
MM AIR-2c: Prior to issuing any certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the use of “Low-VOC” Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuing any
certificate of occupancy
City of American
Canyon
1184
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 5 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
architectural coatings and electric landscaping equipment during the operation of the proposed project. “Low-VOC” architectural coatings used during project construction shall not exceed 50 grams of reactive organic gases (ROG) or
volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.

Landscaping equipment referred to in this requirement shall include lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws.
for the proposed
project
MM AIR-2d: Prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the use of a truck fleet that meets or exceeds model year 2014 for all heavyduty trucks during operation of the proposed project. If the project applicant does not own the truck fleet that would be used during operation of the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation from the truck fleet owner or operator demonstrating that trucks utilized for operation of the proposed project will meet or exceed model year 2014. If any change occurs where a new truck fleet is utilized during operation of the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with
documentation demonstrating that the new truck fleet meets or exceeds this requirement.

To monitor and ensure that trucks that meet a model year of 2014 or newer are used for the proposed project, the fleet operator shall maintain records of all trucks and equipment associated with the proposed project’s operation and make these records available to the City upon request. Alternatively, the City may require periodic reporting and provision of written records by operators and conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and
practicable.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuing the
certificate of occupancy
for the proposed
project
City of American
Canyon
1185
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 6 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
MM AIR-2e: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for each building with dock doors, signage shall be posted identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to the building manager.

Site inspection Prior to the issuance of
the certificate of
occupancy for each
building with dock doors
City of American
Canyon
MM AIR-2f: Prior to the issuance of the certificate of
occupancy for each building with a separate end user, the City shall confirm that the end user has prepared a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan). The TDM Plan shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant and identify strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. Examples of TDM strategies may include but are not limited to:
• Ridesharing/Ride Matching
• Vanpools
• Transit subsidies
• Preferential parking for rideshare or vanpool vehicles • Employee lockers
• Secure bicycle parking
• Employee locker rooms
• Provide TDM information in employee breakroom
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
the certificate of
occupancy for each
building with a separate
end user
City of American
Canyon
MM AIR-2g: As a part of future lease agreements, the project proponent shall provide all future tenants at the project site information on available California Air Resources Board (ARB) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and the Voucher Incentive Program, that support upgrading truck fleets to clean air technology equipment.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
the certificate of
occupancy
City of American
Canyon

3.3 Biological Resources
MM BIO-1a: Pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk shall be conducted in the project site vicinity prior to initiation of project construction activities and each year following initiation of construction if project activities are delayed or Notes on construction
plans; Submittal of
documentation; Site
inspection
Prior to initiation of
project construction
activities and each year
following initiation of
City of American
Canyon
1186
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
discontinued for 7 or more days prior to the second survey period (March 20 to April 5), and are scheduled to
recommence construction activities during the second survey period but before August 1. These pre-construction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a half-mile radius around all project activities and shall be completed for at least two survey periods immediately prior to commencement of project construction. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s “Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley” (CDFW 2000) to maximize the potential for locating nesting Swainson’s hawk and reduce the potential for nest failures due to project activities and/or disturbances.

If no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first second survey period starting March 20, then project
construction may commence. If during the third surveys (April 5–April 20) Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it shall be assumed the Swainson’s hawk commenced nesting and thus
the Swainson’s hawk are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site.

If Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting within 1,000 feet of the project site, a non-disturbance buffer shall be
established to keep all construction activities a minimum of 1,000 feet from the nest site. The CDFW shall be consulted regarding the adequacy of the buffer established by the qualified Raptor Biologist. At that time the necessity for acquiring a Fish and Game Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) authorization would be determined. An ITP authorization shall be required if there were a valid concern the project activities would result in the “take” of an adult Swainson’s hawk, eggs, or nestlings.
construction if project
activities are delayed or
discontinued for 7 or
more days prior to the
second survey period
(March 20 to April 5)
1187
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 8 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Raptor Biologist with at least 2 years of experience surveying for and detecting Swainson’s hawk pursuant to “Recommended timing and
methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in
California’s Central Valley” survey protocol. No disturbance such as construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1b: No more than 30 days prior to the first ground disturbance activity, pre-construction golden eagle nesting surveys shall be conducted in the project vicinity by a qualified Raptor Biologist. The qualified Raptor Biologist shall have at least 2 years of experience surveying for and detecting nesting golden eagles. Preconstruction surveys shall include
investigation of all potential nesting trees within a survey area determined by the qualified Raptor Biologist, but no less than a 0.5-mile radius around all project activities. If active golden eagle nests are identified within any trees within the survey areas a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, a qualified Raptor Biologist shall establish a protection buffer at a minimum of 1,000 feet that is adequate to ensure noise or activity from the proposed project would not cause nest disturbance or young or adult bird mortality. Buffer zones may vary in size as some golden eagles are more acclimated to disturbance than others. Size of buffer zone may be increased by the qualified Raptor Biologist considering the type of construction activity that may occur and the behavioral factors and extent that golden eagle may have acclimated to disturbance. No
construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young golden eagles have fledged or Notes on construction
plans; Submittal of
documentation; Site
inspection
No more than 30 days
prior to the first ground
disturbance activity
City of American
Canyon
1188
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 9 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
that the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1c: Prior to ground disturbance, a pre-construction nesting survey shall be conducted for northern harrier and short-eared owl by a qualified Raptor Biologist if construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1). The qualified Raptor Biologist shall have at least 2 years of experience surveying for and detecting nesting northern harrier and short-eared owl. To determine whether northern harrier or short-eared owl is nesting on-site, a qualified Raptor Biologist(s) shall conduct walking transects through the project site grassland habitat searching for nests and minimum 500-foot radius from the project site. Where the survey area encroaches onto private property not
accessible to the public (e.g., fenced in commercial property, residential backyard, etc., the qualified Biologist shall either contact the property owner for permission to physically access the property or conduct a visual survey of adjacent areas by scanning with binoculars or a spotting scope. An active northern harrier or short-eared owl nest must be protected by implementing a minimum 500-foot radius buffer zone around the nest marked with orange construction fencing. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it
intersects the project site. Size of buffer zone could be modified increased considering the type of construction activity that may occur, physical barriers between the
construction site and active nest, and the behavioral factors and extent that northern harrier or short-eared owl may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is otherwise determined Notes on construction
plans; Submittal of
documentation; Site
inspection
Prior to ground
disturbance
City of American
Canyon
1189
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 10 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
to be complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Raptor Biologist.

MM BIO-1d: Prior to any ground disturbance, preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within a minimum of 150 meters of the project site. Where the survey area encroaches onto private property not
accessible to the public (e.g., fenced in commercial property, residential backyard, etc.), the qualified Biologist shall either contact the property owner for permission to physically access the property or conduct a visual survey of adjacent areas by scanning with binoculars or a spotting scope. The preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 2 weeks prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 staff report survey methods and Biologist qualifications to establish the status of burrowing owl on the project site.
• If burrowing owl are found to occupy the project site during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31),
occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing a nodisturbance buffer zone a minimum of 100 feet around the burrow. Buffers may be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the impact assessment approach described in the CDFW 2012 staff report. If a qualified Raptor Biologist determines the location of an occupied burrow/s may be
impacted even with a 100-foot buffer, or the burrow(s) are in a location(s) on the project site where a buffer cannot be established without preventing the proposed project from moving forward, then a passive relocation effort may be instituted to relocate the individual(s) out of harm’s way pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan prepared in
accordance with the CDFW 2012 staff report.
• If burrowing owl are found to be present during the
breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed Notes on construction
plans; Submittal of
documentation; Site
inspection
Prior to any ground
disturbance
City of American
Canyon
1190
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 11 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
project ground-disturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 staff report recommended avoidance protocol
whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a nodisturbance buffer. • If burrowing owls are ultimately found on the site and burrow eviction/ relocation of burrowing owls during the non-nesting season is a selected strategy to move forward with the project without direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals, the applicant shall coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl.

MM BIO-2: To offset the loss of the 0.496 acre of seasonal wetland impacts from Phase 1, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools from Phase 2, and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, the applicant shall establish/create 0.992 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands (2:1 ratio) for Phase 1 concurrent with project construction, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and 1.13 acres of vernal pool wetlands (1:1 ratio) for Phase 2 at least 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of American
Canyon
MM BIO-3a: Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 grading permit, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain a Nationwide Permit from the San Francisco District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for discharge within 0.004 acre of wetlands/waters of the United States under Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction. For the USACE permit to be valid, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the
accompanying Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). The applicant shall apply for and Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of the
Phase 1 grading permit
City of American
Canyon; San
Francisco District
of the United
States Army Corps
of Engineers; San
Francisco Bay
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
1191
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 12 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
obtain a separate Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for impacts to 0.496 acre of wetlands/waters of the State. To offset the loss of 0.496 acre of permanent wetland impacts and to ensure there is nonet loss of wetland area, the applicant shall establish/create

0.992 acre of wetlands (2:1 ratio), prior to or concurrent with the start of construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve.

The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved permit(s).

MM BIO-3b: Prior to issuance of the Phase 2 grading permit, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain an Individual Permit from the San Francisco District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the placement of fill material within approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands/waters of the United States under Clean Water Act Section 404
jurisdiction. For the USACE permit to be valid, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the accompanying Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). The applicant shall apply for and obtain a separate Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB for the discharge of fill material within approximately 3.7 acres of waters of the State. To offset the loss of 3.7 acres of permanent wetland impacts and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area or permanent loss of functions and values, the applicant shall establish/create 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and 1.13 acres of vernal pools (1:1 ratio), at a minimum of 1 year prior to the start of construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The
established/created wetlands and vernal pools shall be
monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of the
Phase 2 grading permit
City of American
Canyon; San
Francisco District
of the United
States Army Corps
of Engineers; San
Francisco Bay
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
1192
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 13 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
applicant shall implement the terms of the approved
permit(s).

MM BIO-3c: Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 grading permit, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) for review as part of the process for obtaining a permit from the agency.

The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address the loss of 0.496 acre of wetlands impact due to Phase 1 of the proposed project as well as the potential loss of approximately

3.7 acres of wetlands that as part of Phase 2. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include in irrevocable instrument (e.g., deed restriction or conservation easements) that shall restrict use of both the 0.992 acre of created wetlands for Phase 1 as well as approximately 3.7 acres of additional wetlands created for Phase 2. The Wetland
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall also include a long-term endowment that would be fully funded by the proposed
project to manage approximately 45-acre open space preserve and created wetlands in perpetuity. If additional wetland mitigation lands are required to compensate for wetland impacts associated with Phase 2, wetlands shall be
established/created at a minimum 1:1 ratio (1 acre
established/created for every acre permanently impacted) on appropriate mitigation land, approved by the RWQCB and
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), within the Phase 2 project site’s Hydraulic Unit Code (HUC) 10
watershed. The established/created wetlands shall be
monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved
permit(s).

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of the
Phase 1 grading permit
City of American
Canyon; San
Francisco Bay
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
1193
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 14 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
MM BIO-3d: Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 grading permit, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) for review as part of the process for obtaining a permit from the agency.

The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be
prepared in accordance with the Subpart J–Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources outlined in the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Procedures, and in accordance with the State Water Board Implementation Guidance dated April 2020, and in
accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Compensatory Mitigation Rule (33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 332)
The basic objective of the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is to ensure that project wetland impacts, and
compensatory mitigation proposed to offset the wetland
impacts, shall provide a no-net-loss of area of wetlands, and wetlands established/created shall be in-kind to the wetlands impacted. In summary, the Wetland Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall at a minimum:

1. Preserve 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acre of vernal pools within the 45-acre Wetland Preserve.

2. Establish within the Wetland Preserve approximately 0.992 acre of seasonal wetlands in advance of or concurrent with implementation of Phase 1 impacts to 0.496 acre of
palustrine emergent wetlands at a 2:1 ratio.

3. Establish within the Wetland Preserve approximately 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools in advance of implementation of future Phase 2, assuming
Phase 2 is built out, to address the potential maximum
losses of approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands that may
occur.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of
the Phase 1 and Phase
2 grading permit
City of American
Canyon; San
Francisco Bay
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board
1194
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 15 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial

4. Provide financial assurances to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation shall be
successfully completed, in accordance with applicable
performance standards.

5. Design ecological performance standards to assess whether the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is achieving the overall objectives, so that it can be objectively
evaluated to determine whether it is developing into the desired resource type (vernal pool, seasonal wetland e.g.), and attaining any other applicable metrics such as acres, number of native plant species, water saturation and/or ponding depth etc.

6. Monitor the site for a duration necessary to determine whether the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is
meeting the performance standards. Established palustrine emergent wetlands and vernal pools typically develop
quickly on soils with clay restrictive horizon. The 45-acre Wetland Preserve does have a clay restrictive layer
approximately 8–18 inches below the surface therefore a 5- year monitoring period would be sufficient to determine whether performance standards are met. This monitoring
period may be extended if performance standards are not met due to how the wetlands were constructed or natural events such as severe droughts.

7. Protect the approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve in perpetuity using a conservation easement, and provide an endowment sufficient to fund the Long-Term Management
Plan.

8. An overall assessment of the condition of the wetlands that shall be permanently impacted by the proposed project
shall be conducted using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for depressional wetlands, or a hybrid
approach based on CRAM. Each similar wetland type that
may be impacted shall be assessed to describe the floristic 1195
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 16 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
community and record the native and non-native dominant plants within the vernal pool and palustrine emergent
wetlands. Physical structure such as topographic complexity and physical features that may provide habitat for aquatic species (e.g., boulders, woody debris etc.) shall be recorded and used to design the created/established wetlands. The purpose of this assessment is to ensure the design of the wetlands shall provide habitat that is similar to the
wetlands being impacted to ensure the impacted wetlands are mitigated in-kind.

MM BIO-4: If construction occurs during the breeding season of migratory and resident birds (February 1 to August 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey in areas of suitable habitat within 7 days prior to the onset of construction activity. Surveys shall be conducted within the project footprint and 50 feet from the construction limits for nesting passerines, 250 feet from the construction limits for nesting accipiters and 1,000 feet from the
construction limits for nesting raptors. If the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, no further mitigation would be required. However, if construction activities are delayed by more than 7 days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. If bird nests are found, appropriate buffer zones shall be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from direct or indirect impacts related to project construction disturbance. Size of buffer zones shall be determined per recommendations of the
qualified Biologist based on site conditions and species involved. At a minimum a 1,000-foot buffer shall be
established for nesting Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle; 500-foot buffer for nesting tricolored blackbirds, northern harriers and other non-listed raptors; 250-foot buffer for nesting accipiters; and minimum 50-foot buffers shall be established for nesting passerines and all other non-raptor or Notes on construction
plans; Submittal of
documentation; Site
inspection
If construction occurs
during the breeding
season of migratory
and resident birds
(February 1 to August
31)
City of American
Canyon
1196
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 17 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
passerine nesting birds. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. Buffer zones shall be maintained until it can be documented that either the nest has failed, or the young have fledged.

3.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM CUL-2a: No ground disturbance shall take place within 100 feet of informal archaeological resource 483A-001. The resource shall be preserved in place.

Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection
During construction City of American
Canyon
MM CUL-2b: An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall be present on-site during all earth disturbing activities. If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet of the find shall halt and the City of American Canyon shall be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials may include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historicperiod materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code
Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection;
Submittal of
documentation
During construction City of American
Canyon
1197
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 18 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the
resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified
Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed
treatment plan in consultation with the City of American Canyon. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, and site documentation, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the
portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

MM CUL-3: In the event of the accidental discovery or
recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If during project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is
contacted to determine whether the remains are Native
American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be
Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours,
and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it
Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection;
Submittal of
documentation
During construction City of American
Canyon
1198
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 19 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the
deceased Native American. The MLD may make
recommendations to the landowner or the person
responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as
provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.
2 Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with
appropriate dignity either in accordance with the
recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a
location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being
notified by the commission.
• The descendant identified fails to make a
recommendation.
• The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by
the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner.

Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:
• When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate
Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may each develop a plan with respect to their respective
individual development proposals for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any 1199
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 20 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
items associated with Native American Burials with the
appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.

MM CUL-4: A Tribal Monitor representing the Yocha Dehe
Wintun Nation shall be present during all project-related ground disturbance. Additionally, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation’s Treatment Protocol (Protocol) shall be followed with respect to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The purpose of the protocol is to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony, if any are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies,
excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground-disturbing activity. This Protocol also formalizes procedures for Tribal Monitoring during archaeological
studies, grading, and ground-disturbing activities.

1. Cultural Affiliation: The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Tribe) traditionally occupied lands in Yolo, Solano, Lake, Colusa, and Napa Counties. The Tribe has designated its Cultural Resources Committee (Committee) to act on the Tribe's
behalf with respect to the provisions of this Protocol. Any human remains which are found in conjunction with
projects on lands culturally affiliated with the Tribe shall be treated in accordance with Section III of this Protocol. Any other cultural resources shall be treated in accordance with Section IV of this Protocol.

2. Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains:

Whenever Native American human remains are found
during the course of a project, the determination of Most Likely Descendant (MLD) under California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 will be made by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) upon notification to the NAHC of the discovery of said remains at a project site. If the location of the site and the history and prehistory of the Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection;
Submittal of
documentation
During construction City of American
Canyon
1200
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 21 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
area is culturally affiliated with the Tribe, the NAHC contacts the Tribe; a Tribal member will be designated by the Tribe to consult with the landowner and/or project proponents.

Should the NAHC determine that a member of an Indian
tribe other than Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation is the MLD, and the Tribe agrees with this determination, the terms of this Protocol relating to the treatment of such Native American human remains shall not be applicable; however, that
situation is very unlikely.

3. Treatment of Native American Remains: In the event that Native American human remains are found during
development of a project and the Tribe or a member of the Tribe is determined to be MLD pursuant to Section II of this Protocol, the following provisions shall apply. The Medical Examiner shall immediately be notified, ground-disturbing activities in that location shall cease and the Tribe shall be allowed, pursuant to California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98(a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and grave goods shall be treated and disposed of with
appropriate dignity. The Tribe shall complete its inspection and make its MLD recommendation within 48 hours of
getting access to the site. The Tribe shall have the final determination as to the disposition and treatment of
human remains and grave goods. Said determination may
include avoidance of the human remains, reburial on-site, or reburial on tribal or other lands that will not be disturbed in the future. The Tribe may wish to rebury said human
remains and grave goods or ceremonial and cultural items on or near the site of their discovery, in an area which will not be subject to future disturbances over a prolonged
period of time. Reburial of human remains shall be
accomplished in compliance with the California Public
Resources Code Sections 5097.98(a) and (b). The term
1201
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 22 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
"human remains" encompasses more than human bones
because the Tribe’s traditions call for the burial of
associated cultural items with the deceased (funerary
objects), and/or the ceremonial burning of Native American human remains, funerary objects, grave goods, and animals.

Ashes, soils, and other remnants of these burning
ceremonies, as well as associated funerary objects and
unassociated funerary objects buried with or found near the Native American remains are to be treated in the same manner as bones or bone fragments that remain intact.

4. Non-Disclosure of Location of Reburials: Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains shall not be disclosed and will not be
governed by public disclosure requirements of the
California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. The Medical Examiner shall withhold public disclosure of information related to such reburial pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254(r). The Tribe will require that the location for reburial is recorded with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) on a form
acceptable to the CHRIS center. The Tribe may also suggest the landowner enter into an agreement regarding the
confidentiality of site information that will run with title on the property.

5. Treatment of Cultural Resources: Treatment of all cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items will reflect the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items, which may be found at a project site shall be turned over to the Tribe for appropriate treatment, unless ordered by a court or agency of competent
jurisdiction. The project proponent shall waive any and all claims to ownership of Tribal ceremonial and cultural items, 1202
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 23 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
including archaeological items, which may be found on a project site in favor of the Tribe. If any intermediary, (for example, an Archaeologist retained by the project
proponent) is necessary, said entity or individual shall not possess those items for longer than is reasonably necessary, as determined solely by the Tribe.

6. Inadvertent Discoveries: If additional significant sites or sites not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites will be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project proponent, the Lead Agency, and the Tribe to determine whether additional mitigation
measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally
appropriate manner consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease for a period of up to 30 days in accordance with Federal Law.

3.5 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
MM GEO-1a: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each Phase 2 structure, the project applicant shall submit plans to the City of American Canyon for review and approval that demonstrate a minimum 50-foot setback between the West
Napa Fault and each building. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for
each Phase 2 structure
City of American
Canyon
MM GEO-1b: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each Phase 1 and 2 structure, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
building permits for
each Phase 1 and 2
structure
City of American
Canyon
1203
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 24 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
Code (CBC) geologic, soils, and seismic requirements,
including abatement of expansive soil conditions. The report shall also determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and surrounding related
improvements (e.g., utilities roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks). The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the project plans and all applicable construction-related permits.

MM GEO-5: If potential fossils are discovered during project implementation, all earthwork or other types of ground
disturbance within 100 feet of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified professional Paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the Paleontologist shall either record the find and recommend that the City of American Canyon allow work to continue or recommend salvage and
recovery of the fossil. The Paleontologist shall, if required, propose modifications to the stop-work radius based on the nature of the find, site geology, and the activities occurring on the site. If treatment and salvage is required,
recommendations will be consistent with Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and currently accepted scientific practice. If required, treatment for fossil remains shall include preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or
university collection, and, if required, shall also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds.

Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection;
Submittal of
documentation
During construction City of American
Canyon

3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
MM GHG-1a: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating project construction will include the following construction Best Management Practices (BMPs):

Submittal of
documentation; Notes
on construction plans;
Site inspection
Prior to the issuance of
any grading permits
City of American
Canyon
1204
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 25 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
• At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric.
• At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction shall be sourced from local suppliers.
• At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials shall be recycled or reused.
• At least one contractor that has a business location in American Canyon shall be contracted for project
construction.
• All construction contracts shall include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) using during construction be electrically powered.
• Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.
• Project construction shall prohibit the use of generators and shall establish grid power connection to electrical
equipment needs.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage
regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper
condition prior to operation.
• The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with their telephone number and contractor to contact. The construction contractor shall take corrective 1205
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 26 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be identified and visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM GHG-1b: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating the proposed project is designed without the use of any natural gas -fueled appliances or natural gas plumbing.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
any building permits
City of American
Canyon
MM GHG-1c: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed buildings are designed and will be built to, at a minimum, the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements of the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Division A5.2, Energy
Efficiency, as outlined under Section A5.203.1.2.2.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
any building permits
City of American
Canyon
MM GHG-1d: Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed parking areas for passenger automobiles and trucks are designed and will be built to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate a number of EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section
A5.106.5.3.2.

Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that each
loading dock is outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
any building permits
City of American
Canyon
1206
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 27 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
charging and/or electrical power connection while trucks are loading and unloading goods.

MM GHG-1e: Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction that the electricity demand will be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity sources through the year 2045.

Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
any building permit for
the proposed project
City of American
Canyon

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
MM HYD-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit to the City of American Canyon for review and approval a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit.

The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following
objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources (e.g., runoff), including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity, are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fencing, street sweeping, routine inspection, etc.) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater
discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs are installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP
requirements in the most recent version of the California Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection;
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of
grading permits for the
proposed project
City of American
Canyon
1207
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 28 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best
Management Handbook–Construction or the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction.

MM HYD-1b: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The plan shall be developed using the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) “New Development and Redevelopment
Handbook” and include applicable provisions of Section C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (Order No. R2-2015-
0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (or more recent permit).

The Stormwater Control Plan shall identify pollution
prevention measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control stormwater pollution from operational activities and facilities and provide maintenance in perpetuity. The Stormwater Control Plan shall include Low Impact
Development (LID) design concepts, as well as concepts that accomplish a “first flush” objective that remove contaminants from the first 2 inches of stormwater before it enters area waterways. The project applicant shall also prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to the
City, identifying procedures to ensure stormwater quality control measures work properly during operations.

Site inspection;
Submittal of
documentation
Prior to the issuance of
building permits
City of American
Canyon

3.9 Land Use
MM LU-3: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall retain a qualified Biologist to assess potential wildlife hazards to aviation. The assessment shall evaluate the
characteristics of the emergent wetlands, drainages, other potential wildlife attractant features (i.e., ponded water) located within the open space area and identify management Submittal of
documentation
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
City of American
Canyon
1208
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 29 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
practices (e.g., storm drainage, vegetation, etc.) to prevent the creation of attractants for large flocks or birds or other wildlife species that may present safety hazards to aviation activities.

As part of the assessment, the applicant shall consult with Napa County Airport and Napa County Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) representatives, as appropriate, regarding findings and recommendations. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of American Canyon prepared by a qualified Biologist that confirms the wildlife hazard assessment’s findings and recommendations are incorporated into the
design of the open space preserve.

3.10 Noise
MM NOI-1: Implementation of the following multi-part
mitigation measure is required to reduce potential
construction period noise impacts:
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited.
• The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• At all times during project grading and construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noisegenerating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that the
construction staging areas shall be located to create the Notes on construction
plans; Site inspection
During construction City of American
Canyon
1209
City of American Canyon
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program FirstCarbon Solutions 30 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/MMRP/released/102722 GG/54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project MMRP.docx Mitigation Measures Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible for
Verification
Verification of Completion
Date Initial
greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-site construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading, or demolition work, are limited to between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays and federal holidays.
1210
NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
City of American Canyon, Napa County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2021010104
Prepared for:

City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
707.647.5345
Contact: Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director Prepared by:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Grant Gruber, Project Manager
Date: November 10, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1.P
1211
1212
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Table of Contents
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations...............................................1

1.1 - Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 - Statement of Findings ....................................................................................................... 1

1.3 - Project Summary ............................................................................................................... 2

1.4 - Background........................................................................................................................ 5

1.5 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant or Less Than Significant........ 7

1.6 - Potential Environmental Effects Which Can Be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance................................................................................................................. 41

1.7 - Impacts Identified in the Draft EIR as Being Significant and Unavoidable Even After the Incorporation of All Feasible Mitigation Measures.............................................. 86

1.8 - Findings Regarding Alternatives...................................................................................... 96

1.9 - Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts........................................................................ 100

1.10 - Findings Regarding Growth Inducement..................................................................... 100

1.11 - Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes........................... 101

1.12 - Findings Regarding Circulation .................................................................................... 102

1.13 - Statement of Overriding Considerations..................................................................... 103 1213
1214
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 1
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS

1.1 - Introduction
The State Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide:

No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (hereinafter referred to as “finding (1)”); (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (hereinafter referred to as “finding (2)”); or (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (hereinafter referred to as “finding (3)”).

The required findings shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Guidelines § 15091).

The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR. References herein to the “EIR” are to the collective documentation contained in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. All acronyms used within this document shall have the same meaning as defined in the Draft EIR.

1.2 - Statement of Findings
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA has been prepared by the City of American Canyon (Lead Agency). The EIR for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project) identifies significant effects on the environment, which may occur as a result of the proposed project.

Section 1.5. sets forth potential environmental effects of the proposed project for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. 1215
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Section 1.6 sets forth potential environmental effects of the proposed project which are not significant because of the proposed project’s design or feasible mitigation to below a level of significance.

Section 1.7 discloses environmental impacts that remain significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of feasible mitigation.

Section 1.8 summarizes alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR and makes findings with respect to the feasibility of alternatives and whether the alternatives would lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project.

The following sets forth all significant effects of the proposed project and with respect to each effect, makes one or more findings set forth in Section 1.1, Introduction, and provides facts in support of such findings.

The EIR provides additional facts in support of the findings herein. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment A) are incorporated by reference in these findings, and the findings in Sections 1.6 and 1.7 refer to individual mitigation measures as appropriate. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.

1.3 - Project Summary

1.3.1 - Project Description
The applicant, Buzz Oates LLC, proposes to develop a 2.4-million-square-foot logistics center on approximately 163 acres of an approximately 208-acre project site. The remaining 44.8 acres would be preserved as open space/Wetland Preserve.

The applicant has developed design-level site plans for Phase 1 of the proposed project, which includes a 94.7-acre area east of Devlin Road. This area will support two high-cube warehouse buildings. One building would be rail-served by the adjacent Napa Branch Line. Each building would provide docks, grade level roll-up doors, and trailer parking stalls. The facility would be enclosed with a secure perimeter and access would be restricted to authorized users.

Phase 2 of the proposed project would occur on a 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road. This area is conceptually proposed for the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse. Phase 2 would commence once Phase 1 is completed. Accordingly, the EIR evaluates Phase 1 at a project level and Phase 2 at a program level of analysis.

Table 1: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Summary
Phase Acres Building/Square Feet End Use/Characteristics 1 (Project Level)

94.7 A/627,976 High-Cube Warehouse/36 feet clear height B/469,512 High-Cube Warehouse/36 feet clear height
Subtotal: 1,097,488 —
1216
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 3
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Phase Acres Building/Square Feet End Use/Characteristics 2 (Program Level) 113.1 1.3 million High-Cube Warehouse Total 208 2.4 million —
Notes:

Total values are rounded
Source: RMW Architecture Interiors 2020.

Devlin Road Extension
As a separate City project, Devlin Road was extended approximately 3,000 linear feet from Green Island Road to Middleton Way (Napa Logistics Park), closing a gap in the City’s roadway network. The extension was contemplated by the City of American Canyon General Plan Circulation Element. The extended roadway provides one lane in each direction. Driveway access to the proposed project would be taken from Devlin Road and Green Island Road.

The Napa Valley Vine Trail follows the Devlin Road extension.

Green Island Road Improvements
As a separate City project, Green Island Road would be improved. The roadway would be widened, and half width improvements would be installed along the project frontage. The new Green Island Road / Devlin Road intersection would provide turn lanes.

Open Space Preservation
The applicant would permanently preserve approximately 44.8 acres of the project site as open space. This area coincides with the northern portion of the project site where No Name Creek meanders. This would create a contiguous open space area with the adjoining 37-acre Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve.

Storm Drainage
The proposed project would provide 110,766 square feet (2.6 acres) of storm drainage retention onsite including bioswales and basins.

Utilities
Water
The City of American Canyon would provide potable water and recycled water service to the proposed project. Potable and recycled water infrastructure was installed within Devlin Road. Service laterals would extend from the Devlin Road water lines to project buildings.

Wastewater
The City of American Canyon would provide wastewater collection and treatment service to the proposed project. Sewer infrastructure was installed within Devlin Road. Service laterals would extend from the Devlin Road sewer line to project buildings. 1217
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Electricity and Natural Gas
Marin Clean Energy would procure, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would deliver electricity to the proposed project. PG&E would procure and deliver natural gas to the proposed project. Electric and natural gas infrastructure was installed within Devlin Road. Service laterals would extend from the Devlin Road facilities to project buildings. However, the project will not utilize natural gas as a design feature.

1.3.2 - Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the proposed project is to develop industrially-zoned, undeveloped land within the American Canyon city limits to its highest and best use.

The objectives of the proposed project are to:

1. Promote economic growth in American Canyon by attracting new industries.

2. Promote development that generates net positive tax revenues for the City by generating more in new tax revenues than are consumed by City expenditures on services provided to the development.

3. Create new employment opportunities for residents of Napa County and the surrounding region.

4. Develop compatible land uses near the Napa County Airport in the interests of avoiding interference with aviation operations.

5. Improve American Canyon’s jobs-housing ratio by adding new employment opportunities.

6. Continue the orderly development of the Devlin Road corridor with a well-designed project.

7. Further the goals and policies of the City of American Canyon General Plan by developing land contemplated to support urban development to its highest and best use.

8. Preserve the most biologically sensitive portions of the project site as open space.

9. Install circulation improvements along Green Island Road and Devlin Road that provide efficient ingress and egress to the proposed project while also ensuring these facilities operate at acceptable levels.

10.Promote public safety by incorporating security measures into the project design.

11.Mitigate impacts on the environment through implementation of feasible mitigation measures.

1.3.3 - Required Approvals
Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City of American Canyon for implementation of the proposed project. The project application would require the following discretionary approvals and actions, including:
• Use Permit
1218
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 5
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx • Tentative Parcel Map
• Design Permits
• Lot Line Adjustment
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required to implement the proposed project, including issuance of grading and building permits.

1.4 - Background
The City of American Canyon released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for public review from January 12, 2021, to February 10, 2021 (30-day review period). The NOP and copies of comments received are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.

The Draft EIR was initially circulated for a 45-day public review period between Friday, May 20, 2022, and 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 5, 2022. Subsequently, the City provided an updated Appendix A (NOP comment letters) and an updated Appendix C (additional supporting biological resource studies), and extended the public comment period by 15 days to July 20, 2022, to allow public agencies and interested parties a total of 62 days to review and submit comments on the Draft EIR. During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, was available for review at the City of American Canyon offices and the American Canyon Library. In addition, the Draft EIR was posted on the City of American Canyon website at https://bit.ly/3MxXX2k during the public review period.

On February 2, 2021, a scoping meeting was held virtually through Zoom. The meeting was held at 3:00 p.m. during which individuals and organizations/agency representatives were invited to provide oral comments on the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project.

The City of American Canyon prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received on significant environmental issues during the extended 62-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, and an errata making minor, non-substantive changes to the Draft EIR. For purposes of these Findings, the “EIR” shall consist of the Draft EIR, all appendices attached to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR (consisting of the Introduction, Errata, and Responses to Comments).

Subsequently, public meetings were held by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2022 and by the City Council on December 6, 2022, at the American Canyon City Hall located at 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503. Both meetings were held virtually and in-person, and individuals and organizations/agency representatives were invited to provide oral comments on the Final EIR.

The City of American Canyon subsequently considered all oral and written comments regarding environmental issues in the Final EIR and determined, based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given at public meetings and hearings in connection therewith, and the submission of comments from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, as well as all other relevant information in the administrative record, the 1219
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx following environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.

The City of American Canyon concludes that implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, as discussed above, the City of American Canyon is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Accordingly, the City of American Canyon hereby makes these required findings, as set forth in this document (“Findings”). These Findings summarize the environmental determinations about the project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation, and summarize the project’s individual and cumulative impacts. These Findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact. Instead, they provide a summary description of each significant impact and the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City of American Canyon, and state the conclusions regarding the significance of each impact after incorporation of the identified mitigation measures. A comprehensive explanation of these environmental impact conclusions can be found in the EIR, as supplemented and explained in staff reports and materials presented by the project applicant, City of American Canyon staff and various project consultants, and other relevant materials in the administrative record.

The EIR contains substantial evidence to support all conclusions presented in these Findings.

As reflected in public comments, there is disagreement among various parties regarding particular conclusions in the EIR. Relevant case law interpreting the CEQA statute and Guidelines provides the standards for treating disagreement among experts in the context of an EIR, as follows: Where evidence and opinions conflict on an issue concerning the environment, and the Lead Agency knows of these controversies in advance, the EIR and/or related findings must acknowledge the controversies, summarize the conflicting opinions of the experts, and include sufficient information on the controversy. In making a decision on a project where there is disagreement among experts, the Lead Agency is not obligated to select the viewpoint that purports to be the most environmentally sensitive. Instead, decision-makers are vested with the discretion to weigh expert opinion and choose which they intend to rely on and are not required to resolve a dispute among experts. In their proceedings, decision-makers must consider comments received concerning the adequacy of the EIR and address any objections raised in these comments. However, decisionmakers are not obligated to follow any directives, recommendations, or suggestions presented in comments on an EIR, and can certify an EIR without needing to resolve disagreements among experts.

In making its decision to certify the EIR and approve the proposed project, the City of American Canyon recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to certain environmental issues, particularly with respect to air quality impacts. As noted in the record of proceedings for the proposed project, the air quality analysis is based, in part, on technical inputs into the CalEEMod modeling that reflect the best professional judgment of the air quality specialists 1220
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 7
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx at First Carbon Solutions who prepared the air quality analysis. This analysis was then reviewed by City of American Canyon planners with expertise in CEQA and environmental analysis. CalEEMod allows modelers to alter default assumptions in order to best reflect the circumstances and attributes of the particular projects being analyzed. The Lead Agency has acquired a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the EIR; as well as by its review of the information provided by the experts who prepared the EIR; the Lead Agency's other consultants and its staff; along with testimony, letters, reports, and other relevant materials in the administrative record, as well as its own experience and expertise in these matters. The materials reviewed by the Lead Agency include conflicting expert opinions and conflicting statements of facts, as well as other comments on the environmental issues set forth in the EIR. This comprehensive review has enabled the Lead Agency to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues, and the Lead Agency has made determinations of significant effects based on substantial evidence, not public controversy or speculation. Accordingly, the Lead Agency hereby certifies that its Findings and determinations are based on all of the evidence contained in the EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and hereby elects to rely on the analysis and evidence set forth in the EIR.

The EIR is incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the proposed project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

1.5 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant or Less Than Significant
The City of American Canyon has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings. The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of American Canyon and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed project.

Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact and for which no mitigation is necessary. Based on its independent judgment and the entire administrative record before it, the City of American Canyon has determined that the following potential environmental effects will not be significant and no mitigation is necessary for the reasons stated below. 1221
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx

1.5.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Potential Effect
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Draft EIR Page 3.1-4–5).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-5). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Neither the City of American Canyon nor the Napa County General Plan identifies the project site as a scenic vista or scenic resource. Additionally, the project site does not contain any scenic vistas or features associated with scenic vistas (e.g., ridgelines, peaks, overlooks), and none are visible from the project site.

The project site is located in a portion of the City of American Canyon that is generally not visible from park and recreational areas, community gathering facilities, or residential areas. There are no prominent long-distance views of the project site, and, as such, the proposed project would not have the potential to obstruct views from high vantage points or sensitive viewpoints of the City.

Potential Effect
Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (Draft EIR Page 3.1-5–6).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-6). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
The Phase 1 warehouses would be similar in appearance to the structures in the neighboring Napa Logistics Park and the Green Island Business Park. Additionally, an approximately 44.8-acre open space area containing No Name Creek and wetlands would be permanently preserved within the northern portion of the site. These are the most significant aesthetic features on the project site.

Phase 2
Though no design-level plans have been prepared at the time of this writing, it is expected that the Phase 2 buildings would be similar in appearance to the Phase 1 buildings.

The development of the proposed project would change the visual character of the project site; however, it would be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the City of American Canyon General Plan land use designation of “Industrial” for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the project area or its surroundings.
1222
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 9
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the applicable geographic area, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to light and glare. (Draft EIR, Page 4-3–4).

Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-4). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative aesthetics, light, and glare analysis is the 0.25-mile radius surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the project site and, therefore, the area most likely to experience cumulative changes in visual character or experience cumulative light and glare impacts.

Several of the projects listed in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR are immediately adjacent to or within

0.25mile of the project site.

The project site and the surrounding area have long been planned to accommodate large industrial and warehouse uses and are isolated and separate from the residential areas of the City. The existing surrounding uses are large industrial uses. Although the development of the proposed project would fundamentally change the visual character of the project site, it would be compatible with surrounding industrial uses and would be consistent with the City of American Canyon General Plan land use designation for the project site. Because the proposed project would preserve approximately 44.8 acres of the project site that contain No Name Creek and associated wetlands, this area would continue to provide a visual buffer between the industrial uses and the undeveloped marsh area near the Napa River. The project site would feature attractive landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Design Permits would be required from the City to approve the specific building and site design on each lot, including building height. Furthermore, due to its location, the proposed project would not degrade any views of a scenic vista such as the Napa River or Sulphur Springs Hills. Other past projects, present projects under construction, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area would be subject to similar landscaping and design requirements.

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable developments near the project site have contributed to—and would continue to contribute to—ambient light and glare in the project vicinity. The proposed project would install new sources of light and glare on the project site from exterior building lighting, security lighting, and lights and glare associated with vehicles accessing the project site. Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-3 requires new exterior lighting fixtures to employ full cut-off fixtures to direct light downward and eliminate spillage. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments in the project vicinity that involve the installation of new exterior lighting fixtures have been and would be required to implement similar standard measures to prevent light spillage.
1223
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx

1.5.2 - Air Quality
Potential Effect
Impact AIR-3: The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Draft EIR Page 3.2-59–63).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-63). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it causes or contributes significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. The closest sensitive receptors include a single-family residence located approximately 200 feet south of the project site, as well as Calvary Baptist Christian Academy (Draft EIR Page 3.2-15 –16). Localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project (Draft EIR, Appendix B).

Construction and Operation
Construction and Operational Related Diesel Particulate Matter The proposed project could accommodate the construction and operation of 2.4 million square feet of cold storage space and the subsequent operation of TRUs in addition to truck and passenger vehicle activities. Therefore, the HRA analyzes the cold storage project scenario as a conservative assessment.

The proposed project would develop Phase 1, which would become operational immediately following the completion of construction activities. As Phase 1 would become operational, Phase 2 of the proposed project would begin construction, resulting in an overlap of construction and operational emissions. The HRA analyzes the proposed project’s Phase 1 construction diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions for the first year, Phase 1 operational and Phase 2 construction DPM emissions for the second year, and Phase 1 and 2 operational DPM emissions for the remainder of the 30-year exposure duration, consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. The HRA also analyzes the proposed project’s Phase 1 construction DPM emissions for the first year; Phase 1 operational and Phase 2 construction DPM emissions for the second year; Phase 1 and 2 operational DPM emissions of school receptor exposure at the Calvary Baptist Christian Academy; and the proposed project’s operational DPM emission concentrations for the remainder of the 13-year exposure duration for a K-12 school, consistent with the BAAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. As shown in Table 3.2-14 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts to the maximally impacted residential or school receptors under the cold storage scenario.

Community Health Risk Assessment
A community HRA was conducted in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations. The cumulative health risk values were determined by adding the health risk values from refined modeling of the proposed project to the screening-level health risk values from each individual stationary and mobile 1224
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 11
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx source within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. The HRA concluded that the main source of a cumulative community health risk within 1,000 feet of the project site are the existing sources.

Health risks to nearby sensitive receptors would not exceed the BAAQMD community health risk significance thresholds. As the proposed project did not result in an exceedance of project-level BAAQMD significance thresholds, the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant impact and the proposed project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
The proposed project would not generate sufficient vehicle traffic during project operation to substantiate creating a CO hotspot.

Cumulative
Additionally, the proposed project’s health risk impacts and PM2.5 concentration at sensitive receptors are below BAAQMD cumulative impact thresholds and the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potentially significant cumulative impact.

Potential Effect
Impact AIR-4: The proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Draft EIR Pages 3.2-63—64) Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR Page 3.2-64). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Construction
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily and intermittently generate odors. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. It is anticipated that by the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any air quality or odor concern level.

Operation
The types of uses that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Specific uses of the proposed project’s buildings have not been determined; however, it is not anticipated that a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) or solid waste transfer station would be accommodated. Food manufacturing plants and chemical manufacturing have odor screening distances of one mile and two miles, respectively, from the facility to sensitive receptors (Draft EIR, Table 3.2-8). Sensitive receptors surrounding the project site within these screening distances are generally to the south and consist of school and residential land uses. The future tenants propose the land use for distribution and/or sortation facilities, thus implementation of the proposed project would not create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. 1225
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx The proposed project would not result in any localized construction fugitive dust impacts or any CO hotspots or project-level health risk impacts to sensitive receptors or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to any potential significant cumulative significant impact related to localized criteria pollutant impacts from fugitive dust, CO, or objectionable odors.

1.5.3 - Biological
Potential Effect
Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft EIR Pages 3.3- 39–40).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.2-40). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phases 1 and 2
No trees are present on the project site and, therefore, no tree removal would occur. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies related to protection of natural resources.

All work for the proposed project would take place consistent with biological requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of American Canyon. Studies of sensitive biological resources have been either conducted by Huffman Broadway Group (HBG) as part of the Biological Resources Report or were conducted by other consultants and independently reviewed and incorporated into the Biological Resources Report, consistent with General Plan Policy 8.2.1. The proposed project results in impacts to palustrine emergent wetlands and vernal pool wetlands and the applicant has prepared a conceptual plan to mitigate for these wetlands consistent with General Plan Policy 8.3.1.a, which requires the development plan to consider the nature of existing biological resources and all reasonable measures to avoid significant impacts, including retention of sufficient natural open space and undeveloped buffer zones; General Plan Policy 8.3.1.h, which requires in summary developments shall mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the United States, wetlands, and riparian habitats by replacement on an in-kind basis and such replacement should occur on the original development site, whenever possible, and; General Plan Policy 8.4.3, which encourages activities that improve the biological value and integrity of the City’s natural resources through vegetation restoration, control of alien plants and animals, and landscape buffering. The wetland mitigation would be accomplished through establishment of an approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve within the project site to include preserving 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acres of vernal pools and establishment/creation of an additional approximately

3.56 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools to compensate in-kind for permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands from the proposed project. 1226
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 13
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx

1.5.4 - Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Potential Effect
Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Guidelines §15064.5 (Draft EIR Page 3.4-20—21).

Findings: No impact (Draft EIR Page 3.4-21). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Historic resources in this context refer to the built environment, mainly buildings and structures over 45 years in age that may be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. Records search results, conducted at the NWIC, identified one historic resource (P-28-001439) located within the project site and three historic resources (P-28-000384, P-28-002466 and NAP-HRI-001) located within the 0.5- mile records search radius. Historic resource P-28-001439 was evaluated relative to the four CRHR eligibility criteria and found to be ineligible to meet any of the criteria for historic and/or architectural significance required for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or at the local level. No additional historic resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey and evaluation.

1.5.5 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potential Effect
Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Draft EIR Pages 3.6-62—69).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.6-68). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The following discusses project consistency with applicable plans adopted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040, and the City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP).

California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
The principal State plan and policy for GHG emission reduction targets are set forth in Executive Order S-03-05, AB 32, and the subsequent SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 was to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 required the ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes California's approach to reduce GHGs to achieve the 2020 emission target. SB 32 then accelerated the GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update, the most recent update to the ARB Scoping Plan, reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels as set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. It applies to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities, counties, or individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the 1227
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 14 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other Statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.

Transportation Sector
Trucks
The following State strategies reduce GHG emissions from medium and heavy-duty trucks:
• ARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs by transitioning to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. • ARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero-emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.
• ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation requires diesel-fueled trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.
• ARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions and the establishment of emissions standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling.

While the focus of the Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.

The proposed project would be subject to the above trucking and freight regulations which would contribute to controlling heavy-duty truck GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflict with or inhibit these Statewide strategies. Any on-site trucks would be required to comply with ARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation, which requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions.

Furthermore, truck manufacturers would be required to comply with the ARB Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Rule, which requires manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and vans to sell zeroemission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035.

Under the ACT Rule, by 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55 percent of Class 2b to Class 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 to Class 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. As the proposed project would not include any feature or design which would prohibit the implementation of these vehicle emission standards, the proposed project would be consistent with these requirements.
1228
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 15
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Passenger Vehicles
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and the transportation sector in general include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program). Furthermore, Executive Order N-79-20 would also require that 100 percent of new passenger cars and trucks sold in California be zero-emission by 2035, which would indirectly contribute to the extent of electric vehicle (EV) utilization in the proposed project’s passenger vehicle fleet beyond 2035. The proposed project would not include any feature or design which would prohibit the implementation of these vehicle emission standards and thus would be consistent with these requirements.

Energy Sector
Energy use generated by the proposed project represents the second largest source of emissions after considering mobile source GHG emissions (Draft EIR, Table 3.6-4). As required by MM GHG-1c, the proposed project would meet the Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements of the current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Moreover, the proposed project would be sourcing electricity from on-site generation sources and/or utility providers in the State. As required by MM GHG-1e, any electricity consumed by the proposed project would be from carbon-free sources, such as an on-site photovoltaic system. If the proposed project secures electricity purchases from a utility provider, the proposed project would be required by MM GHG-1e to purchase 100 percent carbonfree electricity through the year 2045, at which time utility providers would be required to supply 100 percent carbon-free electricity for all in-state sales, as required by SB 100. As such, the proposed project would meet the requirements contained in the 2019 California Building Code and would be consistent with the State’s current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the State’s renewable energy legislation, SB 100.

Other Sources
Other sources of GHG emissions include solid waste disposal, which is associated with landfilling municipal solid waste. The amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere as a fraction of the total amount of methane generated from landfills has declined as more landfills implement mitigation measures and existing systems are operated more efficiently as a result of ARB’s Landfill Methane Control Measure. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s goals for the recycling and waste sector.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission Plan Bay Area
As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area 2050, local governments have identified planned development areas to focus growth. The project site is within the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area and is in an area with existing infrastructure. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals and the land use concept plan of Plan Bay Area 2050.

The closest public transit option would be the Vine bus system, operated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. The closest Vine stop is the American Canyon City Hall bus stop on NapaVallejo Connector Route 11. The stop is 1.5 miles from the project site. As such, it is not likely that many employees would travel to the project site using public transit. 1229
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx City of American Canyon Energy Efficient Climate Action Plan The EECAP identifies reduction measures and implementation responsibilities that the City used to achieve the State-recommended GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by the year 2020 to fulfill the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375. The City would impose the requirements of these measures as applicable through local regulations and ordinances. As shown in Table 3.6-6 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project incorporates features that would contribute to the City’s strategy to minimize GHG emissions. With these features, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable measures and implementing actions identified by the City of American Canyon EECAP.

SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
None of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures are applicable to the proposed project (Draft EIR, Table 3.6-6). Thus, the proposed project's implementation would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32.

Potential Effect
Impact GHG-4: The proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable efficiency objectives (Draft EIR Pages 3.6-73—74).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.6-74). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and be consistent with the energy efficiency goals and measures contained in the City’s General Plan Natural and Historic and Cultural Resources Element and EECAP.

The proposed project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings techniques and practices, ensuring that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed to accommodate rooftop photovoltaic electricity generation panel arrays for solar electricity generation and MM GHG-1e would require the proposed project to source its electricity from 100 percent carbon-free sources.

The City’s General Plan Natural and Historic and Cultural Resources Element contains policies related to energy conservation that are relevant to the proposed project, such as Goal 8F to reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy sources and support the development and utilization of new energy sources. Compliance with Title 24 standards would help the project meet this goal, and implementation of MMs GHG-1a through GHG-1e would further serve to reduce project reliance on nonrenewable energy resources. Moreover, the proposed project would be consistent with the energy efficiency measures contained in the EECAP (Draft EIR, Table 3.6-5). 1230
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 17
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable planned and approved projects in the vicinity, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to geology, soils, and seismicity. (Draft EIR, Page 4-8–9).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-9). No cumulative mitigation is required.

Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative geology, soils, and seismicity analysis is the project vicinity.

Adverse effects associated with geologic, soil, and seismic hazards tend to be site specific, because each project site has its own geologic and soils conditions, and each project has its own design characteristics, localized within the area near the project site most affected by project activities (generally within a 0.5-mile radius).

Past, present, and future development projects in the project vicinity have the potential to exacerbate exposure to seismic hazards. The West Napa Fault bisects the project site and, thus, the project site may be susceptible to fault rupture during a seismic event. The project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts is less than significant and does not require additional mitigation.

MM GEO-1a requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a fault investigation study and ensure project plans comply with all required setback requirements.

Additionally, the project site may be subject to strong ground shaking during an earthquake; thus, MM GEO-1b requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a design-level geotechnical study and implement all California Building Standards Code applicable requirements into project plans. Other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects have and may exacerbate exposure to similar potential seismic hazards and would be required to comply with the relevant State and local laws designed to mitigate seismic hazards and mitigation measures imposed under CEQA.

Development activities could lead to increased erosion rates of on-site soils, which could cause unstable ground surfaces and increased sedimentation in nearby streams and drainage channels.

MM HYD-1a requires implementation of standard stormwater pollution prevention measures to ensure earthwork activities do not result in substantial erosion off-site. This mitigation requires compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting program, which requires the preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs for construction activities that disturb more than 1 acre and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that ensure the reduction of pollutants during stormwater discharges, as well as compliance with all applicable water quality requirements. The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations, as have and would other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects.

The project site contains native soils that have shrink-swell characteristics, which may exacerbate exposure of project structures to expansive soil hazards. MM GEO-1b requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a design-level geotechnical study and 1231
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx incorporate all California Building Standards Code applicable requirements into project plans. Other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects could be exposed to expansive soil hazards and, therefore, have been and would be required to implement similar mitigation measures based on State and local regulations and CEQA requirements.

Paleontological resources impacts tend to be localized, because the integrity of any given resource depends on what occurs in the immediate vicinity around that resource, such as disruption of soils; therefore, in addition to the project site itself, the area near the project site would be the area most affected by project activities (generally within a 0.5-mile radius). Given that the proposed project would not have a known, direct impact on any known paleontological resources, cumulative project impacts are less than significant. Construction activities associated with cumulative development projects in the project vicinity may have the potential to encounter undiscovered paleontological resources. These cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR would be required to mitigate for impacts through compliance with applicable federal and State laws governing paleontological resources.

1.5.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-1: Buildout of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-11—12).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.7-12). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The construction and operational activities of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.

Construction
Potential hazardous materials transported, used, or disposed of during project construction would be limited to commonly used substances such as gasoline, diesel, oil, grease, mechanical fluids, paints, and cleaning solvents. Construction equipment would be serviced by trained technicians and potentially hazardous materials would be stored in secured facilities. Furthermore, the safe handling of these commonly used substances is governed by occupational health and safety laws and regulations and construction contract requirements. Therefore, the use of this equipment and these substances during construction would not present any undue risks to the public or the environment.

Operation
No large quantity hazardous materials users are contemplated as end users of the proposed project.

Project end users would be expected to handle small quantities of commonly used hazardous substances, such as cleaning solvents and fuels, as part of daily operations. Given the small 1232
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 19
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx quantities involved and the characteristics of use (e.g., routine maintenance and cleaning), their use would not be considered a potential risk to human health or the environment. The use of acutely hazardous materials of any quantity that have the potential to result in releases that could potentially expose substantial numbers of people or the environment to harm is not anticipated by project end uses.

Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-12—13).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.7-13). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would not be exposed to hazards or hazardous materials from past uses of the project site.

Cortese List
The project site is not listed on the Cortese List, which includes various hazardous materials databases compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5.

Four sites within 0.5 mile of the project site are listed on the Cortese List. All are listed as “Case Closed,” signifying that the regulatory agency with jurisdiction has determined that no further action is necessary. Thus, they do not pose a risk to human health or the environment.

Agricultural Chemicals
The project site does not support cultivated agriculture. Aerial photographs and historic topographical maps indicate that the project site has not supported cultivated agricultural production. Thus, there is no basis to assume presence of agricultural chemicals, including herbicides and pesticides.

Hazardous Building Materials
The project site does not contain any structures. Aerial photographs and historic topographical maps indicate that the project site has not supported structures. Thus, there is no basis to assume presence of hazardous building materials including asbestos, lead, or PCBs.

Radon
No indoor radon tests performed by the California Department of Health Services in the project site area code, 94503, have indicated indoor radon levels above pCi/l. Moreover, the proposed project proposes slab-on-grade construction, which has a low susceptibility to radon intrusion.

Electromagnetic Fields
There are no high-voltage electrical facilities within 0.5 mile of the project site. As such, the proposed project site would not be exposed to high levels of low-frequency EMFs. 1233
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 20 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not create aviation safety hazards for persons residing or working within 2 miles of the Napa County Airport. (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-13—15).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Errata). No mitigation is necessary.

The 208-acre project site is located 2,400 feet south of the Napa County Airport and is within Zone D of the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan states that most nonresidential uses are considered “normally acceptable” within Zone D. Schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, large shopping malls, amphitheaters, and ponds are identified as “not normally acceptable” within Zone D. In addition, uses that are hazardous to flight are prohibited (i.e., features that attract large numbers of birds and are sources of smoke, glare, distracting lights, or electrical interference). The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) encourages clustering to maximize open land areas and requires limits on building envelopes and building heights on all development plans within 100 feet of approach zones. The proposed project’s end uses are all nonresidential and are acceptable within Zone D. Finally, there are no project attributes that would produce sources of smoke, glare, distracting lights, or electrical interference.

Therefore, the proposed project complies with the applicable safety requirements of Zone D. As such, the proposed project would not create aviation safety hazards for persons residing or working within 2 miles of the Napa County Airport. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.

Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not impair emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-14—15).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.7-15). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1 would have four driveways on Green Island Road and three driveways on Devlin Road providing vehicular access to the project site. Reciprocal access would be provided between the two Phase 1 buildings. Accordingly, the proposed project would provide two points of emergency access in compliance with California Fire Code requirements. Thus, the proposed project would enhance access by emergency responders and would not impair emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, approved, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Draft EIR, Page 4-10).

Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-10). No mitigation is necessary.
1234
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 21
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Facts in Support of Findings
For most topics the geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials analysis is the project area. Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project area would be most affected by project activities. For the transport of hazardous materials, the geographic scope includes local and regional transportation facilities.

The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts associated with hazardous materials because there is no evidence of contamination from past uses, and any use or storage of hazardous materials during construction or operations would be subject to compliance with regulatory requirements and mitigation measures. As with the proposed project, other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects have been and would continue to be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulatory requirements regarding the transport of hazardous materials, clean up of hazardous materials, and the use and storage of hazardous materials during construction and operation. Additionally, hazardous material impacts tend to be localized to individual project sites.

The proposed project would create a wetland preserve in the northern portion of the project site.

Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of a wildlife management plan to minimize the avian attractant potential of the Wetlands Preserve to avoid creating hazards to aviation. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not create a wildlife attractant hazard for the Napa County Airport, because required compliance with the Napa County ALUCP and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations would ensure that inappropriate land uses do not locate near the airport. Additionally, stormwater and landscaping features of the proposed project and other land uses would include management plans to avoid or reduce the potential for wildlife hazards.

1.5.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-2: The proposed project would not deplete the groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge (Draft EIR Pages 3.8-12 –13).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.8-13). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Groundwater Overdraft
The proposed project would not rely on groundwater wells as a water supply source and would not exacerbate groundwater overdraft (to the extent that it exists) or conflict with the provisions of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Groundwater Recharge
The proposed project would result in an increase in additional pervious surfaces. However, the groundwater recharge potential of the project site is limited due to its relatively low elevation and its 1235
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx proximity to the Napa River where groundwater levels tend to be high and soils in the lowest portions of the site are often saturated.

Potential Effect
Impact HYD-3: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems (Draft EIR Pages 3.8-13—14).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.8-14). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface coverage on the project site and would create the potential for increased runoff leaving the project site that may create potential flooding conditions in downstream waterways. However, the proposed project would install a storm drainage system designed for a 15-year storm event. Inlets would capture surface runoff and convey it to four basins which would provide 110,766 square feet (2.6 acres) of stormwater retention.

Additionally, in accordance with Section C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (or more recent permit) as required under MM HYD-1b, the proposed project would implement Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management methods into the on-site storm drainage system consisting of rainwater harvesting and use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment.

These measures would serve to slow, reduce, and meter the volume of runoff leaving the project site and ensure that downstream storm drainage facilities are not inundated with project-related stormwater.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable planned and approved projects in the vicinity, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. (Draft EIR, Page 4-11).

Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-11). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative hydrology and water quality analysis is the No Name Creek watershed, which generally encompasses the area within 0.5 mile of the project site. Hydrologic and water quality impacts tend to be localized to a watershed; therefore, the area within the No Name Creek watershed would be most affected by project activities.

The proposed project would involve short-term construction and long-term operational activities that would have the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies. These activities are subject to regulatory requirements that would ensure no significant adverse impacts would occur. MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b would require implementation of various construction and 1236
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 23
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx operational water quality control measures that would prevent the release of pollutants into downstream waterways. These measures include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit and compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit, including implementation of BMPs and LID features.

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that propose new development have been and would be required to implement similar mitigation measures in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The combined implementation of construction and operation water quality control measures by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, any related cumulative impacts on downstream waterways including the Napa River.

All other project-related hydrology impacts were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation (e.g., groundwater and drainage). Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that result in groundwater and drainage impacts have been and would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations designed to protect groundwater resources and ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided for all projects and include facilities to prevent and reduce runoff from development sites.

1.5.8 - Land Use
Potential Effect
Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not conflict with the applicable provisions of the City of American Canyon General Plan (Draft EIR Pages 3.9-6—48).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.9-48). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
The applicant has developed site design-level plans for Phase 1, the 94.7-acre area east of the Devlin Road extension. This area will support two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet. The Phase 1 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the General Plan. Additionally, Phase 1 would have a 0.26 floor area ratio (FAR) and would be within the General Plan’s allowable FAR of 0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of 0.70 for low labor uses. The proposed high-cube warehouses would have 36 feet clear height and, thus, be within the 40-foot height limit.

Phase 2
Phase 2, the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road, is conceptually proposed for the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse. The Phase 2 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the General Plan. Additionally, Phase 2 would have a 0.26 FAR and would be within the General Plan’s allowable FAR of 0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of

0.70 for low labor uses.
1237
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Phases 1 and 2
Table 3.9-2 of the Draft EIR evaluates Phase 1 and Phase 2 consistency with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the City of American Canyon General Plan. As shown in the table, City staff concludes that the proposed project is consistent with all applicable goals, objectives, and policies.

Potential Effect
Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not conflict with the applicable provisions of the American Canyon Municipal Code (Draft EIR Pages 3.9-48—49).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.9-48). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
The applicant has developed site design-level plans for Phase 1, the 94.7-acre area east of the Devlin Road extension. This area will support two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet. The Phase 1 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for the General Industrial zoning district. Additionally, Phase 1 would have a 0.26 FAR and would be within the Zoning Ordinance’s allowable FAR of 0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of 0.70 for low labor uses. The proposed high-cube warehouses would have 36 feet clear height and, thus, be within the 40-foot height limit set by the Zoning Ordinance.

Phase 2
Phase 2, the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road, is conceptually proposed for the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse. The Phase 2 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for the General Industrial zoning district.

Additionally, Phase 2 would have a 0.26 FAR and would be within the General Plan’s allowable FAR of

0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of 0.70 for low labor uses. Impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development, would not result in a cumulatively significant land use impact. (Draft EIR, Page 4-11 –12).

Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-12). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative land use analysis is the area within 1 mile of the project site.

Existing development in this area is predominantly industrial uses, including the airport. Projects under construction include the Napa Logistics Park Project, which is approved for warehouse and other similar uses. Foreseeable future development in the area includes the Napa Airport Corporate Center and the Devlin Road Transfer Station Construction and Demolition Debris Facility. 1238
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 25
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx The proposed project would be consistent with the American Canyon General Plan, American Canyon Zoning Ordinance, and the Napa County ALUCP because its proposed uses are allowed under these plans. Projects under consideration in the area and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and the ALUCP. Additionally, the proposed project and other nearby development would be and have been required to implement wildlife management plans to ensure compatibility with airport operations.

1.5.9 - Noise
Potential Effect
Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft EIR Pages 3.10-22 –23).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.10-23). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
In general, if groundborne vibration levels do not exceed levels considered perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Because the City of American Canyon does not have quantitative groundborne vibration thresholds for construction or operation, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration impact criteria are utilized to analyze vibration impacts. A significant impact would occur if existing structures at the project site or in the project vicinity would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of levels established by the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for the listed type of structure, as shown in Table

3.10-5 of the Draft EIR.

Construction
Large vibratory rollers could be used in the site preparation phase of construction. This equipment produces groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.201 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment, the greatest groundborne vibration levels of heavy construction equipment that could be used.

The façade of the commercial building south of the project site on Green Island Road would be located approximately 120 feet from the nearest point on the project site where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. This is the nearest off-site receptor to the project construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.008 PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 PPV for this type of structure.

Operation
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity. 1239
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 26 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx The Napa Branch Line railroad is located approximately 130 feet east of the nearest proposed façade of the project. Based on FTA vibration screening criteria, potential groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant for the proposed type of structure. There are no other existing significant permanent sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity to which the proposed project would be exposed.

Potential Effect
Impact NOI-3: The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Draft EIR Page 3.10-24).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.10-24). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The City’s Policy 11.4.1 restricts the development of uses located within the 65 CNEL contour of Napa Airport to industrial, agricultural, or other open space uses. Policy 11.4.2 requires that development in the vicinity of Napa Airport comply with the noise standards contained in the ALUP.

The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. However, the Napa County Airport is located approximately 1 mile north of the project site. The project site is located outside of the 55 dBA CNEL airport noise contours (Draft EIR, Exhibit 3.10-2). Though aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site from aircraft flyovers, aircraft noise associated with nearby airport activity would not expose people residing or working near the project site to excessive noise levels. These noise levels are considered normally acceptable for new industrial land use development within the City as shown in Exhibit 3.10-1 of the Draft EIR.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development, would not result in a cumulatively significant noise impact. (Draft EIR, Page 4-12).

Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-12). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis is the project vicinity, including surrounding sensitive receptors. Noise impacts tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project site (approximately 0.25 mile) would be the area most affected by project activities. Furthermore, given the properties and the distance between other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 1240
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 27
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx development projects (more than 0.5 mile away), project-related noise would not combine with other sources further away.

The proposed project’s construction noise levels may cause a temporary substantial increase in noise levels at nearby receptors. Mitigation is proposed that would require implementation of construction noise attenuation measures to reduce noise levels. Other projects in the project vicinity that could be under construction at the same time as the proposed project (such as Napa Logistics Park Phase 1 and Napa Corporate Center) could combine to expose nearby sensitive receptors to excessive construction noise from trucks and equipment. However, noise is a localized phenomenon, the properties of noise are not additive, construction activities on these projects may not overlap, and all projects would be subject to the City’s noise ordinance requirements and mitigation measures.

The proposed project’s construction and operational vibration levels would not exceed annoyance thresholds. Because vibration is a highly localized phenomenon, there would be no possibility for vibration associated with the proposed project to combine with vibration from other projects because of their distances from the project site.

As discussed in Section 3.9, Noise, of the Draft EIR, after mitigation the proposed project’s vehicular trips would not make a substantial incremental contribution to ambient noise levels under baselinewith-project and future-with-project conditions. These noise levels account for existing vehicle trips as well as vehicle trips from future projects. Furthermore, the proposed project’s contribution to vehicular noise levels would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, which take into account existing noise levels as well as noise from trips associated with other planned or approved projects. Finally, because most of the other projects included within the scope of the transportation analysis are more than 1 mile from the project site, cumulative vehicular trips would be unlikely to add to roadway noise levels in the project vicinity.

1.5.10 - Public Services
Potential Effect
Impact PS-1: The proposed project would not result in a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities that may have physical impacts on the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.11-4 –5).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.11-5). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would be served with fire protection and emergency medical services provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District. While the proposed project would increase the number of calls for service, the Fire District’s existing facilities are adequate to serve the proposed project and there is no need to develop new or expanded fire protection facilities to serve the project.

The proposed project would take vehicular access from Green Island Road and the Devlin Road extension, which is currently under construction. All access points would be accessible to large 1241
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 28 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx emergency vehicles such as fire engines. This would comply with California Fire Code requirements for emergency vehicle accessibility.

The project site is located 3.1 miles from Station 11, via Paoli Loop Road and Green Island Road.

However, emergency responders can avoid Paoli Loop Road by making a left turn directly onto Green Island Road from State Route (SR) 29, reducing the travel distance to 2.2 miles. Assuming a travel speed of 35 miles per hour, response time from Station 11 to the project site would be 3 minutes and 46 seconds. This would be within the Fire District’s 5-minute response time objective. However, congestion on SR-29 may increase travel time such that it exceeds the 5-minute response time objective.

The proposed project would be required to pay a “Fire Mitigation Fee,” a one-time assessment to all new development, and a “Fire Service Fee,” an annual assessment for each parcel. Additionally, the applicant and Fire District have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the applicant to fund Fire District operational shortfalls in perpetuity through the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD).

Potential Effect
Impact PS-2: The proposed project would not result in a need for new or expanded police protection facilities that may have physical impacts on the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.11-5—6).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.11-5). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would be served with police protection provided by the American Canyon Police Department. The proposed project would be surrounded with a secure perimeter and would only be accessible to authorized users via either a mechanical gate with key card access or a manned security booth, depending on the end user. The proposed project would be expected to be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Security measures including exterior lighting, alarm systems, and video surveillance would be employed to deter and prevent criminal activity. The Police Department will have the opportunity to review and comment on security measures during the plan check review process. For these reasons, the proposed project would be expected to generate minimal calls for service and, therefore, would not create a need for new or expanded police facilities.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable developments, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to police protection, fire protection and emergency medical services (Draft EIR, Page 4-13).

Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-13). No mitigation is necessary.
1242
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 29
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Facts in Support of Findings
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The geographic scope of the cumulative fire protection and emergency medical services analysis is the American Canyon Fire Protection District service area, which includes the American Canyon city limits.

The project site is located within 3.1 miles of the nearest fire station and is within an acceptable response time for fire protection (5 minutes or less). As such, the proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities and would not result in a physical impact on the environment. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code, including provision of adequate emergency access points, and it would be accessible to fire apparatus. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the Fire District service area have been and would be reviewed for impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services and have been and would be required to address any potential impact with mitigation. Additionally, the Fire District plans for service needs consistent with existing demands and growth anticipated in the City planning documents.

Police Protection
The geographic scope of the cumulative police protection analysis is the service area of the American Canyon Police Department, which consists of the American Canyon city limits.

The proposed project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the police service area have been and would continue to be reviewed for impacts on police services and also have been and would continue to be required to address any potential impact with mitigation.

Additionally, the Police Department plans for service needs consistent with existing demands and growth anticipated in the City planning documents.

1.5.11 - Transportation
Potential Effect
TRANS-1: The proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Draft EIR Pages 3.12- 13–16).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-16). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phases 1 and 2
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, all study intersections are expected to continue operating at Level of Service (LOS) C or better (Draft EIR, Table 3.12-7). 1243
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 30 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Future Conditions
Future (2040) AM and PM peak-hour volume projections for SR-29/South Kelly Road were derived from a buildout analysis which is contained in the Napa Junction III Transportation Impact Analysis Report, Omni-Means, LTD, 2011. Under the anticipated Future volumes, the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak hours except for SR-29/South Kelly Road, which is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. Future volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.12-5 of the Draft EIR and operating conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-8 of the Draft EIR.

Because SR-29 is exempt from the City’s LOS standard and Caltrans no longer applies an LOS standard, the LOS F operation is considered acceptable. While there are future plans for SR-29 to have three through lanes in each direction through American Canyon, funding has not been identified for this capacity enhancement. Thus, the two through lanes configuration was used for the analysis.

Furthermore, the future year analysis results for facilities along SR-29 (specifically, the intersection of SR-29/South Kelly Road) is deemed to be more conservative than what was presented for this intersection in the Watson Ranch Specific Plan EIR (September 2018) which indicated LOS C and D operation for the AM and PM peak-hours, respectively.

Future Plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the anticipated Future volumes, all unsignalized study intersections are expected to operate acceptably. SR-29/South Kelly Road would continue to operate at LOS F during both peak-hours. Future Plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit

3.12-6 of the Draft EIR and operating conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-8 of the Draft EIR.

As discussed above, there are future plans for SR-29 to have three travel lanes in each direction through American Canyon. As required by the City in its Traffic Impact Fee Program, the proposed project would pay a proportional share fee toward the cost of this planned future infrastructure improvement.

Transit
While existing stops are not located within 0.5 mile of the project site, employees could ride a bicycle along Devlin Road to the nearest transit stop at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Devlin Road. This is consistent with the various City of American Canyon General Plan policies that promote transit accessibility.

Bicycles
Access for bicyclists is provided by Class II bike lanes on Devlin Road between Middleton Way and South Kelly Road together with shared use of minor streets. The proposed project would include bicycle lanes along the project’s Devlin Road frontage and a multimodal path along the north side of Green Island Road. Planned Class I and II bicycle facilities on South Kelly Road and Green Island Road, as well as the Napa Valley Vine Trail along Devlin Road, would improve bicycle connectivity near the project site. This is consistent with the various City of American Canyon General Plan policies that promote bicycle mobility.
1244
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 31
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Pedestrian
Upon completion of the project, sidewalks will be provided along Devlin Road between Green Island Road to South Kelly Road. The proposed project also includes construction of a multimodal path along Green Island Road, which would be available for use by pedestrians. This is consistent with the various City of American Canyon General Plan policies that promote pedestrian mobility.

Potential Effect
TRANS-2: The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (Draft EIR Pages 3.12-16–18).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-18). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phases 1 and 2
The impact of a proposed project is determined by the increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) because of the project. Because the City of American Canyon has no established thresholds of significance related to VMT and the Napa County travel demand model is not currently available for use as a source for VMT analysis, the project-related VMT impacts were quantitatively assessed based on guidance provided by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the publication Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, 2018.

Based on a review of established policies currently used by the OPR, Sacramento County, and the City of San José, a VMT impact would be identified at an industrial project if the project VMT per employee is higher than the regional average VMT per employee. This focus on employee trips, as opposed to truck traffic associated with the proposed land uses, reflects the focus in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 on VMT associated with automobiles and light trucks.

For this study, the regional average VMT is defined as the nine county Bay Area average. As reported by the City of Vallejo in their CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (dated October 2020), the Nine County Bay Area Average VMT per employee is 23 miles per employee. According to Statewide Travel Demand Model estimates, the proposed project is located within a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a projected VMT per employee of 16.24 miles. Because this per capita VMT rate is lower than the significance threshold of 23 miles, the proposed project would be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact. A more conservative methodology sometimes used by OPR for other employment-based land uses states that a project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below the regional average VMT is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Under this methodology the project would be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact since the VMT per employee of 16.24 miles is less than the threshold of 19.55 miles. A summary of the VMT findings is provided in Table 3.12-9 of the Draft EIR.

Potential Effect
TRANS-3: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Draft EIR Pages 3.12-18 –19).
1245
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 32 FirstCarbon Solutions
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-19). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
W-Trans evaluated site access and sight distance for Phase 1 of the proposed project.

Site Access
Vehicular access to Phase 1 would be provided via four driveways on Green Island Road and four driveways on Devlin Road. All driveways and internal roadways would be designed to current City standards to accommodate heavy vehicles, accommodating the access requirements for both emergency and passenger vehicles.

Sight Distance
Sight distances along Green Island Road from the project driveways were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. Based on the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph), the minimum stopping sight distance required is 300 feet; a review in the field shows that sight distances at the project driveway locations on Green Island Road would be adequate, provided any vegetation or buildings are sited to ensure maintenance of adequate sight lines. The sight lines for driveways on the Devlin Road connection are expected to be adequate based on a review of the site plans.

Phase 2
Phase 2 access would be provided via Green Island Road and Devlin Road. Standard design and engineering practices would dictate that driveways would be aligned with those on the opposite side of both Green Island Road Devlin Road and spaced sufficiently from other driveways and the western Green Island Road railroad grade crossing to avoid conflicting turning movements or the creation of safety hazards.

Potential Effect
TRANS-4: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access (Draft EIR Pages

3.12-19–20).

Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-20). No mitigation is necessary.

Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1 and 2
Pursuant to the California Fire Code, a minimum of two points of access would need to be provided to each building. Compliance would ensure that adequate emergency response is provided.

Vehicular access to Phase 1 would be provided via four driveways on Green Island Road and four driveways on Devlin Road. Construction of the Devlin Road extension is expected to be completed by the time Phase 1 is completed. This would provide a parallel north–south route to SR-29, providing an alternative route for emergency response. Vehicular access to Phase 2 would be provided by driveways on Green Island Road and Devlin Road.
1246
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations FirstCarbon Solutions 33
U:\Planning & Building\PLANNING\Planning Commission\PC Reports\PC Reports 2022\11-17-22\Giovannoni Logistics Center\1. Q. 54600001 Giovannoni Logistics Center Project FOF_11-10-22.docx Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable developments, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to transportation (Draft EIR,