December 1, 2022
Sent via email
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
[email protected]
City of American Canyon City Council
City Hall
4381 Broadway Street
American Canyon, CA 94503
[email protected]
Re: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 2021010104)
To Mr. Cooper:
This letter follows several attempts to contact the City of American Canyon (the “City”) regarding the City’s failure to provide notice to the Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) regarding environmental review for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (“Project”), as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Despite the Center’s numerous requests to the City to be placed on the notice list for the Project, the City failed to notify the Center regarding its publication of the environmental documents for the Project and its public hearings to consider the Project. This failure has deprived the Center of the opportunity to comment upon the Project and associated environmental review documents and violates CEQA’s clear mandates to provide notice to interested parties.
The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.
The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in the City of American Canyon and Napa County. The Center frequently participates in environmental review for development projects in California, and frequently reviews and submits comment letters on draft environmental impact reports prepared pursuant to CEQA.
On February 9, 2021, the Center submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the Project and requested to be placed on the City’s notice list for the Project. (Exhibit A.) On April 25, 2022, the Center emailed the City, requested an update on the environmental review process, and again asked to be placed on the notice list. (Exhibit B.) On May 12, 2022, the Center emailed the City again and asked once more to be placed on the notice list. (Exhibit C.) The Center received no response to these emails, nor any update on the Project’s environmental review.
Only via a cold call to Mr. Cooper on November 17, 2022 did the Center learn that the City already published the Project’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”), closed the comment period, published the Final EIR, and that the City’s Planning Commission would be holding a public hearing that same night to make a recommendation on Project approval. The Center emailed the City alerting it to its failure to provide notice to the Center and requested again to be placed on the notice list. (Exhibit D.) The City again did not respond.
To date, the City has not provided the Center with notice of any Project documents, deadlines, hearing dates, or developments, nor has the City explained why it failed to provide notice. The City has no apparent justification for the failure to provide notice. The public record confirms that the City received the Center’s February 9, 2021 NOP comments, which contained the Center’s first request. (DEIR at 1-3.) Furthermore, the Center has directed its emails to Mr.
Cooper, who at all times was and is listed as the City’s planning contact for the Project.
CEQA requires that lead agencies provide notice to the name and last known address of all individuals and organizations that have previously made a written request for such notice. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21092, subd. (b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15087, subd. (a).) The Center has made four written requests. Along with notice, the City is also required to allow time for comments, so that any interested person or group has the opportunity to express its views. (Dixon v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 733; Marin Mun. Water Dist. v. KG Land California Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652 [After DEIR has been completed, it must be made available to interested parties and public for their comments.].) The City has deprived the Center of its opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR.
Should the City approve and certify the Project without first providing adequate time for the Center to comment, it will do so in violation of CEQA. The Center requests that the City recirculate the EIR for at least 45 days1in order to give the Center—and any other potentially interested parties who were not notified of the document’s availability—time to review and comment on the document. At a minimum, the City should postpone the City Council’s hearing to consider and approve the project for at least 45 days from the date of this letter.
Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue legal remedies in order to ensure that the City complies with its legal obligations including those arising under CEQA, we note the City’s statutory duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that 1 CEQA requires that Draft EIRs be published and available for public review and comment for a minimum of 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21091(a), CEQA Guidelines, § 15105.) We request an additional 15 days here due to the fact that the review period will fall during the holiday season.
may constitute part of the “administrative record” of this proceeding. (§ 21167.6(e); Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733.) The administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications that relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v.
Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further includes all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees that relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the Project applicant’s representatives or employees. This includes this letter, and all of the Center’s correspondence to the City requesting to be placed on the notice list for the Project. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.
We request a response to this letter. Please direct your response to me at the email listed below and do not hesitate to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Hallie Kutak
Staff Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
1212 Broadway, Suite #800
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (509) 432-9256
[email protected]
CC:
Mayor Leon Garcia, [email protected]
Vice Mayor Mariam Aboudamous, [email protected] Council Member Mark Joseph, [email protected] Council Member David Oro, [email protected] Council Member Pierre Washington, [email protected] Exhibit A
1 Hallie Kutak
From: Brent Cooper <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 4:53 PM
To: Mary Rassenfoss
Cc: Ross Middlemiss; Grant Gruber; Joe Livaich; Jason Holley; Bill Ross - External; Nicolle Jones
Subject: RE: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an Environment Impact Report for the Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104
Hello Mary,
Thank you for your comments on the Giovanni Logistics Center Project Environment Impact Report Notice of Preparation. I was able to successfully download and access the references.
Sincerely,
Brent Cooper, AICP
Community Development Director
City of American Canyon | Broadway Street, Suite 201 | American Canyon, CA 94503 (707) 647-4335
From: Mary Rassenfoss <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 2:48 PM
To: Brent Cooper <[email protected]>
Cc: Ross Middlemiss <[email protected]> Subject: [External] Comments on Notice of Preparation of an Environment Impact Report for the Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104
Hi Mr. Cooper,
On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, I am submitting these comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environment Impact Report for the Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104 (attached).
We have also mailed a hard copy via FedEx.
References cited are available at the following link: https://centerforbiologicaldmy.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/mrassenfoss_biologicaldiversity_org/EkiFJ9GbXIpFqUS9QiCPkkBNtoGjsQftST1D-eDoGiyGQ?e=wB34Gd.
Please confirm that you’ve received the letter and are able to access the references. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me.
Thanks for your time and consideration,
Mary
--
Mary Rassenfoss
Legal Fellow
Urban Wildlands Program
2 Center for Biological Diversity, Oakland
www.biologicaldiveristy.org
Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update – City Offices Closed, Staff Still At Work As a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic, all American Canyon City offices are closed to the public. By modifying services, using social distancing, and offering assistance and service over the phone, we can do our part to minimize COVID-19 exposure to City staff and the public. Paperwork can be sent by mail to 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503. For more information on COVID-19 and for Virtual City Hall, visit:
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is sent from an official account administered by the City of American Canyon. The information transmitted by this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and attachments from your computer.
February 9, 2021
Sent via email and FedEx
Brent Cooper
Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street
Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
[email protected]
RE: Comments on Notice of Preparation of an Environment Impact Report for the Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104
Mr. Cooper,
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (“the Center”) regarding the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Giovanni Logistics Center Project (“the Project”). The Center urges the City to undertake a thorough and comprehensive environmental review of the Project as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), prior to considering approval. It is essential that the EIR adequately consider the risks the Project might create for local biodiversity, air quality, and water quality, as well as statewide goals to fight climate change. By replacing open space containing a creek and wetlands with 2.4 million square feet of warehouses, the Project will increase traffic and greenhouse gas emissions, and may harm the habitat provided by No Name Creek. (See Notice of Preparation (hereinafter “NOP”) at 2.) The EIR must fully disclose and analyze the Project’s potential impacts to traffic, air quality, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, sensitive species and habitat while thoroughly analyzing all reasonable alternatives, before providing effective and enforceable mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant.
The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law.
The Center has over 81,000 members and online activists throughout California. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Napa County.
Under CEQA, an EIR must provide decision-making bodies and the public with detailed information about the effect a proposed project is likely to have on the environment, list ways in which the significant effects of a project might be minimized, and indicate alternatives to the February 9, 2021
project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002.2.) The proposed Project will build a high-traffic warehouse facility on 208 undeveloped acres that contain a creek and surrounding wetlands. (NOP at 2.) The EIR must fully disclose the impacts of this land use change, so that the public can fully understand the publicly born costs associated with the Project.
I. The EIR Should Adequately Assess and Mitigate the Project’s Impact on Local Traffic
CEQA requires that the EIR fully assess the impact the construction of 2.4 million square feet over high cube warehouse facilities will have on transportation and traffic. (Pub. Res. Code § 21099; NOP at 2.) During construction, all the materials, heavy machinery, and construction workers will need to drive through the community daily, potentially creating disruptive and unpredictable traffic patterns during construction. After completion, the Project will bring additional traffic to the area from trucks picking up goods and 3,643 employees commuting to work in the warehouses. (Betancourt et al. at 4; NOP at 5.) Trucks serving facilities often idle on public streets and clog local roads when warehouses are at capacity, creating traffic congestion and hazards to local drivers who depend on these roads. (See id. at 5.) The City must assess how the traffic increases associated with this project will affect the species in the surrounding area. (Pub. Res. Code § 21099.) As discussed in later sections, traffic congestion can hurt air quality and harm habitat through generating waste that is carried into waterways through stormwater runoff. The potential harms of increased runoff should be carefully considered and mitigated in the EIR. Moreover, even if substantial increased congestion would not result from the Project, the EIR should assess the project’s impact on Vehicle Miles Traveled. (14 CCR § 15064.3(a).) Should the project increase miles driven to obtain goods or because employees will now be commuting to American Canyon from urban centers, the EIR should adopt reasonable mitigation measures, such as subsidizing the use of public transportation or requiring the use of highly efficient or electric trucks to transport goods.
After assessing the Project’s impact on transportation and traffic, the EIR must fully comply with CEQA’s mandates for mitigating the harms associated with increased traffic in the area. Mitigation of a project’s environmental impacts is one of the “most important” functions of CEQA and it is the “policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.” (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41; Pub. Res. Code § 21002.) Particular care should be taken to ensure that the traffic impacts of this project are fully assessed and mitigated, because there are already many warehouses drawing trucks to the area, including an Ikea Customer Fulfilment Center, the Napa Logistics Part, Groskopf Warehouse and Logistics, and Vinfolio Wine Storage. (See NOP at 9.)
The Project should be designed to avoid congestion caused by truck staging on local roads and limit the number of trucks travelling during normal commuting hours to avoid serious harm to locals who rely on nearby roads. Moreover, the City must ensure the EIR includes mitigation for the traffic that construction of such a large project would likely cause.
February 9, 2021
II. The EIR Should Assess and Mitigate the Impacts of the Project on Climate Change-Causing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In addition to assessing the impact on traffic, the EIR should carefully consider the project’s effects on statewide goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Where a project will generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, the EIR should describe the expected increase in emissions and discuss mitigation measures. (Sierra Club v. Gilroy City Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30, 41; Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 430-34; Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002; 21083.5.) Major warehouse projects have the documented effect of substantially increasing construction, operation, and vehicle-related emissions, all of which produce climate changecausing greenhouse gases. (Betancourt et al. at 4-5; USEPA 2018.) The EIR must carefully and completely address both the impacts on emissions from construction and operation of the plant, and those from vehicle miles traveled by trucks transporting goods to and from the warehouse and commuting employees.
To mitigate the known environmental harms of warehouse projects, the EIR should identify specific measures that the developers will take to minimize any increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the Project. These measures should include sustainability measures, like ensuring roofs are white to minimize the need for air conditioning and including rooftop solar for energy production. (Betancourt et al. at 6.) Moreover, the Project should incorporate features to minimize vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions, like electric vehicle charging stations and phasing out old and inefficient trucks in favor of electric vehicles. (Id.) Mitigation measures must be “fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures” so “that feasible mitigation measures will actually be implemented as a condition of development.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1261.) Mitigation measures should be designed so benefits are realized by the local community and could include funding zero emission public transit, solar installations on residential homes, or providing publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Finally, the EIR must fully describe the greenhouse gases the warehouse’s construction will produce and outline all feasible mitigation measures that will be taken to address them.
Construction of such a large warehouse will require substantial quantities of construction materials, such as concrete. Cement and concrete manufacture is extremely energy intensive and produces a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions. (Masanet et al. at 89.) Concrete manufacturing accounts for roughly 3 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. (Id.) This and other sources of greenhouse gas and particulate emissions—such as dust and emissions from heavy machinery used during construction—should be thoroughly examined and mitigated in the EIR.
III. The EIR Should Carefully Assess and Mitigate the Project’s Impacts on Air Quality
The EIR must also carefully consider the effects of a project of this scale on air quality for local communities. Warehouse projects are well-documented sources of air quality degradation that can create serious, negative health outcomes for communities. (Betancourt et al.
February 9, 2021
4-5.) Particulate emissions from diesel vehicles that carry freight to and from warehouses contribute to “cardiovascular problems, cancer, asthma, decreased lung function and capacity, reproductive health problems, and premature death.” (Id. at 5.) While the Warehouse is surrounded largely by industrial activity, a school and little league field are located just over a half mile from the project and the nearest homes are just over a mile away. (See NOP 9-11.) Although the current Diesel and PM 2.5 exposure is not particularly high in this region, the community in the census tract, 15 percent of which is children under 10, where the Project is sited currently ranks 81st in the prevalence of hazardous waste storage and disposal and 97th in the prevalence of solid waste disposal statewide.
1 Both hazardous and solid waste worsen air
quality, creating environmental and health risks, so the compounded risk of further contributing to air quality degradation in an area already so burdened should be carefully considered in the EIR and stringent mitigation measure should be adopted. (See California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.)
The City should pay careful attention to the cumulative impacts of additional air pollution in an area with a high existing pollution burden when drafting the EIR. An EIR must discuss the “cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable[.]” (14 CCR § 15130(a).) Even if a project only represents a relatively small contribution to a condition like poor air quality, the EIR must still assess the cumulative impacts of Project completion on unacceptable environmental conditions. (See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 693, 728.) The Project’s effects on air quality should be considered in the context of existing industrial uses on neighboring properties and high hazardous and solid waste pollution burdens.
The effects the Project will have on the air quality in an area with a sizeable existing pollution burden must be fully and carefully considered in the EIR, and mitigation measures must be clearly described and adopted should this Project move forward.
IV. The EIR Should Carefully Assess and Mitigate the Impacts of the Project on Water Quality
The EIR must adequately assess the Project’s effects on the No Name Creek, the wetlands located on the property, and connected bodies of water. (NOP at 3.) Although the City indicates in the NOP that the 47 acres of the property containing the creek and wetlands will be permanently designated as open space, the EIR should detail conservation measures that will be taken to protect the creek from harm caused by runoff from the warehouse and ensure it remains a viable ecosystem. (See NOP at 2-3.) This inquiry should detail at a minimum the municipal control over activities on privately held land, associated impacts on sensitive biological resources, habitat connectivity, and the efficacy of proposed mitigation measures.
First, mitigation measures for preserving the on-site wetlands should include adequate buffer zones between built features (like roads and buildings) and the wetland habitat. The terrestrial land surrounding wetlands is essential for both preserving water quality by serving as a water filter and providing upland habitat for wetland-dwelling species. (Semlitsch & Bodie at 1 Id.
February 9, 2021
1220.) To ensure that wetland habitat and water quality are preserved, the EIR should ensure there are sufficient buffer zones surrounding No Name Creek and its wetlands to maintain the quality of the creek and surrounding wetlands.
Moreover, the EIR must detail long-term management plans for the creek and wetlands, as well as measures that will be taken to protect the creek from the long-term effects of operating warehouses nearby. Notably, there is evidence that roadway runoff produced by the vehicles that will be picking up and dropping off goods significantly contributes to water pollution. (See Nixon & Saphores at 1.) Sediments from construction and road erosion, oils from car operation, heavy metals from exhaust, and anti-freeze and other chemicals all can be carried into streams by stormwater runoff. (See Nixon & Saphores at 1-2; Shore Stewards.) Additionally, the construction of the warehouses on the property will likely leave behind significant quantities of loose sediment from grading and excavation that can runoff into water and significantly harm wetlands by increasing turbidity, which harms plant growth and destroys habitat for fish species. (See id. at 1-2; Shore Stewards.) Spoils from grading must be properly disposed of, and adequate erosion control and spill prevention measures should be implemented to avoid impacts to adjacent wetlands.
The EIR should fully detail the potential risks to water quality operation and construction of the warehouses may cause and adopt binding mitigation measures to minimize these harms.
V. Biological Resources
The Center requests that thorough, seasonal surveys be performed for sensitive plant species and vegetation communities, and animal species under the direction and supervision of resource agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (“CDFW”). Full disclosure of survey methods and results to the public and other agencies without limitations imposed by the applicant must be implemented to assure full CEQA and California Endangered Species Act compliance, as well as compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations.
Confidentiality agreements or non-disclosure agreements regarding environmental resources must not be required of any biologists participating in the surveys in support of the proposed project. Surveys for the plants and plant communities should follow California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) and CDFW floristic survey guidelines2and should be documented as recommended by CNPS policy guidelines.3 A full updated floral inventory of all species encountered needs to be documented and included in the EIR. Surveys for animals should include an evaluation of resources including but not limited to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System’s (“CWHR”) Habitat Classification. All rare species (plants and animals) need to be documented with a California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) form and submitted to CDFW using the CNDDB Form4as per the State’s instructions.5 2 California Native Plant Society, Botanical Survey Guidelines, https://cnps.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf/. 3 CNPS, http://www.cnps.org/cnps/archive/collecting.php. 4 CDFW, California Natural Diversity Data Base, Online Field Survey Form, https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data.
February 9, 2021
The Center requests that the vegetation maps be at a large enough scale to be useful for evaluating the impacts. Vegetation/wash habitat mapping should be at such a scale to provide an accurate accounting of wash areas and adjacent habitat types that will be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed activities. A half-acre minimum mapping unit size is recommended, such as has been used for other development projects. Habitat classification should follow CNPS’ Manual of California Vegetation. (Sawyer et. al. 2009).
VI. The EIR Should Completely Assess and Outline Mitigation Measures for the Project’s Impact on Biological Resources
The Project site encompasses an area of significant ecological value and provides important open space for the growth of native plant species. Many rare California plants and animals thrive in this area of Napa County and the construction of the Project may further encroach on their shrinking available habitat. The EIR must fully analyze the direct and indirect impacts on the Project on the area’s biological resources.
A fully CEQA-compliant EIR must contain a complete and up-to-date plant and wildlife survey of the potentially impacted habitats. (14 CCR § 15125.) The adequacy of a Project’s EIR will depend in part on properly describing the physical environmental conditions in and around the Project site; this must include a full accounting of the biological resources that may be affected by the Project. (14 CCR § 15125; Pub. Res. Code § 21060.5; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Ctr. v County of Stanislaus, 27 Cal. App. 4th 713, 723, 729 (1994) [finding EIR analysis inadequate without “accurate and complete information pertaining to the setting of the project and surrounding uses[,]” particularly pertaining to a nearby wildlife preserve].)
6 A number of species utilize habitat around the Project site; a complete survey is necessary to allow decision-makers and the public to fully comprehend the scope of the Project’s impacts.
Rare plant species that have been documented in the Cutting’s Wharf and Cordelia quadrants near the Project include the following species and rare communities and need to be addressed in the DEIR:7
5 Id. see “User Guide.”
6 Id.
7 CNDDB accessed Jan. 26, 2021.
February 9, 2021
Where any of the above-listed plants are present or potentially present on the proposed Project site should receive close attention in the EIR.8 Both these rare plants thrive in the grasslands and marsh like those currently present at the Project site. 9 The construction of
warehouses on the majority of the existing open space could significantly impact potential habitat for these species. Should a biological survey identify these plants on the property, an adequate significance analysis and, if necessary, all feasible mitigation measures should be adopted in the EIR.
Beyond posing a risk to habitat for the rare plant species in the area, the Project risks encroaching on the critical habitat for endangered branchiopods. The Project site is adjacent to the Napa River core vernal pool recovery area identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 8 Id.
9 Id.
February 9, 2021
Vernal Pool Recovery Plan. (Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems, Fig. III-13c.) This core recovery area is also designated critical habitat for the threatened Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi).
10 As noted in the Recovery Plan, habitat protection is essential to restoring vernal pools and species that rely on them. (Id. at IX.) In preparing the EIR, the City must take careful steps to fully assess and take all feasible steps to avoid harm to vernal pool habitats that the Project may cause, including potential harm to water quality or hydrology, habitat reduction due to construction, or any other harm that can be identified through study. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c); 14 CCR 15126.4.) To the extent possible, the Project should avoid harm to Vernal Pool habitat in the first instance, since restoration is difficult and costly and recreation attempts often fail. (Schlatter et al. at 146). Moreover, the City should carefully ensure compliance with the guidelines of the Vernal Pool Recovery plan. (See Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems.).
Additionally, the project is located near the mouth of the Napa River and San Pablo Bay Wildlife Refuge, which provides essential habitat for local biodiversity. 11 The refuge serves as
marshland habitat for species like the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris).
12 The Project falls in the Mouse’s current range,13 so particular attention should be paid in the EIR to whether Mouse habitat would be harmed or destroyed by construction of the Project or the related, planned expansion of local roads to service the project. (See NOP at 2.).
Moreover, the waters at the mouth of the Napa River are critical habitat for the threatened North American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris)
14 and the endangered Steelhead Trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss).
15 Whether the construction of the Project would affect the viability of these waters as habitat for these two species of fish should also be carefully evaluated. Finally, the San Pablo Bay wetlands are home to many species of birds and a key stopping point for many migratory birds.
16 The Project’s potential impacts on these bird species should be carefully detailed and appropriate mitigation measures should be adopted in the EIR.
Finally, the EIR should include assessments of whether any other special-status species may be located in the area. This assessment should include, but not be limited to, determinations of whether the California Ridgeway’s Rail,17 California red-legged frog,18 and Western Pond turtle19 rely on the project site for habitat, as the Project falls within the species’ range. The EIR should carefully assess whether any of these species rely on habitat that would be harmed by the complete of the Project and outline mitigation measures to reduce this harm. 10https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498; https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/498#crithab. 11 https://www.fws.gov/refuge/San_Pablo_Bay/map.html
12 https://www.fws.gov/refuge/San_Pablo_Bay/wildlife_and_habitat/index.html; https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/613.
13 Id.
14 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/green-sturgeon 15 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/endangered-species-conservation/northern-california-coast-steelhead; https://www.webapps.nwfsc.noaa.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=7514c715b8594944a6e468dd25aaa cc9.
16 https://www.fws.gov/refuge/San_Pablo_Bay/seasons_of_wildlife/index.html 17 https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Accounts/Birds/ridgway_rail/ 18 http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/r.draytonii.html 19 www.californiaherps.com/turtles/pages/a.marmorata.html February 9, 2021
VII. The EIR Must Thoroughly Consider Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives The EIR must present and consider “a range of reasonable alternatives . . . which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project” in order to facilitate “informed decision-making and public participation.” (14 CCR § 15126.6(a).) The EIR’s alternative analysis should assess the proposed size and location of the Project. The EIR should also assess whether there is sufficient need for another warehouse in this region. Importantly, even if alternatives are costly or would interfere with achievement of some of the project goals, they should be considered if they can substantially reduce the environmental harms of the project. (14 CCR §15126.6(b).) Moreover, the City should avoid adopting overly narrow project objectives to attempt to avoid a broad analysis of alternative mechanisms for achieving the Project’s purpose. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.4th 647, 669.) VIII. Other Impacts that must be analyzed in the EIR
In addition to those issues raised above, the EIR must also thoroughly address a variety of other related issues. For example, the EIR must fully disclose and analyze the Project’s impacts on aesthetics and noise, and discuss alternatives and effective mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, and mitigate these impacts. Additionally, it is essential that the EIR consider the cumulative effects of the Project, such as air quality and traffic, in light of the many existing warehouses nearby. (See NOP at 9-11.)
IX. Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Giovanni Logistics Center. The environmental effects of the Project will include direct and indirect impacts on traffic, climate change, air and water quality, and biological resources. Evaluation of each of these impacts as well as analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives and mitigation measures must be included in the EIR.
Given the possibility that the Conservation Groups will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record.” As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the Applicant’s representatives or employees.
Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made.
February 9, 2021
Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below.
Sincerely,
Ross Middlemiss, Staff Attorney
Mary Rassenfoss, Legal Fellow
1212 Broadway, Suite #800
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: (510) 844-7100
[email protected]
February 9, 2021
References
Association of Environmental Professionals. (2020). 2020 CEQA Statute & Guidelines Book.
Available at: https://www.califaep.org/statute_and_guidelines.php.
Betancourt, S. & Vallianatos, M. (Jan. 2012). Storing Harm: The Health and Community Impacts of Goods Movement Warehousing and Logistics. The Impact Project Policy Brief Series. Available at: https://envhealthcenters.usc.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Storing-Harm.pdf.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (accessed Jan. 28, 2021).
Hazardous Waste Generators and Facilities. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/hazardous-waste-generators-and-facilities California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. (accessed Jan. 28, 2021). Solid Waste Sites and Facilities. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/solid-waste-sites-and-facilities City of American Canyon. (Jan. 12, 2021). Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Public Scoping Meeting. Available at:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2021010104/2.
City of Suisun City, California. (Jan. 6, 2021). Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Public Scoping Meeting. Available at:
https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/266947-
2/attachment/hE6d7qSGh7HHUmNn1X_zcNgTp2iQgswnHRjYgJTnpEmbH41orCV6M k47SwLRiOT5t9q1ildT8AGBdtGL0.
City of Suisun City Development Services Department. (Dec. 18, 2020). Requests for Proposals for the Preparation of an EIR and Project Planning Services for the Highway 12 Logistics Center. Available at: https://www.suisun.com/wpcontent/files/Highway_12_Logistics_EIR__Planning_RFP.pdf.
Manaset, E.; Price, L.; de la Rue du Can, S. (2005). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Product Life Cycle Optimization, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division. Available at:
https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2005/data/papers/SS05_Panel04_Paper08.pdf.
Nixon, H. & Saphores, J.D. (2007). Impact of Motor Vehicle Operation on Water Quality in the United States: Clean-up Costs and Policies. UC Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4bv8v8gj.
Shore Stewards: Washington State University Extension. (Accessed Feb. 2, 2021).
Understanding the Impacts of Runoff. Available at:
https://shorestewards.cw.wsu.edu/faq/understanding-the-impacts-of-runoff/ February 9, 2021
Schlatter, K.J., Collinge, S.K., & Faist, A.M. (March 2016). Using Performance Standards to Guide Vernal Pool Restoration and Adaptive Management. Restoration Ecology.
Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291553484_Using_performance_standards_to_ guide_vernal_pool_restoration_and_adaptive_management.
Semlitsch, R. D., & Bodie, J. R. (2003). Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology, 17(5), 1219–1228. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02177.x.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, accessed Jan. 26, 2021). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhousegas-emissions.
Documents Referenced Available at: https://centerforbiologicaldmy.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/mrassenfoss_biologicaldiversity_org/EkiFJ9GbXIpFqUS9QiCPkkBNtoGjsQftST1D-eDoGiyGQ?e=wB34Gd Exhibit B
From: Theresa Rettinghouse <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Aruna Prabhala <[email protected]>
Subject: Please add to notification list for Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104 Good morning Mr. Cooper,
notification list for the Center for Biological Diversity for new documents released for the Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104.
Mr. Middlemiss submitted a Notice of Preparation of EIR on February 9, 2021 via email and Fedex.
Do you know the estimated timeline for the release of the DEIR? Best regards,
Theresa
Theresa Rettinghouse
(she/her/hers)
Urban Wildlands Paralegal
Center for Biological Diversity
[email protected]
Ph: 510-844-7100 ext 320
1212 Broadway St., Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Exhibit C
From: Theresa Rettinghouse <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 4:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Aruna Prabhala <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Please add to notification list for Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104 Good afternoon Mr. Cooper,
I am following up on the email sent on 4/25/22.
Mr. Middlemiss is not working at the Center for Biological Diversity as of 5/9/22. Please make the changes requested in the previous email.
estimated timeline for the release of the DEIR?
Thank you,
Theresa
From: Theresa Rettinghouse <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 11:52 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Aruna Prabhala <[email protected]>
Subject: Please add to notification list for Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104 Good morning Mr. Cooper,
notification list for the Center for Biological Diversity for new documents released for the Giovanni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104.
Mr. Middlemiss submitted a Notice of Preparation of EIR on February 9, 2021 via email and Fedex.
Do you know the estimated timeline for the release of the DEIR? Best regards,
Theresa
Theresa Rettinghouse
(she/her/hers)
Urban Wildlands Paralegal
Center for Biological Diversity
[email protected]
Ph: 510-844-7100 ext 320
1212 Broadway St., Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612
Exhibit D
1 Hallie Kutak
From: Hallie Kutak
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2022 2:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Theresa Rettinghouse; Frances Tinney
Subject: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, SCH # 2021010104 Attachments: 2022-04-25 Email to B. Cooper re Giovanni Logistics Center Project.pdf; 2022-05-12 Email to B Cooper for Giovanni Logistics Center Project.pdf Mr. Cooper,
I am writing regarding the Giovannoni Project. The Center submitted NOP comments on February 9, 2021 and asked to be placed on the notice list. On April 25, 2022, the Center again emailed the City at your email address asking for an update on the environmental review process and to be placed on the notice list. We received no response. For a third time, on May 12, 2022, the Center emailed you asking to be placed on the notice list. Again, we received no response. Those emails are attached.
The Center learned, via a phone call to the Planning Department, that the Final EIR was released, and that the Planning Commission heard whether to recommend approval last Thursday, on November 17, 2022. The Center was never notified. As you know, CEQA requires notice to the public and interested stakeholders. The City did not provide us with notice, nor has the City explained why it did not provide us with notice. Could you please explain why the City failed to provide us notice of the release of the DEIR and FEIR? Also, given that the Center did not receive notice, the Center will need time to review the FEIR and provide comments, prior to project approval. When does the City plan to present the project to City Council? Thanks,
Hallie
Hallie Kutak
Staff Attorney
Urban Wildlands Program
CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
510-844-7117
[email protected]