American Canyon City Council
February 21, 2023

1 2616

fee, the Project would contribute a “fair share” amount of $2.5 million in revenue toward the cost of new facilities.

The Fire District looks forward to working both with the developer and the City as this project progresses through the current development approval process.

Sincerely,
Geoff Belyea
Fire Chief














1 CONT
ACFPD

2617
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-35 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 Local Government
American Canyon Fire Protection District–ACFPD
Response to ACFPD-1
ACFPD provided introductory remarks and indicated that the proposed project’s revenues would not be enough to offset its demand, which would result in an annual operating deficit. ACFPD identified the establishment of benefit assessment district as a potential solution for this issue. In addition, the Fire Protection District indicated that the proposed project, along with other planned development, would trigger the need for a “North” fire station and related apparatus. The ACFPD noted that the proposed project would contribute $2.5 million in one-time fees toward the cost of new facilities.

Fiscal impacts are outside the scope of the Draft EIR as they do not have physical impacts on the environment.

The new “North” fire station is addressed in Master Response 2. 2618

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2619
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
PO Box 18 Brooks, California 95606 p) 530.796.3400 f) 530.796.2143 www.yochadehe.org June 27, 2022
City of American Canyon
Attn: Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director 4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
RE: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project YD-02052021-03
Dear Mr. Cooper:

Thank you for your project notification letter dated, May 20, 2022, regarding cultural information on or near the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project. We appreciate your effort to contact us and wish to respond.

The Cultural Resources Department has reviewed the project and concluded that it is within the aboriginal territories of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation. Therefore, we have a cultural interest and authority in the proposed project area and would like to continue to receive updates on the project.

In addition, please see the attached document with our suggested edits to the Draft EIR.

Should you have any questions, please contact:

CRD Administrative Staff
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
Office: (530) 796-3400
Email: [email protected]
Please refer to identification number YD – 02052021-03 in any correspondence concerning this project.

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer







 




 
 YD-1
PDJH 1 RI 2
1 2620
YD-2
PDJH
2 RI
2 1
2621
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-39 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 Tribal Government
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (YD)
Response to YD-1
The Tribe provided introductory remarks and referenced an attachment with proposed edits to MM CUL-2b. The Tribe provided concluded remarks.

Refer to Response to YD-2.

Response to YD-2
The Tribe provided its proposed edits to MM CUL-2b, which consist of striking the phrase ‘and historical research.’ That change is noted in Final EIR Section 5, Errata. 2622

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2623

BLUM COLLINS & HO, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

AON CENTER
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUTIE 4880
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
(213) 572-0400
A:1



Nicolle Jones
Community Development Department






[email protected]
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
,
"
+


'%%&+*
'&
!'-&&'&!
' !*+!
*

&+)



'


1->
!?
;:1?

(4-:7
E;A
2;>
@41
;<<;>@A:5@E
@;
/;991:@
;:
@41
:B5>;:91:@-8
9<-/@
&1<;>@

&
2;>
@41

<>;<;?10

5;B-::;:5
;35?@5/?
1:@1>
$>;61/@

$81-?1
-//1<@
-:0
/;:?501>
@41?1
/;991:@?
;:
.14-82
;2

;801:
'@-@1
:B5>;:91:@-8
A?@5/1
885-:/1

'

8?;

'
2;>9-88E
>1=A1?@?

@;
.1
-0010
@;
@41
<A.85/
5:@1>1?@
85?@
>13->05:3
-:E
?A.?1=A1:@
1:B5>;:91:@-8
0;/A91:@?
<A.85/
:;@5/1?
<A.85/
41->5:3?
-:0
:;@5/1?
;2
01@1>95:-@5;:
2;>
@45?
<>;61/@

'1:0
-88
/;99A:5/-@5;:?
@;

;801:
'@-@1
:B5>;:91:@-8
A?@5/1
885-:/1
$#
;D


;>;:-





& #(

(41
<>;61/@
<>;<;?1?
@41
/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0
;<1>-@5;:
;2
-

95885;:
?=A->1
2;;@
8;35?@5/?
/1:@1>
;:

-<<>;D59-@18E



-/>1?
;2
@41
-<<>;D59-@18E

-/>1
<>;61/@
?5@1
(41
>19-5:5:3

-/>1?

C;A80
.1
<>1?1>B10
-?
;<1:
?<-/1 C1@8-:0
<>1?1>B1
$4-?1

/;:?5?@?
;2
-<<>;D59-@18E



95885;:

?=A->1
211@
;:
@41
1-?@1>:
<;>@5;:
;2
@41
<>;61/@
?5@1
(45?
->1-
C588
?A<<;>@
@C;
4534/A.1
C->14;A?1
.A5805:3?
@;@-85:3




?=A->1
211@
#:1
;2
@41
.A5805:3?
C;A80
.1
>-58?1>B10
.E
@41
-06-/1:@
"-<-
>-:/4
5:1

$4-?1


/;:?5?@?
;2
-<<>;D59-@18E



95885;:
?=A->1
211@
5:0A?@>5-8
A?1?
;:
@41
C1?@1>:
<;>@5;:
;2
@41
<>;61/@
<<>;D59-@18E

-/>1?
;2
@41
<>;61/@
?5@1
C;A80
.1
<>1?1>B10
-?
C1@8-:0?
(41
<>;61/@
C;A80
1D@1:0
@41
"-<-
*-881E
*5:1
(>-58
-8;:3
@41
<>;61/@
2>;:@-31
C5@4
1B85:
&;-0
-:0
>11:

?8-:0
&;-0

GSEJA

1 2624
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31





#
&
%(
!

#!
"&$
$

$$
"!$
!
!#
(

$81-?1
>121>
@;
-@@-/491:@?
2>;9
'+$
2;>
-
/;9<81@1
@1/4:5/-8
/;991:@->E
-:0
-:-8E?5?

(41

&
0;1?
:;@
5:/8A01
2;>
-:-8E?5?
>181B-:@
1:B5>;:91:@-8
6A?@5/1
5??A1?
5:
>1B51C5:3
<;@1:@5-8
59<-/@?
5:/8A05:3
/A9A8-@5B1
59<-/@?
2>;9
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
(45?
5?
1?<1/5-88E
?53:525/-:@
-?
@41
?A>>;A:05:3
/;99A:5@E
5?
45348E
.A>01:10
.E
<;88A@5;:
//;>05:3
@;
-8:B5>;'/>11:
 

-8$J?
?/>11:5:3
@;;8
@4-@
>-:7?
1-/4
/1:?A?
@>-/@
5:
@41
?@-@1
2;>
<;88A@5;:
-:0
?;/5;1/;:;95/
BA8:1>-.585@E
(41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@J?
/1:?A?
@>-/@
 


-:0
?A>>;A:05:3
/;99A:5@E
5:/8A05:3
>1?501:/1?
@;
@41
1-?@
-:0
?;A@4
.1->?
@41
59<-/@
;2
9A8@5<81
?;A>/1?
;2
<;88A@5;:
-:0
5?
9;>1
<;88A@10
@4-:
-B1>-31
;:
?1B1>-8
<;88A@5;:
5:05/-@;>?
91-?A>10
.E
-8:B5>;'/>11:
;>
1D-9<81
@41
<>;61/@
/1:?A?
@>-/@
>-:7?
5:
@41

>0
<1>/1:@581
2;>
@>-225/
59<-/@?
C45/4
->1
@E<5/-88E
-@@>5.A@10
@;
41-BE
@>A/7
-/@5B5@E
5:
@41
->1-



(41
/1:?A?
@>-/@
-8?;
>-:7?
5:
@41
@4
<1>/1:@581
2;>
?;850
C-?@1
2-/585@E
59<-/@?
C45/4
/-:
1D<;?1
<1;<81
@;
4-F->0;A?
/4195/-8?
>181-?1
@;D5/
3-?1?
5:@;
@41
-5>
1B1:
-2@1>
@41?1
2-/585@1?
->1
/8;?10
-:0
/4195/-8?
/-:
81-/4
5:@;
?;58
->;A:0
@41
2-/585@E
-:0
<;?1
-
41-8@4
>5?7
@;
:1->.E
<;<A8-@5;:?
(41
/1:?A?
@>-/@
-8?;
>-:7?
5:
@41

?@
<1>/1:@581
2;>
@;D5/
>181-?1?
-:0

>0
<1>/1:@581
2;>

4-F->0;A?
C-?@1
59<-/@?

$1;<81
85B5:3
:1->
2-/585@51?
@4-@
195@
@;D5/
>181-?1?
9-E
.>1-@41
/;:@-95:-@10
-5>
>13A8->8E
;>
52
/;:@-95:-:@?
->1
>181-?10
0A>5:3
-:
-//501:@

-F->0;A?
C-?@1

31:1>-@;>?
-:0
2-/585@51?
/;:@>5.A@1
@;
@41
/;:@-95:-@5;:
;2
-5>
C-@1>
-:0
?;58
:1->
C-?@1
31:1>-@;>?
-:0
2-/585@51?
/-:
4->9
@41
1:B5>;:91:@
-?
C188
-?
<1;<81
A>@41>
@41
/1:?A?
@>-/@
5?
-
05B1>?1
/;99A:5@E
5:/8A05:3


?5-:91>5/-:



5?<-:5/

-:0


2>5/-:91>5/-:
>1?501:@?
C45/4
->1
1?<1/5-88E
BA8:1>-.81
@;
@41
59<-/@?
;2
<;88A@5;:

(41
/;99A:5@E
5?
-8?;
1/;:;95/-88E
05?-0B-:@-310

(41
/;99A:5@E
4-?
-
4534
>-@1
;2
8;C
10A/-@5;:-8
-@@-5:91:@
91-:5:3


;2
@41
/1:?A?
@>-/@
;B1>
-31


4-?
:;@
-@@-5:10
-
4534

?/4;;8
05<8;9-
C45/4
5?
-:
5:05/-@5;:
@4-@
@41E
9-E
8-/7
41-8@4
5:?A>-:/1
;>
-//1??
@;
9105/-8
/->1

!105/-8
/->1
5?
B5@-8
2;>
@45?
/1:?A?
@>-/@
-?
5@
>-:7?
5:
@41
 :0
<1>/1:@581
2;>
5:/501:/1
;2

-?@49-
-:0
@4
<1>/1:@581
2;>
5:/501:/1
;2
/->05;B-?/A8->
05?1-?1


/:<D7@='1@33<


6BB>A=366/1/5=D1/:3<D7@=A1@33<@3>=@B1/:3<D7@=A1@33< 



#


'=:72
*/AB3
/17:7B73A
6BB>A=366/1/5=D1/:3<D7@=A1@33<7<271/B=@A=:72E/AB3A7B3A/<2 4/17:7B73A



#


(=F71
&3:3/A3A
6BB>A=366/1/5=D1/:3<D7@=A1@33<7<271/B=@B=F71@3:3/A3A4/17:7B73A


#



/H/@2=CA
*/AB3
3<3@/B=@A
/<2
/17:7B73A

6BB>A=366/1/5=D1/:3<D7@=A1@33<7<271/B=@6/H/@2=CAE/AB353<3@/B=@A/<24/17:7B73A
GSEJA

2a
2b
2c
2625
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31



(41
'@-@1
;2
-852;>:5-
85?@?
@4>11
-<<>;B10
1:1>3E
/;9<85-:/1
9;0185:3
?;2@C->1?
2;>
:;: >1?501:@5-8
.A5805:3?
;9
:1>3E$>;
-:0

'
*

-8!;0
5?
:;@
85?@10
-?
-:

-<<>;B10
?;2@C->1

(41
?<>1-0?411@.-?10
9;0185:3
1:1>3E
/-8/A8-@5;:?
5:
<<1:05D

0;
:;@
/;9<8E
C5@4
@41


A5805:3
:1>3E
225/51:/E
'@-:0->0?
-:0
A:01>
>1<;>@?
@41
<>;61/@J?
<;@1:@5-88E
?53:525/-:@

-:0
:1>3E
59<-/@?
@;
@41
<A.85/
-:0
01/5?5;:
9-71>?

'5:/1
@41
 &

050
:;@
-//A>-@18E
;>
-01=A-@18E
9;018
@41
1:1>3E
59<-/@?
5:
/;9<85-:/1
C5@4
(5@81

-
25:05:3

;2
?53:525/-:/1
9A?@
.1
9-01


>1B5?10

&
C5@4
9;0185:3
5:
;:1
;2
@41
-<<>;B10
?;2@C->1
@E<1?

9A?@
.1
/5>/A8-@10
2;>
<A.85/
>1B51C
5:
;>01>
@;
-01=A-@18E
-:-8EF1
@41
<>;61/@J?
<;@1:@5-88E
?53:525/-:@
1:B5>;:91:@-8
59<-/@?

(45?
5?
B5@-8
-?
@41
 &
A@585F1?
-8!;0
-?
-
?;A>/1
5:
5@?

91@4;0;8;3E
-:0
-:-8E?5?
C45/4
5?
/81->8E
:;@
;:1
;2
@41
-<<>;B10
?;2@C->1?
(41

&
/;:/8A01?
@4-@
@41
<>;61/@
C588
:;@
>1?A8@
5:
?53:525/-:@

59<-/@?
.1/-A?1
5@

5:/;><;>-@1?
01?53:
-:0
;<1>-@5;:-8
21-@A>1?
85?@10
C5@45:
@41
%!’?

?53:525/-:/1

@4>1?4;80?

(;
-/451B1
81??@4-:?53:525/-:@
?@-@A?
C5@4
%!’?
@4>1?4;80
@41
 &
?@-@1?

@4-@
@41
<>;61/@
/;9<851?
C5@4
@41
>1=A5>191:@
@;
H/451B1
-
>10A/@5;:
5:
<>;61/@31:1>-@10
B145/81
9581?
@>-B1810
*!(
.18;C
@41
>135;:-8
-B1>-31I


;C1B1>
@41
(>-:?<;>@-@5;:
-:-8E?5?
4-?
:;@

-:-8EF10
-88
<>;61/@31:1>-@10
*!(

(41
*!(
-:-8E?5?
1D/8A01?
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7?

?
?@-@10
.18;C
5:
@41
(>-:?<;>@-@5;:
05?/A??5;:
@41
*!(
-:-8E?5?
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7?
5:
;>01>
@;
-01=A-@18E
-:0
-//A>-@18E
-:-8EF1
-88
<>;61/@31:1>-@10
*!(

(41
;<1>-@5;:-8
:-@A>1
;2
5:0A?@>5-8 C->14;A?1
A?1?
5:B;8B1?
4534
>-@1?
;2
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7 @>-581> 2>1534@
*!(
0A1
@;
@>-B185:3
2>;9
8->31
>135;:-8
05?@>5.A@5;:
/1:@1>?
@;
?9-881>
5:0A?@>5-8
<->7?
-:0
@41:
@;
@415>
25:-8
0185B1>E
01?@5:-@5;:?
(41
<>;61/@J?
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7 @>-581> 2>1534@
-/@5B5@E
5?
A:-.81
@;
A@585F1
<A.85/
@>-:?5@
;>
-/@5B1
@>-:?<;>@-@5;:




 
C7:27<5
<3@5G
447173<1G
'B/<2/@2A
>>@=D32
=;>CB3@
=;>:7/<13
$@=5@/;A
/:74=@<7/
<3@5G
=;;7AA7=<
6BB>AEEE3<3@5G1/5=D>@=5@/;A/<2B=>71A>@=5@/;A0C7:27<53<3@5G 3447173<1GAB/<2/@2A
 0C7:27<53<3@5G3447173<1G





/G
@3/
7@
%C/:7BG
!/</53;3<B
7AB@71B
$@=>=A32
%
(6@3A6=:2A
4=@
D/:C/B7<5
B63
'75<7471/<13
=4
:7;/B3

;>/1BA
4@=;
/<2
)A3
$@=831BA
/<2
$:/<A

6BB>A17D711:3@90:=01=@3E7<2=EA<3BAB@3/;%! /4 0 0

/3


1
303/44
>24AD



A@0A75,;%
762) 3=4;4 :H@0 B#&,D6
C7
1@+26%
AB



( 





-A3


( 




-A>@@A11<=
1/163@A1B/>>:71/B7=<
>24



/G
@3/
7@
%C/:7BG
!/</53;3<B
7AB@71B

CAB7471/B7=<
&3>=@B
%
(6@3A6=:2A
4=@
D/:C/B7<5
B63
'75<7471/<13
=4
:7;/B3

;>/1BA
4@=;
/<2
)A3
$@=831BA
/<2
$:/<A


6BB>A17D711:3@90:=01=@3E7<2=EA<3BAB@3/;%!2 0/ 3

3 4

04 
4 2
/
2
1>24AD



A@0A752
*6("
+C='#=G$
5;:
E$#HF
7-
&?#?
"G
AB



( 



-A3


( 



-A>@@A11<=
1/163@A1B/>>:71/B7=<
>24

GSEJA

2d
2e
2626
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31


-:0
5@
5?
95?81-05:3
@;
@41
<A.85/
-:0
01/5?5;:
9-71>?
@;
1D/8A01
@45?
-/@5B5@E
2>;9
*!(
-:-8E?5?


>1B5?10

&
9A?@
.1
<>1<->10
@;
>1281/@
-
=A-:@52510
*!(
-:-8E?5?
@4-@
5:/8A01?
-88
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7 @>-581> 2>1534@
-/@5B5@E
@;
-01=A-@18E
-:0
-//A>-@18E
-:-8EF1
@41
<;@1:@5-88E
?53:525/-:@
<>;61/@
@>-:?<;>@-@5;:
59<-/@?
(41
>1B5?10
*!(
-:-8E?5?
9A?@
.1
A@585F10
@;
>1B5?1
@41

-:-8E?5?
@;
01@1>95:1
52
@41
<>;61/@31:1>-@10
*!(
5?

.18;C
@41
<>1?/>5.10
@4>1?4;80



005@5;:-88E
-?
05?/A??10
@4>;A34;A@
@45?
/;991:@
81@@1>
@41
 &
>1851?
A<;:
@41
/;9.5:10

C;>72;>/1
;2
"-<-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@51?
@;
2588
@41
<>;61/@J?
;<1>-@5;:-8
6;.?

&18E5:3
A<;:
@41
1:@5>1
8-.;>
2;>/1
;2
"-<-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@51?
3>1-@8E
1D/110?
@41


9581?
;2
*!(
<1>

19<8;E11
A@585F10
.E
@41
(>-:?<;>@-@5;:
-:-8E?5?
@;
01@1>95:1
@41
<>;61/@
C588
:;@
4-B1
-
?53:525/-:@
59<-/@
;:
*!(

"-<-
;A:@E
5?

?=A->1
9581?
5:
->1-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@E
5?
 

?=A->1
9581?
5:
->1-

&18E5:3
;:
@41
1:@5>1
8-.;>
2;>/1
;2
"-<-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@51?
@;
2588
@41
<>;61/@J?
/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0
;<1>-@5;:-8
6;.?
C588
5:/>1-?1
*!(
-:0

195??5;:?
0A>5:3
-88

<4-?1?
;2
/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0
;<1>-@5;:?
-:0
@41

-:-8E?5?
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
-//;A:@
2;>
8;:31>

C;>71>
@>5<
05?@-:/1?





!
$
(-.81




1:1>-8
$8-:
;:?5?@1:/E
:-8E?5?
<>;B501?
95?81-05:3
/;:?5?@1:/E
-:-8E?5?
C5@4

1:1>-8
$8-:
3;-8?
<;85/51?
-:0
;.61/@5B1?
-0;<@10
C5@4
@41
<A><;?1
;2
-B;505:3
;>
95@53-@5:3
-:
1:B5>;:91:@-8
1221/@
5:/8A05:3
@41
2;88;C5:3

#.61/@5B1



$>;9;@1
-
>-@1
;2
3>;C@4
@4-@
5?
/;:?5?@1:@
C5@4
@41
-.585@E
;2
@41
5@E
@;
<>;B501
-01=A-@1
5:2>-?@>A/@A>1
-:0
?1>B5/1?
-:0
0;1?
:;@
-0B1>?18E
59<-/@
@41
05?@5:/@5B1
/4->-/@1>
-:0
=A-85@E
;2
8521
5:
91>5/-:
-:E;:



&$.*!*

;:?5?@1:@
(41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
C;A80
01B18;<


95885;:
?=A->1
211@
;2
:1C
5:0A?@>5-8
A?1?
;:

-
?5@1
01?53:-@10
2;>
?A/4
A?1
8;/-@10
C5@45:
@41
91>5/-:
-:E;:
/5@E
8595@?
(41
<>;61/@
?5@1
5?
8;/-@10
C5@45:
@41

>11:

?8-:0
A?5:1??
$->7
-:0
5?
?A>>;A:010
.E
A>.-:
A?1?
-:0
5:2>-?@>A/@A>1
;:
@4>11
?501?
(4A?
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
C;A80
;//A>
5:
-:
->1-
C41>1
-01=A-@1
5:2>-?@>A/@A>1
-:0
?1>B5/1?
1D5?@
?A/4
@4-@
5@
C;A80
:;@
1D/110
@41
5@E’?
-.585@E
@;
?1>B1
5@
;991:@?
'11
05?/A??5;:
.18;C
>13->05:3
-:0
)?1
8191:@
$-31



1B18;<91:@
-<-/5@E

(-.81

#.61/@5B1



:/>1-?1
@41
:A9.1>
;2
25>9?
C5@45:
@41
5:0A?@>51?
:;C
>1<>1?1:@10
5:
@41
5@E
-:0
/-<@A>1
:1C
/81-:
:;:<;88A@5:3
5:0A?@>51?
@4-@
->1
[email protected]
-:0
/;9<[email protected]
C5@4
5@E
:110?
5:
@1>9?
;2
@>-225/
-5>
=A-85@E
-:0
19<8;E91:@


GSEJA

2e
2f
3a
3b
2627
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31




&$.*!*

;:?5?@1:@
(41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
C;A80
01B18;<


95885;:
?=A->1
211@
;2
4534/A.1
C->14;A?1

;:
-:
-<<>;D59-@18E

-/>1
?5@1
5:
@41

>11:

?8-:0
A?5:1??
$->7
(41?1
@E<1?
;2
A?1?

/A>>1:@8E
1D5?@
C5@45:
@41
5><;>@

:0A?@>5-8
>1-
005@5;:-88E
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
5?
1?@59-@10
@;
/>1-@1



:1C
6;.?
(41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
C;A80
59<8191:@
@>-225/
59<>;B191:@?
@;
95@53-@1
2;>
59<-/@?
;:
@>-225/
;<1>-@5;:?

;991:@?
(41

&
/;:/8A01?
@41
<>;61/@
C588
>1?A8@
5:
?53:525/-:@
-:0
A:-B;50-.81
/A9A8-@5B18E
/;:?501>-.81
59<-/@?
@;
5>
%A-85@E

(41

&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
@45?
2-/@
2;>
/;:?5?@1:/E
-:-8E?5?
-:0
5:/8A05:3
-
25:05:3
;2
?53:525/-:/1
0A1
@;
5:/;:?5?@1:/E
C5@4
@45?
;.61/@5B1
5>/A8-@5;:
8191:@
$;85/E



&10A/1
*145/81
!581?
(>-B1810
(4>;A34
8-E;A@
;2
8-:0
A?1?
59<>;B10
-8@1>:-@1
9;01?
-:0
<>;B5?5;:
;2
9;>1
05>1/@
>;A@1?
?@>5B1
@;
>10A/1
@41
@;@-8
B145/81
9581?
@>-B1810
.E
5@E
>1?501:@?




&$.*!*

;:?5?@1:@
(41
<>;61/@
?5@1
5?
8;/-@10
C5@45:
@41
"-<-
;A:@E
5><;>@
:0A?@>5-8
>1-
C45/4
4-?

/;:B1:51:@
-//1??
@;
'&

-:0
'&

(41
01B18;<91:@
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@’?


95885;:

?=A->1
211@
;2
4534/A.1
C->14;A?1
5?
C5@45:
@41
";>@4
-E
&135;:
-:0
C;A80
/;:@>5.A@1
@;
>10A/5:3
@>5<
81:3@4
.E
8;/-@5:3
@41?1
2-/585@51?
/8;?1>
@;
/A?@;91>?
C5@45:
@45?
>135;:
5:-88E
@41
01B18;<91:@
;2
A<
@;



:1C
6;.?
5:
-
4;A?5:3>5/4
<->@
;2
@41
-E
>1-
>135;:
C;A80
-88;C
19<8;E11?
@;
C;>7
/8;?1>
@;
C41>1
@41E
85B1
@41>1.E
>10A/5:3
B145/81
9581?
@>-B1810 ;991:@?
?
?@-@10
.18;C
5:
@41
(>-:?<;>@-@5;:
-:-8E?5?
@41
*!(
-:-8E?5?
0;1?
:;@
-:-8EF1
-88
<>;61/@31:1>-@10
*!(

(41
*!(
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7?
5:
;>01>
@;
-01=A-@18E
-:0
-//A>-@18E
-:-8EF1
-88
<>;61/@31:1>-@10
*!(

(41
;<1>-@5;:-8
:-@A>1
;2
5:0A?@>5-8 C->14;A?1
A?1?
5:B;8B1?
4534
>-@1?
;2
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7 @>-581> 2>1534@
*!(
0A1
@;
@>-B185:3
2>;9
8->31
>135;:-8
05?@>5.A@5;:
/1:@1>?
@;
?9-881>
5:0A?@>5-8
<->7?
-:0
@41:
@;
@415>
25:-8
0185B1>E
01?@5:-@5;:?
(41
<>;61/@J?
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7 @>-581> 2>1534@
-/@5B5@E
5?
A:-.81
@;
A@585F1
<A.85/
@>-:?5@
;>
-/@5B1
@>-:?<;>@-@5;:
-:0
5@
5?
95?81-05:3
@;
@41
<A.85/
-:0
01/5?5;:
9-71>?
@;
1D/8A01
@45?
-/@5B5@E
2>;9
*!(
-:-8E?5?


>1B5?10
 &
9A?@
.1
<>1<->10
@;

>1281/@
-
=A-:@52510
*!(
-:-8E?5?
@4-@
5:/8A01?
-88
9105A9
-:0
41-BE
0A@E
@>A/7 @>-581> 2>1534@
-/@5B5@E
@;
-01=A-@18E
-:0
-//A>-@18E
-:-8EF1
@41
<;@1:@5-88E
?53:525/-:@
<>;61/@
@>-:?<;>@-@5;:
59<-/@?
(41
>1B5?10
*!(
-:-8E?5?
9A?@
.1
A@585F10
@;
>1B5?1
@41

-:-8E?5?
@;
01@1>95:1
52

@41
<>;61/@31:1>-@10
*!(
5?


.18;C
@41
<>1?/>5.10
@4>1?4;80



005@5;:-88E
@41

&
1D/8A01?
-:-8E?5?
;2
@41
2;88;C5:3

1:1>-8
$8-:
3;-8?
<;85/51?
-:0

;.61/@5B1?
-0;<@10
C5@4
@41
<A><;?1
;2
-B;505:3
;>
95@53-@5:3
-:
1:B5>;:91:@-8
1221/@
5:/8A05:3
@41
2;88;C5:3

GSEJA

3b
3c
3d
2628
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31


-:0
)?1
$;85/E




595@
@41
@;@-8
-005@5;:-8
:1C
01B18;<91:@
@4-@
/-:
.1
-//;99;0-@10
5:
@41
5@E
-:0
5@?
)>.-:
595@
5:1
@;
@41
2;88;C5:3
<>;B5010
@4-@
@41
4534C-E
59<>;B191:@?
?@5<A8-@10
.E
@41
5>/A8-@5;:
8191:@
->1
59<8191:@10
-:0
)?1
8191:@
$-31




1B18;<91:@
-<-/5@E
(-.81

:0A?@>5-8
1B18;<91:@

5@E




?=A->1
211@


5@E
)>.-:
595@
5:1




?=A->1
211@


(;@-8


?=A->1
211@

-:0
)?1

;-8

(
Establish a City Urban Limit Line for the City of American Canyon which describes its future geographic boundary until January 1, 2030. -:0
)?1
$;85/E





;:@>;8
@4>;A34
@41
<1>95@
<>;/1??
@41
01B18;<91:@
;2
5:0A?@>5-8
A?1?
@4-@
A?1
?@;>1
<>;0A/1
;>
@>-:?<;>@
4-F->0;A?
9-@1>5-8?
5:
@4>1?4;80
<8-::5:3
=A-:@5@51?
31:1>-@1
A:-//1<@-.81
81B18?
;2
:;5?1
;>
-5>
195??5;:?
;>
>1?A8@
5:
;@41>
59<-/@?
@4-@
-0B1>?18E
59<-/@
91>5/-:
-:E;:


/;:;95/
1B18;<91:@
#.61/@5B1



$>;9;@1
3>;C@4
@4-@
31:1>-@1?
:1@
<;?5@5B1
25?/-8
59<-/@?
@;
@41
5@E
@;
1:?A>1
@4-@
9A:5/5<-8
?1>B5/1?
711<
A<
C5@4
3>;C5:3
019-:0

/;:;95/
1B18;<91:@
$;85/E





B-8A-@1
@41
:110
2;>
-:0
59<8191:@
-?
:1/1??->E
-
25?/-8
59<-/@
-:-8E?5?
-?
<->@
;2
@41
$>;61/@
1B18;<91:@
&1B51C
<>;/1??
2;>
/1>@-5:
@E<1?
;2
<>;61/@?
(41
<A><;?1
5?
@;
<>;B501
5:<A@
5:@;
-??1??91:@
;2
5@EC501
59<-/@
;2
01B18;<91:@
-/@5B5@51?
-:0
@;
01@1>95:1
C4-@
/;?@?
@;
@41
5@E
52
-:E
9-E
.1
?A.61/@
@;
95@53-@5;:
A1
@;
@41
<>;61/@J?
<>;<;?-8
@;
/;:?@>A/@


95885;:
?=A->1
211@
;2
5:0A?@>5-8
C->14;A?5:3
@4-@

>1?A8@?
5:
?53:525/-:@
-:0
A:-B;50-.81
5>
%A-85@E
59<-/@?
5:/8A05:3
5:/;:?5?@1:/E
C5@4
@41
-E
>1-
%!
5>
%A-85@E
$8-:
-:0
1>>;>?
5:
9;0185:3
-:0
9;0185:3
C5@4;A@
?A<<;>@5:3
1B501:/1
-?
:;@10
@4>;A34;A@
@45?
/;991:@
81@@1>
-:0
-@@-/491:@?
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
5?
05>1/@8E
5:/;:?5?@1:@
C5@4
@41
3;-8?
<;85/51?
-:0
;.61/@5B1?
85?@10
-.;B1
-0;<@10
C5@4
@41
<A><;?1
;2
-B;505:3
;>
95@53-@5:3
-:
1:B5>;:91:@-8
1221/@

(41

&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
-
/;:?5?@1:/E

-:-8E?5?
C5@4
-88

1:1>-8
$8-:
3;-8?
<;85/51?
-:0
;.61/@5B1?
5:
;>01>
@;
<>;B501
-:
-01=A-@1
-:0
-//A>-@1
1:B5>;:91:@-8
-:-8E?5?


$->@5/A8->8E
;2
:;@1
5?
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:
-:0
)?1
8191:@
$-31




1B18;<91:@
-<-/5@E

(-.81

//;>05:3
@;
53A>1


$8-::5:3
>1-
;2
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:

:@>;0A/@5;:
'1/@5;:
@41
<>;61/@

?5@1
5?
8;/-@10
5:
@41
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-

(41
<>;61/@
<>;<;?1?

95885;:
?=A->1
211@
;2

5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
C45/4
5?
-<<>;D59-@18E

;2
@41
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5:
@41

GSEJA

3d
3e
3f
3g
3h
3i
3j
2629
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31


5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-
-:0
-<<>;D59-@18E


;2
-88
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5:
.;@4
@41
5@E
595@
-:0
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-

(41

&
0;1?
:;@
<>;B501
-
85?@
;2
/A9A8-@5B1
5:0A?@>5-8

<>;61/@?
-<<>;B10
?5:/1
@41


-<<>;B-8
;2
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:
C5@45:
@41
5@E
595@?
-:0
5@E

)>.-:
595@
->1-?

(41

1:1>-8
$8-:
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5?
:;@
05?/A??10
;>
<>1?1:@10
2;>
-:-8E?5?
5:
@41

&
-:0
9A?@
.1
5:/8A010
-?
<->@
;2
-
>1B5?10
-:0
>1/5>/A8-@10
 &
2;>
<A.85/

>1B51C

25:05:3
;2
?53:525/-:/1
9A?@
.1
9-01
52
5@
5?
01@1>95:10
@4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
1D/110?
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
2;>
5:0A?@>5-8
A?1?

3.12 Transportation
<<1:05D


(>-:?<;>@-@5;:
?;A>/1?
@41

;B1>:;>J?
#225/1
;2
$8-::5:3
-:0
&1?1->/4
#$&



CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory as contributing to the methodology for VMT analysis. The VMT analysis does not state if medium and heavy duty truck/trailer trips were included for analysis. T41

&
0;1?
:;@
<>;B501
-
?@-@A@;>E
?;A>/1
;2
1D19<@5;:
2;>
9105A9 41-BE
@>A/7?

(41

&
?;A>/1?
@41
#$&’?


(1/4:5/-8
0B5?;>E
C45/4
?@-@1?
@4-@
H41>1
@41
@1>9
“-A@;9;.581I
>121>?
@;
;:>;-0
<-??1:31>
B145/81?
?<1/525/-88E
/->?
-:0
8534@
@>A/7?I

;C1B1>

@41
<A><;?1
;2
@41
#$&
(1/4:5/-8
0B5?;>E
0;/A91:@
5?
<A>18E
-0B5?;>E
?@-@5:3
5:
5@?
5:@>;0A/@5;:

H(41
<A><;?1
;2
@45?
0;/A91:@
5?
@;
<>;B501
-0B5/1
-:0
>1/;991:0-@5;:?
C45/4
-31:/51?
-:0
;@41>
1:@5@51?
9-E
A?1
-@
@415>
05?/>1@5;:
(45?
0;/A91:@
0;1?
:;@
-8@1>
81-0
-31:/E
05?/>1@5;:
5:
<>1<->5:3
1:B5>;:91:@-8
0;/A91:@?
?A.61/@
@;
%
(45?
0;/A91:@
?4;A80
:;@
.1
/;:?@>A10
-?
813-8
-0B5/1I

(41
#$&
0;/A91:@
5?
:;@
-
813-8
5:@1><>1@-@5;:
/;A>@
01/5?5;:
;>
-91:091:@
@;
@41
%
?@-@A@1
@4-@
/8->5251?
@41
0125:5@5;:
;2
-A@;9;.581

(41
@1>9
H-A@;9;.581I
5?
:;@
0125:10
5:
@41
%
?@-@A@1
-:0
-<<85/-@5;:
;2
@41
#$&
5:@1><>1@-@5;:
5?
?<1/A8-@5B1
-:0
0;1?
:;@
<>;B501
-:
-:-8E?5?
;2
@41
HC;>?@/-?1
?/1:->5;I
2;>
1:B5>;:91:@-8
59<-/@?

+501?<>1-0
<A.85/
A:01>?@-:05:3
-:0
<1>/1<@5;:
5:05/-@1?
@4-@
@>A/7?
5:/8A05:3
9105A9 41-BE0A@E
@>A/7 @>-581>
@>5<?
-??;/5-@10
C5@4
@41
5:0A?@>5-8
:-@A>1
;2
C->14;A?1
;<1>-@5;:?
->1
-A@;9;.581?

(41
 &
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01

-88
@>A/7 @>-581>
-/@5B5@E
2;>
=A-:@52510
*!(
-:-8E?5?

(41
;<1>-@5;:-8
:-@A>1
;2
5:0A?@>5-8 C->14;A?1
A?1?
5:B;8B1?
4534
>-@1?
;2
@>A/7 @>-581>
*!(
0A1
@;
@>-B185:3
2>;9
8->31
>135;:-8
05?@>5.A@5;:
/1:@1>?
@;
?9-881>
5:0A?@>5-8
<->7?
-:0
@41:
@;
@415>
25:-8
0185B1>E
01?@5:-@5;:?
(41
<>;61/@J?
@>A/7 @>-581>
-/@5B5@E
5?
A:-.81
@;
A@585F1
<A.85/
@>-:?5@
;>
-/@5B1
@>-:?<;>@-@5;:
-:0
5@

=D3@<=@IA
#44713
=4
$:/<<7<5
/<2
&3A3/@16
(316<71/:
2D7A=@G
=<
D/:C/B7<5
(@/<A>=@B/B7=<
;>/1BA

7<
%
6BB>A=>@1/5=D13?/2=1A
 



.(316<71/:.2D7A=@G>24

GSEJA

3j
4 2630
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31


5?
95?81-05:3
@;
@41
<A.85/
-:0
01/5?5;:
9-71>?
@;
1D/8A01
@45?
-/@5B5@E
2>;9
*!(
-:-8E?5?


>1B5?10

&
9A?@
.1
<>1<->10
@;
>1281/@
-
=A-:@52510
*!(
-:-8E?5?
@4-@
5:/8A01?
-88
@>A/7 @>-581>

-/@5B5@E
@;
-01=A-@18E
-:0
-//A>-@18E
-:-8EF1
@41
<;@1:@5-88E
?53:525/-:@
<>;61/@
@>-:?<;>@-@5;:
59<-/@?


A>@41>
@41

&
?@-@1?
@4-@
HAccording to Statewide Travel Demand Model estimates, this project is located within a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a projected VMT per employee of 16.24 miles.” However, the Statewide TDM software utilized is not included as a reference. The EIR must be revised to state the name of the Statewide TDM utilized and also provide a weblink to the software in order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and incorporation by reference because the Statewide TDM /;:@>5.A@1?
05>1/@8E
@;
-:-8E?5?
;2
@41
<>;.819
-@
4-:0
%
G




2

";@-.8E
@41

&
/;:/8A01?
@4-@
@41
<>;61/@
C588
:;@
4-B1
?53:525/-:@
*!(
59<-/@?
.1/-A?1
@41
<>;61/@
5?
8;/-@10
C5@45:
-
(,
C5@4
-
<>;61/@10
*!(
<1>
19<8;E11
;2


9581?


;C1B1>

'1/@5;:



>;C@4

:0A/5:3

9<-/@?
>1851?
A<;:
@41
/;9.5:10
"-<-
;A:@E
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@E
8-.;>
2;>/1
;2




<1;<81
@;
/;:/8A01
@4-@
HA:<8-::10
3>;C@4
C;A80
:;@
;//A>I
&18E5:3
A<;:
@41
1:@5>1
8-.;>
2;>/1
;2
"-<-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@51?
3>1-@8E
1D/110?
@41


9581?
;2
*!(
<1>

19<8;E11
A@585F10
.E
@41
(>-:?<;>@-@5;:
-:-8E?5?
@;
01@1>95:1
@41
<>;61/@
C588
:;@
4-B1
-
?53:525/-:@
59<-/@
;:
*!(

"-<-
;A:@E
5?

?=A->1
9581?
5:
->1-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@E
5?
 

?=A->1
9581?
5:
->1-

&18E5:3
;:
@41
1:@5>1
8-.;>
2;>/1
;2
"-<-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@51?
@;
2588
@41
<>;61/@J?
/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0
;<1>-@5;:-8
6;.?
C588
5:/>1-?1
*!(
-:0
195??5;:?
0A>5:3
-88
<4-?1?
;2
/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0
;<1>-@5;:?
-:0
@41

&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
-//;A:@
2;>
8;:31>
C;>71>
@>5<
05?@-:/1?



A>@41>
.1/-A?1
@41
HCity of American Canyon has not yet established thresholds of significance related to VMT,” the EIR utilizes “established policies currently used by OPR, Sacramento County and the City of San Jose” in order to invent the threshold that “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.” However, the specific policies and associated documents from OPR, Sacramento County and the City of San Jose are not included in the EIR. This does not comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and incorporation by reference. The EIR must be revised to attach the specific policies and associated documents from OPR, Sacramento County and the City of San Jose in order to comply with CEQA’s requirements for meaningful disclosure and incorporation by reference because the policies and documents /;:@>5.A@1
05>1/@8E
@;
-:-8E?5?
;2

GSEJA

4a
4b
4c
4d
2631
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31


@41
<>;.819
-@
4-:0
%
G




2

+5@4;A@
@41?1
5@19?
@41
<A.85/
5?
A:-.81
@;
B1>52E
@41
-//A>-/E
;2
@41
*!(
-:-8E?5?
-:0
@41

&
/-::;@
/;:/8A01
@41
*!(
59<-/@?
->1
:;@
?53:525/-:@



& &%
'
%$



,%,$+!-
%(
+

&$.*!*


(41

&
4-?
:;@
-01=A-@18E
;>
-//A>-@18E
<>;B5010
-
/A9A8-@5B1
59<-/@
-:-8E?5?
;>
1D-9<81
@41

&
4-?
:;@
-:-8EF10
@41
<>;61/@
5:
-//;>0-:/1
C5@4

1:1>-8
$8-:
-:0
)?1
8191:@
$-31





1B18;<91:@
-<-/5@E
(-.81

//;>05:3
@;
53A>1

$8-::5:3
>1-
;2
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:

:@>;0A/@5;:
'1/@5;:
@41
<>;61/@
?5@1
5?
8;/-@10
5:
@41
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-

(41
<>;61/@
<>;<;?1?


95885;:
?=A->1
211@
;2
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
C45/4
5?
-<<>;D59-@18E

;2
@41
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5:
@41
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-
-:0
-<<>;D59-@18E
 
;2
-88
5:0A?@>5-8

01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5:
.;@4
@41
5@E
595@
-:0
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-

(41
 &
0;1?
:;@
<>;B501

-
85?@
;2
/A9A8-@5B1
5:0A?@>5-8
<>;61/@?
-<<>;B10
?5:/1
@41

-<<>;B-8
;2
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:
C5@45:

@41
5@E
595@?
-:0
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-?

(41

1:1>-8
$8-:
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5?

:;@
05?/A??10
;>
<>1?1:@10
2;>
-:-8E?5?
5:
@41

&
-:0
9A?@
.1
5:/8A010
-?
<->@
;2
-
>1B5?10
-:0

>1/5>/A8-@10

&
2;>
<A.85/
>1B51C

25:05:3
;2
?53:525/-:/1
9A?@
.1
9-01
52
5@
5?
01@1>95:10
@4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
1D/110?
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
2;>
5:0A?@>5-8
A?1?

005@5;:-88E
@41

&
0;1?
:;@
05?/A??
@41
/A9A8-@5B1
3>;C@4
59<-/@?
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
;:
@41
-E
>1-

(41
??;/5-@5;:
;2
-E
>1-

;B1>:91:@?


$8-:
-E
>1-


J?

>;C@4

$-@@1>:

:;@1?
@4-@
@41
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@E
->1-
"-<-
5@E
-:0
91>5/-:
-:E;:
5@E
/;9.5:10
C588
-00



6;.?
.1@C11:







)@585F5:3
@41

&J?
/-8/A8-@5;:
;2



19<8;E11?

@41
<>;61/@
>1<>1?1:@?


;2
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@EJ?
19<8;E91:@
3>;C@4
2>;9







$8-:

-E
>1-


J?

>;C@4
$-@@1>:
:;@1?
@4-@
@41
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@EJ?
<;<A8-@5;:
C588
5:/>1-?1
.E


>1?501:@?
.1@C11:







)@585F5:3
@41

&J?
/-8/A8-@5;:
;2



19<8;E11?
@41

<>;61/@
>1<>1?1:@?


;2
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@E’?
<;<A8-@5;:
3>;C@4
2>;9








?5:381

<>;61/@
-//;A:@5:3
2;>
@45?
-9;A:@
;2
@41
<>;61/@10
19<8;E91:@
-:0 ;>
<;<A8-@5;:
;B1>

E1->?

>1<>1?1:@?
-
?53:525/-:@
-9;A:@
;2
3>;C@4

(41

&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
@45?
-:-8E?5?
-:0

-8?;
<>;B501
-
/A9A8-@5B1
-:-8E?5?
05?/A??5;:
;2
<>;61/@?
-<<>;B10
?5:/1


-:0
<>;61/@?
H5:
@41

<5<185:1I
5:
91>5/-:
-:E;:
-:0
5@E
;2
"-<-
@;
01@1>95:1
52
@41
<>;61/@
C588
1D/110
$8-:
-E
>1-


J?
19<8;E91:@
-:0 ;>
<;<A8-@5;:
3>;C@4
2;>1/-?@
2;>
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@E



%#!%
'$

$:/<
/G
@3/



@=EB6
$/BB3@<

6BB>AEEE>:/<0/G/@3/=@5A7B3A234/C:B47:3A7</::C3>@7<B&3:3/A3.313;03@ 
.@=EB6$/BB3@<.
/
<

)>2/B3>24

GSEJA

4d
5a
5b
6 2632
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31

(41

&
5?
>1=A5>10
@;
1B-8A-@1
-
>1-?;:-.81
>-:31
;2
-8@1>:-@5B1?
@;
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
C45/4
C588
-B;50
;>
?A.?@-:@5-88E
81??1:
-:E
;2
@41
?53:525/-:@
1221/@?
;2
@41
<>;61/@
%
G





(41

&
0;1?
:;@
1B-8A-@1
-
>1-?;:-.81
>-:31
;2
-8@1>:-@5B1?
-?
5@
0;1?
:;@
5:/8A01
-:
-8@1>:-@5B1
@4-@
911@?
@41
<>;61/@
;.61/@5B1?
-:0
-8?;
18595:-@1?
-88
;2
@41
<>;61/@J?
?53:525/-:@
-:0
A:-B;50-.81
59<-/@?

(41

&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
-:-8E?5?
;2
-
>1-?;:-.81
>-:31
;2
-8@1>:-@5B1?
-:0

2;?@1>
5:2;>910
01/5?5;:
9-75:3
%
G




(45?
9A?@
5:/8A01
-8@1>:-@5B1?
?A/4
-?

01B18;<91:@
;2
@41
?5@1
C5@4
-
<>;61/@
@4-@
>10A/1?
-88
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@J?
?53:525/-:@
-:0
A:-B;50-.81
59<-/@?
@;
81??
@4-:
?53:525/-:@
81B18?



%
#




"!$
#%
"!$

6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts
(41

&
0;1?
:;@
05?/A??

1:1>-8
$8-:
-:0
)?1
8191:@
$-31




1B18;<91:@
-<-/5@E

(-.81

//;>05:3
@;
53A>1


$8-::5:3
>1-
;2
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:

:@>;0A/@5;:
'1/@5;:
@41
<>;61/@

?5@1
5?
8;/-@10
5:
@41
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-

(41
<>;61/@
<>;<;?1?

95885;:
?=A->1
211@
;2

5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
C45/4
5?
-<<>;D59-@18E

;2
@41
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5:
@41
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-
-:0
-<<>;D59-@18E


;2
-88
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5:
.;@4
@41
5@E
595@
-:0
5@E
)>.-:
595@
->1-

(41

&
0;1?
:;@
<>;B501
-
85?@
;2
/A9A8-@5B1
5:0A?@>5-8

<>;61/@?
-<<>;B10
?5:/1
@41


-<<>;B-8
;2
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:
C5@45:
@41
5@E
595@?
-:0
5@E

)>.-:
595@
->1-?

(41

1:1>-8
$8-:
5:0A?@>5-8
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
5?
:;@
05?/A??10
;>
<>1?1:@10
2;>
-:-8E?5?
5:
@41

&
-:0
9A?@
.1
5:/8A010
-?
<->@
;2
-
>1B5?10
-:0
>1/5>/A8-@10
 &
2;>
<A.85/

>1B51C

25:05:3
;2
?53:525/-:/1
9A?@
.1
9-01
52
5@
5?
01@1>95:10
@4-@
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
1D/110?
@41

1:1>-8
$8-:
01B18;<91:@
/-<-/5@E
2;>
5:0A?@>5-8
A?1?

005@5;:-88E
@41

&
0;1?
:;@
05?/A??
@41
/A9A8-@5B1
3>;C@4
59<-/@?
;2
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
;:
@41
-E
>1-

(41
??;/5-@5;:
;2
-E
>1-

;B1>:91:@?


$8-:
-E
>1-


J?

>;C@4

$-@@1>:

:;@1?
@4-@
@41
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@E
->1-
"-<-
5@E
-:0
91>5/-:
-:E;:
5@E
/;9.5:10
C588
-00



6;.?
.1@C11:







)@585F5:3
@41

&J?
/-8/A8-@5;:
;2



19<8;E11?

@41
<>;61/@
>1<>1?1:@?


;2
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@EJ?
19<8;E91:@
3>;C@4
2>;9







$8-:

-E
>1-


J?

>;C@4
$-@@1>:
:;@1?
@4-@
@41
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@EJ?
<;<A8-@5;:
C588
5:/>1-?1
.E


>1?501:@?
.1@C11:







)@585F5:3
@41

&J?
/-8/A8-@5;:
;2



19<8;E11?
@41




$:/<
/G
@3/



@=EB6
$/BB3@<

6BB>AEEE>:/<0/G/@3/=@5A7B3A234/C:B47:3A7</::C3>@7<B&3:3/A3.313;03@ 
.@=EB6$/BB3@<.
/
<

)>2/B3>24

GSEJA

6 7a
7b
2633
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31

<>;61/@
>1<>1?1:@?


;2
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@E’?
<;<A8-@5;:
3>;C@4
2>;9








?5:381

<>;61/@
-//;A:@5:3
2;>
@45?
-9;A:@
;2
@41
<>;61/@10
19<8;E91:@
-:0 ;>
<;<A8-@5;:
;B1>

E1->?

>1<>1?1:@?
-
?53:525/-:@
-9;A:@
;2
3>;C@4

(41

&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
@45?
-:-8E?5?
-:0

-8?;
<>;B501
-
/A9A8-@5B1
-:-8E?5?
05?/A??5;:
;2
<>;61/@?
-<<>;B10
?5:/1


-:0
<>;61/@?
H5:
@41


<5<185:1I
5:
91>5/-:
-:E;:
-:0
5@E
;2
"-<-
@;
01@1>95:1
52
@41
<>;61/@
C588
1D/110
$8-:
-E
>1-


J?
19<8;E91:@
-:0 ;>
<;<A8-@5;:
3>;C@4
2;>1/-?@
2;>
';A@4
"-<-
;A:@E

(41

&
>1851?
A<;:
@41
:;@5;:
@4-@
<>;61/@J?
.A5805:3?
H$!#$.
.1
.A58@
5:/>191:@-88E
;B1>
-
<1>5;0
;2
E1->?
-:0
@4A?
6;.?
C;A80
.1
-0010
5:
.8;/7?
-?
@41
<>;61/@
.A580?
;A@
?
?A/4
@41>1
C;A80
:;@
.1
-:
H;B1>:534@I
5:28AD
;2
:1C
19<8;E91:@
;<<;>@A:5@51?I

;C1B1>
A@585F5:3
-:

5:/>191:@-8
/;:?@>A/@5;:
?/410A81
5?
:;@
5:@1>:-88E
/;:?5?@1:@
C5@4
@41
 &J?
;@41>
->1-?
;2

-:-8E?5?

;>
1D-9<81
@41
5>
%A-85@E
-:-8E?5?
9;018?
-
/;:?@>A/@5;:
?/410A81
5:
C45/4
/;:?@>A/@5;:
;2
$4-?1


5?
-:@5/5<-@10
@;
.135:
5:
1->8E

-:0
.1
/;9<81@10

9;:@4?
8-@1>

/;:?@>A/@5;:
;2
$4-?1


5?
1D<1/@10
@;
.135:
!%%
!+$.
2;88;C5:3
@41
/;9<81@5;:
;2
$4-?1



/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0
.1
/;9<81@10

9;:@4?
8-@1>

'1/@5;:





A580;A@

;>5F;:
;2
@41

&

?@-@1?
@4-@
H;>
@41
<A><;?1?
;2
<>;B505:3
-
/;:?1>B-@5B1
C;>?@/-?1
?/1:->5;
@45?
>-2@
 &

-??A91?
@4-@
$4-?1?


-:0


C;A80
.1
01B18;<10
/;:/A>>1:@8E
;B1>
-
<1>5;0
;2


9;:@4?I

(41


&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
A@585F1
599105-@1
/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0
;<1>-@5;:
;2
.;@4
<4-?1?
;2
01B18;<91:@
5:
;>01>
@;
.1
5:@1>:-88E
/;:?5?@1:@
-:0
<>;B501
-:
-01=A-@1
-:0
-//A>-@1
1:B5>;:91:@-8
-:-8E?5?

)@585F5:3
H5:/>191:@-8I
/;:?@>A/@5;:
;2
@41
<>;61/@J?
.A5805:3?
?1>B1?
@;
->@525/5-88E
?71C
@41
3>;C@45:0A/5:3
59<-/@?
;2
@41
<>;61/@
0;C:C->0
(45?
-:-8E?5?
5?
1>>;:1;A?
-:0
@41
 &
9A?@
.1

>1B5?10
-:0
>1/5>/A8-@10
2;>
<A.85/
>1B51C


%$
"&!
!"%
%"



!

!%


'(,$+!'&
&

',*!&

(41

&
0;1?
:;@
<>;B501
-:E
-:-8E?5?
;2
@41
<>;61/@J?
59<-/@?
@;
<;<A8-@5;:
-:0
4;A?5:3

(41
;:8E
05?/A??5;:
>121>?
@41
>1-01>
@;
'1/@5;:




>;C@4

:0A/5:3

9<-/@?

(41

&
?@-@1?
@4-@

@41
<>;61/@
C588
19<8;E
H-:
1?@59-@10



C;>71>?
0A>5:3
/;:?@>A/@5;:
-:0



C;>71>?
C41:

2A88E
;<1>-@5;:-8
-@
.A580;A@I


;C1B1>
@41

&
0;1?
:;@
<>;B501
-
91@4;0;8;3E
;>
?;A>/1
;2

/-8/A8-@5;:
@4-@
C-?
A@585F10
@;
01@1>95:1
@41
<>;61/@
C;A80
31:1>-@1


/;:?@>A/@5;:
6;.?
-:0



;<1>-@5;:-8
6;.?

(41

&
9A?@
.1
>1B5?10
@;
5:/8A01
@41
91@4;0;8;3E
2;>
19<8;E91:@
31:1>-@5;:
5:
;>01>
@;
/;9<8E
C5@4
%J?
>1=A5>191:@?
2;>
91-:5:32A8
05?/8;?A>1
A>@41>
@41

&
>1851?
A<;:
@41
/;9.5:10
"-<-';8-:;
8-.;>
2;>/1
;2




<1;<81
@;
/;:/8A01

@4-@
H@41
8;/-8
8-.;>
2;>/1
5?
?A225/51:@8E
8->31
1:;A34
@;
-88;C
@41
<>;61/@J?
19<8;E91:@

GSEJA

7b
7c
8a
8b
2634
"5/;881
;:1?

A:1



$-31

;<<;>@A:5@51?
@;
.1
258810
8;/-88E
?A/4
@4-@
A:<8-::10
3>;C@4
C;A80
:;@
;//A>I

;C1B1>
@41

&

4-?
:;@
<>;B5010
-:E
91-:5:32A8
1B501:/1
@;
?A<<;>@
@45?
/;:/8A?5;:

(41
?5F1
;2
8-.;>
9->71@
0;1?
:;@
1=A-@1
@;
:A9.1>
;2
-B-58-.81
C;>71>?
:A9.1>
;2
C;>71>?
=A-852510
C;>7
5:
@41
5:0A?@>5-8
?1/@;>
;>
:A9.1>
;2
C;>71>?
5:@1>1?@10
5:
C;>7
5:
@41
5:0A?@>5-8
?1/@;>

&18E5:3
A<;:
@41
1:@5>1
8-.;>
2;>/1
;2
"-<-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@51?
3>1-@8E
1D/110?
@41


9581?
;2
*!(
<1>
19<8;E11

A@585F10
.E
@41
(>-:?<;>@-@5;:
-:-8E?5?
@;
01@1>95:1
@41
<>;61/@
C588
:;@
4-B1
-
?53:525/-:@
59<-/@

;:
*!(

"-<-
;A:@E
5?

?=A->1
9581?
5:
->1-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@E
5?
 
?=A->1
9581?
5:
->1-


Relying on the entire labor force of "-<-
-:0
';8-:;
;A:@51?
to fill the project’s construction and operational jobs will increase VMT and emissions during all phases of construction and operations and the EIR must be revised to account for longer worker trip distances. (41

&
0;1?
:;@
05?/A??
@41
<>;61/@J?
/;9<85-:/1
C5@4
@41
??;/5-@5;:
;2
-E
>1-
;B1>:91:@?



&($ ''
$8-:
-E
>1-




$8-:
-E
>1-


J?

>;C@4
$-@@1>:
:;@1?
@4-@
the
South Napa County area (Napa City and American Canyon City combined) will add 19,000 jobs between 2015 - 2050. Utilizing the EIR’s calculation of 
employees, the project represents
19% of South Napa County’s employment growth from 2015 - 2050. $8-:
-E
>1-


J?

Growth Pattern notes that the South Napa County’s population will increase by 5,000 residents between 2015 - 2050. Utilizing the EIR’s calculation of 
employees, the project represents
72% of South Napa County’s population growth from 2015 - 2050. A single project accounting for this amount of the projected employment and/or population over 35 years represents a significant amount of growth. The EIR must be revised to include this analysis, and also provide a cumulative analysis discussion of projects approved since 2015 and projects “in the pipeline” in American Canyon and City of Napa to determine if the project will exceed $8-:
-E
>1-


J?
employment and/or population growth forecast for South Napa County. Additionally, the EIR must also provide demographic and geographic information on the location of qualified workers to fill these positions in order to provide an accurate environmental analysis.

Conclusion
;>
@41
2;>13;5:3
>1-?;:?

'
.1851B1?
@41

&
5?
28-C10
-:0
-
>1B5?10

&
9A?@
.1
<>1<->10

2;>
@41
<>;<;?10
<>;61/@
-:0
/5>/A8-@10
2;>
<A.85/
>1B51C

;801:
'@-@1
:B5>;:91:@-8
A?@5/1

885-:/1
>1=A1?@?
@;
.1
-0010
@;
@41
<A.85/
5:@1>1?@
85?@
>13->05:3
-:E
?A.?1=A1:@
1:B5>;:91:@-8


$:/<
/G
@3/



@=EB6
$/BB3@<

6BB>AEEE>:/<0/G/@3/=@5A7B3A234/C:B47:3A7</::C3>@7<B&3:3/A3.313;03@ 
.@=EB6$/BB3@<.
/
<

)>2/B3>24

GSEJA

8b
8c
9 2635
"5/;881 ;:1?
A:1


$-31

0;/A91:@? <A.85/ :;@5/1? <A.85/ 41->5:3? -:0 :;@5/1? ;2 01@1>95:-@5;: 2;> @45? <>;61/@

'1:0 -88 /;99A:5/-@5;:? @;
;801: '@-@1 :B5>;:91:@-8 A?@5/1 885-:/1 $# ;D 

;>;:- 


'5:/1>18E

->E
;
8A9 ;885:? 
; $
@@-/491:@?

 '+$ ;991:@ 1@@1>
9 GSEJA

2636
SWAPE

1 2a
2637
2 As a result, the DEIR concludes that the impacts associated with Project operation would be significantand-unavoidable (p. 3.2-59). However, while we agree that the Project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would result in a significant air quality impact, the DEIR’s conclusion that these impacts are “significant and unavoidable” is incorrect. According to CEQA Guidelines § 15096(g)(2):

SWAPE

2a
2638
SWAPE

2a
2b
2c
2639
4 “W-Trans prepared a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the proposed project that analyzes the trip generation rates for the proposed project. The TIS illustrates that at full buildout (Phases 1 and 2), the proposed project would generate an estimated 528 daily truck trips and 2,832 daily passenger vehicle trips. According to the TIS, passenger vehicles would travel an average of

16.24 VMT per person per day. As this VMT would represent all travel to and from the project site for employees, an average of 8.12 miles per vehicle trip was utilized in this analysis.

According to correspondence with the Project Applicant, the anticipated port of product origin for truck trips would be the Port of Oakland, approximately 32.8 miles away. Therefore, trip distances and trip generation rates were adjusted in the project operation models to reflect this information” (p. 3).

As demonstrated above, the proposed Project expects to generate 528 daily truck trips (with a trip length of approximately 32.8 miles) and 2,832 daily passenger car trips (with a trip length of approximately 8.12 miles). Furthermore, regarding the Project’s expected passenger car and truck fleet mix percentages, CalEEMod Note #9 continues, stating:
“According to telephone correspondence with the Project Applicant, trucks to serve the project upon operation are anticipated to have an average gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 35,000 pounds. Therefore, the fleet mix for the proposed project was adjusted to reflect 100 percent of truck trips as classified under the Heavy Heavy-Duty (HHD) vehicle class and 100 percent of passenger vehicle trips as classified under the Light-Duty Auto (LDA), Light-Duty Truck Type 1 (LDT1), Light-Duty Truck Type 2 (LDT2), and Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) vehicle classes, according to their respective fleet proportions found in the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) EMFAC2017 database for the first year of full buildout (2023). Please refer to the Fleet Mix Adjustment sheet found in this Appendix for more information” (p. 3).

As demonstrated above, the Project’s truck fleet mix was adjusted to be 100% Heavy Heavy-Duty (“HHD”) vehicles, while the Project’s passenger car fleet mix was adjusted to be a mixture of Light-Duty Auto (“LDA”), Light-Duty Truck Type 1 (“LDT1”), Light-Duty Truck Type 2 (“LDT2”), and Medium-Duty Vehicle (“MDV”) vehicles.

Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the operational models include a total of 2,832 daily operational vehicle trips (see excerpts below) (Appendix B, pp. 101, 109, 117, 126, 154, 166, 176, 186, 215, 226, 236, 246).2
2 Calculated: (1,263.66 Phase 1 vehicle trips) + (1,568.34 Phase 2 vehicle trips) = 2,832 total vehicle trips.

SWAPE

2c
2640
5 Phase 1 models: “Giovanni Logistics Phase 1 DRY Op,” “Giovanni Logistics Phase 1 COLD Op,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 COLD Op – AIR-2c,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 DRY Op – AIR-2c,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 COLD 2030 Op – AIR-2c,” and “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 DRY 2030 Op – AIR-2c” Phase 2 models: “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 COLD Op,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 DRY Op,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 COLD Op - AIR-2c,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 DRY Op - AIR-2c,” “Giovanni Logistics Phase 2 COLD 2030 Op - AIR-2c,” and “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 DRY 2030 Op - AIR-2c” Furthermore, all of the 2,832 vehicle trips are modeled with a trip length of 8.12 miles and fleet mix accounting for Light-Duty Auto (“LDA”), Light-Duty Truck Type 1 (“LDT1”), Light-Duty Truck Type 2 (“LDT2”), and Medium-Duty Vehicle (“MDV”) vehicles (see excerpts below) (Appendix B, pp. 101, 109, 117, 126, 154, 166, 176, 186, 215, 226, 236, 246).

Phase 1 models: “Giovanni Logistics Phase 1 DRY Op,” “Giovanni Logistics Phase 1 COLD Op,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 COLD Op – AIR-2c,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 DRY Op – AIR-2c,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 COLD 2030 Op – AIR-2c,” and “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 1 DRY 2030 Op – AIR-2c” SWAPE

2c
2641
6 Phase 2 models: “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 COLD Op,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 DRY Op,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 COLD Op - AIR-2c,” “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 DRY Op - AIR-2c,” “Giovanni Logistics Phase 2 COLD 2030 Op - AIR-2c,” and “Giovannoni Logistics Phase 2 DRY 2030 Op - AIR-2c” As demonstrated in the excerpts above, all 2,832 operational vehicle trips included in the models reflect passenger car trips, consistent with the information provided by the CalEEMod Notes. However, the operational models fail to include the proposed 528 daily truck trips.

This presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the operational vehicle trips to calculate the emissions associated with the operational on-road vehicles.3 Furthermore, trucks are a major source of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions, which have health effects including cardiovascular and respiratory hospitalizations, as well as premature death.4 Thus, by failing to include the proposed daily truck trips, the models underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions and potential health risk impacts, and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The DEIR concludes that the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant health risk impact based on a quantified construction and operational health risk assessment (“HRA”). Specifically, the DEIR estimates that the maximum incremental cancer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions during Project construction and operation would be 2.10 in one million, which would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 3.2-60 – 3.2-61, Table 3.2-14). 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), May 2021, available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide, p. 36. 4
“Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health.” California Air Resources Board (CARB), available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

SWAPE

2c
2d
2642
7 However, the DEIR’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less-than-significant impact conclusion, is incorrect for two reasons.

First, the DEIR’s HRA is incorrect, as it relies upon emissions estimates from a flawed air model (see excerpt below) (p. 3.2-61, Table 3.2-14).

SWAPE

2d
2643
8 As previously discussed, when we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided in the AQ & GHG Analysis as Appendix B to the DEIR, we found that the model fails to include the Project’s expected number of daily truck trips. This poses a significant problem, as trucks emit high levels of diesel exhaust that the Project’s air modeling does not account for. As such, the HRA utilizes an underestimated DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction and operation. As such, the DEIR’s HRA and resulting cancer risk are underestimated and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Second, the DEIR’s HRA is unsubstantiated, as the DEIR fails to provide the input parameters and modeling assumptions. Specifically, upon review of the HRA, we found that the exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates (“BR/BW”), exposure duration (“ED”), age sensitivity factors (“ASF”), fraction of time at home (“FAH”), and exposure frequency (“EF”) are not disclosed. As such, we cannot verify the calculation of the Project’s cancer risk is accurate. As a result, the Project’s cancer risk may be underestimated and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Mitigation
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Our analysis demonstrates that the Project results in significant operational air quality impacts that should be mitigated further. As such, in an effort to reduce the Project’s emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. Feasible mitigation measures can be found in the Department of Justice Warehouse Project Best Practices document.5 Therefore, to reduce the Project’s emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
x Prohibiting off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
x Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than two minutes. x Keeping onsite and furnishing to the lead agency or other regulators upon request, all equipment maintenance records and data sheets, including design specifications and emission control tier classifications.
5 “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.” State of California Department of Justice.

SWAPE

2d
2e
2644
9 x Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial maintenance coatings that have volatile organic compound levels of less than 10 g/L.
x Providing information on transit and ridesharing programs and services to construction employees.
x Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations for construction employees.
x Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. x Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030.
x Requiring on-site equipment, such as forklifts and yard trucks, to be electric with the necessary electrical charging stations provided.
x Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.
x Forbidding trucks from idling for more than two minutes and requiring operators to turn off engines when not in use.
x Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager.
x Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, air filtration systems at sensitive receptors within a certain radius of facility for the life of the project.
x Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance intervals, an air monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data publicly available in real time. While air monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless benefits the affected community by providing information that can be used to improve air quality or avoid exposure to unhealthy air.
x Constructing electric truck charging stations proportional to the number of dock doors at the project.
x Constructing electric plugs for electric transport refrigeration units at every dock door, if the warehouse use could include refrigeration.
x Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging stations proportional to the number of parking spaces at the project.
x Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs. x Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be powered by a non-diesel fuel.

SWAPE

2e
2645
10 x Requiring facility operators to train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. x Requiring operators to establish and promote a rideshare program that discourages singleoccupancy vehicle trips and provides financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling, public transit, and biking.
x Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards, including all provisions related to designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and bicycle parking. x Achieving certification of compliance with LEED green building standards. x Providing meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations. x Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing directional information to the truck route. x Improving and maintaining vegetation and tree canopy for residents in and around the project area.
x Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB approved courses. Also require facility operators to maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request. x Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and requiring tenants to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers. x Providing tenants with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.

These measures offer a cost-effective, feasible way to incorporate lower-emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce emissions released during Project operation. An updated EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include an updated air quality analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to below thresholds. The updated EIR should also demonstrate a commitment to the implementation of these measures prior to Project approval, to ensure that the Project’s significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.

Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery regarding this project. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

SWAPE

2e
3 2646
11 Sincerely,
Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment B: Paul Rosenfeld CV
SWAPE

3 2647
4 SWAPE

2648
2 x Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); x Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
x Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); x Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
x Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); x Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
x Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).

Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:

With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 300 environmental impact reports and negative declarations since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
x Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 100 industrial facilities.
x Expert witness on numerous cases including, for example, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTBE litigation, air toxins at hazards at a school, CERCLA compliance in assessment and remediation, and industrial stormwater contamination. x Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. x Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. x Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. x Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
x Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.

With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
x Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
x Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
x Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. x Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
4 SWAPE

2649
3 x Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production-related contamination in Mississippi. x Lead author for a multi-volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. x Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.

Executive Director:

As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.

Hydrogeology:

As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
x Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
x Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
x Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.

As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
x Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
x Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted SWAPE

4 2650
4 public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
x Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.

Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
x Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
x Reviewed and wrote "part B" permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. x Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.

EPA legal counsel.
x Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
x Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
x Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nationwide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. x Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following:
x Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
x Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
x Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific SWAPE

4 2651
5 principles into the policy-making process.
x Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents.

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
x Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
x Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
x Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
x Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducted aquifer tests.
x Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2010 to 2014 and in 2017.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

SWAPE

4 2652
6 Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

SWAPE

4 2653
7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.

Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Ch ar ac te r i z a t i o n and Cl ean up a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPLcontaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

SWAPE

4 2654
8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.

SWAPE

4 2655

SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE
2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, California 90405
Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Mobil: (310) 795-2335
Office: (310) 452-5555
Fax: (310) 452-5550
Email: [email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 October 2021
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education
Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration.

M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics.

B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment.

Professional Experience
Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr.

Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, industrial, military and agricultural sources, unconventional oil drilling operations, and locomotive and construction engines. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distributed by water systems and via vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, creosote, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous cases involving exposure to soil, water and air contaminants from industrial, railroad, agricultural, and military sources.
ƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚ
SWAPE

5 2656

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 October 2021
Professional History:

Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist
James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist
Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications:

Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342
Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632.

Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL.

Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125.

Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327.

SWAPE

5 2657

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 October 2021
Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255.

Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530.

Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197.

Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357.

Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344.

Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178.

Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor.

Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262.

SWAPE

5 2658

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 October 2021
Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1).

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E., "The science for Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFAS): What makes remediation so hard?" Law Seminars International, (May 9-10, 2018) 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 101 Seattle, WA.

Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA.

Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water.

Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ.

Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International SWAPE

5 2659

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 October 2021
Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway.

Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.

International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference.

Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust.

Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.

SWAPE

5 2660

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 October 2021
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.

Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.

Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.

Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.

Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.

SWAPE

5 2661

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 October 2021
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.

Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.

Teaching Experience:

UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.

National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.

National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.

UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.

University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.

U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.

Academic Grants Awarded:

California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.

Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.

Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.

Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.

King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.

Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.

SWAPE

5 2662

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 October 2021
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.

Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-14-2021
Trial, October 8-4-2021
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a AMTRAK,
Case No.: No. 18-L-6845
Rosenfeld Deposition, 6-28-2021
In the United States District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff vs. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d/b/a METRA Rail, Defendants
Case No.: No. 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the Cunty of Maricopa Mary Tryon et al., Plaintiff vs. The City of Pheonix v. Cox Cactus Farm, L.L.C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case Number CV20127-094749
Rosenfeld Deposition: 5-7-2021
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont Division Robinson, Jeremy et al Plaintiffs, vs. CNA Insurance Company et al.

Case Number 1:17-cv-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition: 3-25-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino Gary Garner, Personal Representative for the Estate of Melvin Garner vs. BNSF Railway Company.

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Spring Street Courthouse Benny M Rodriguez vs. Union Pacific Railroad, A Corporation, et al.

Case No. 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell, Plaintiff, vs. Marathon Petroleum, LP, Defendant.

Case No.: 1716-CV10006
Rosenfeld Deposition. 8-30-2019
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
SWAPE

5 2663

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 October 2021
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.

Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19

In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case No.: 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No.: 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In United States District Court For The Southern District of Mississippi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et al., Defendants
Case: No 1:19-cv-00315-RHW
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
SWAPE

5 2664

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 October 2021
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.

Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.

Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.

Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division James K. Benefield, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. International Paper Company, Defendant.

Civil Action Number 2:09-cv-232-WHA-TFM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2010, June 2011
In the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Alabama
Jaeanette Moss Anthony, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Drummond Company Inc., et al., Defendants Civil Action No. CV 2008-2076
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2010
In the United States District Court, Western District Lafayette Division Ackle et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al., Defendants.

Case Number 2:07CV1052
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2009
SWAPE

5 2665
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-83 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 Organizations
Note to Reader: This letter includes the attachment from SWAPE Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA)
Note to reader: GSEJA submitted a letter with an attachment prepared by SWAPE. Each organization’s comments will be addressed separately.

Response to GSEJA-1
The organization provided introductory remarks and summarized the project. No environmental issues related to the proposed project were identified in this comment and no further response is necessary.

Response to GSEJA-2a
The organization opined the Draft EIR does not include relevant environmental justice issues for analysis in review of potential impacts from the proposed project. The organization notes this is significant given that communities surrounding the proposed project are more polluted than average on several pollution indicators measured by CalEnviroScreen.

Nothing in CEQA requires EIRs to consider environmental justice as part of the environmental impact analysis required under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15360 defines “the environment” as “the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance.” (Italics added.) These components of the physical environment are represented in the categories of environmental impacts included within the sample initial study checklist found in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. That checklist does not include any questions focused on “environmental justice.”
Effects that are solely social or economic in nature do not constitute an effect on the physical environment. Neither the California Air Resources Board (ARB) nor the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) have recommended significance thresholds adjusted for environmental justice considerations; therefore, the Draft EIR utilized the currently recommended BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine health risk impacts resulting from the proposed project. The Draft EIR evaluated potential impacts to the local community in Section 3.2, Air Quality, through the analysis of cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant emissions and health risks under Impacts AIR-2 and AIR-3. The project site is near the existing sensitive receptors the organization mentions, and the Draft EIR identifies the cumulative health impacts that would occur from project construction and operation combined with existing permitted stationary sources, local roadway traffic, freeway traffic, and rail traffic.

Response to GSEJA-2b
The organization generally describes the environmental and health impacts of hazardous waste and toxic releases on surrounding communities. The organization points out the proposed project’s census tract ranks 84th percentile for solid waste facility impacts, 61st percentile for toxic releases, and 83rd percentile for hazardous waste impacts.
2666
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-84 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 No project-specific comments were provided and, thus, no further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-2c
The organization generally describes the racial, economic, educational demographics of the proposed project’s census tract. The comment states that due to high incidences of cardiovascular disease and asthma in this census tract, access to medical care is vital.

No project-specific comments were provided and, thus, no further response is required.

Response to GSEJA-2d
The organization stated the Draft EIR did not accurately or adequately model the energy impacts of the proposed project in compliance with Title 24 and a finding of significance must be made. The organization recommends circulating a revised EIR in which one of the State of California approved energy compliance modeling software for nonresidential buildings (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, or IES VE), rather than CalEEMod, is used.

The Draft EIR’s air quality analysis utilized an approved emissions estimating model in CalEEMod based on the BAAQMD guidance. The comment’s assertion regarding use of the CalEEMod is incorrect. The BAAQMD identifies CalEEMod as a CEQA resource that can be used to assess air quality and its impact on communities and public health. The use of CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE are not recommended for CEQA analyses within the BAAQMD and would not be appropriate to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or energy impacts. The Draft EIR accurately and adequately modeled energy impacts in compliance with Title 24. The lead agency’s decision-makers will review the entire Final EIR and other documents in the administrative record prior to making findings regarding the decision to certify the Final EIR and render a decision on the proposed project.

Response to GSEJA-2e
The organization states the Draft EIR’s Transportation analysis does not consider medium and heavyduty trucks in its VMT analysis. The organization notes the operation of the proposed project would involve high rates of medium and heavy-duty truck/trailer VMT and thus recommends a revised EIR be prepared to reflect these factors in the VMT analysis. The organization states a revised VMT analysis must be used to revise the GHG analysis to determine whether the project-generated VMT is 15 percent below the prescribed threshold.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to GSEJA-2f
The organization stated that relying on the combined workforce of Napa and Solano County to fill the proposed project’s operational jobs would increase VMT and GHG emissions during construction and operation of the proposed project and exceeds the 26.24 miles of VMT per employee used by the Transportation Analysis to determine the proposed project’s impact on VMT. The organization recommends the GHG analysis be revised to account for longer work trip distances.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4. See Response to Comment GSEJA-8b for a discussion of the likely pool of workers for the proposed project.
2667
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-85 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 comment does not raise any issues that require a revision of the Draft EIR.

Response to GSEJA-3a
The organization alleged that Draft EIR, Section 3.9, Land Use, Table 3.9-2, provided a misleading consistency analysis with the City of American Canyon General Plan. The agency cited the consistency analysis with Land Use Element Objective 1.2 and claimed it is inconsistent with the Development Capacity Table on Land Use Element Page 1-12.

The Draft EIR introduced Table 3.9-2, on pages 3.9-6 and 3.9-7, by stating:
“[t]he conclusions expressed in Table 3. 9-2 reflect the best judgment of City staff.

The ultimate question of the meaning of particular General Plan policies, and thus the proposed project’ s consistency with them, lies with the City Council. The language found in general plans is sometimes susceptible to varying interpretations.

Case law interpreting the Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code, § 65000 et seq.) makes it clear that: (i) the ultimate meaning of such policies is to be determined by the elected city council or a lower tier decision- making body such as a planning commission, as opposed to city staff and EIR consultants, applicants, or members of the public; and (ii) the decision- making body’ s interpretations of such policies will prevail if they are “reasonable,” even though other reasonable interpretations are also possible (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles ( 1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 223, 245-246, 249). Courts also have recognized that, because general plans often contain numerous policies adopted to effect differing or competing legislative goals, a development project may be “consistent” with a general plan, taken as a whole, even though the project appears to be inconsistent or arguably inconsistent with some specific policies within a given general plan (Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719).

Furthermore, courts strive to “reconcile” or harmonize” seemingly disparate general plan policies to the extent reasonably possible (No Oil, supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 244).”
As these principles make clear, reasonable minds may differ with respect to both the meaning of a particular General Plan policy and whether a proposed project is or is not consistent with such a policy. Thus, GSEJA may sincerely believe the proposed project is inconsistent with certain General Plan objectives and policies. But its opinions are in no way binding on City decision-makers, which have broad discretion to reach different conclusions.

The draft EIR’s Objective 1.2 consistency analysis provides a through and comprehensive review of General Plan policies, goals and objectives and is reproduced and discussed below:
2668
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-86 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 Objective 1.2 Promote a rate of growth that is consistent with the ability of the City to provide
adequate infrastructure and services and
does not adversely impact the distinctive
character and quality of life in American
Canyon.

Consistent: The proposed project would
develop 2.4 million square feet of new
industrial uses on a site designated for such
use located within the American Canyon
city limits. The project site is located within
the Green Island Business Park and is
surrounded by urban uses and
infrastructure on three sides. Thus, the
proposed project would occur in an area
where adequate infrastructure and services
exist such that it would not exceed the
City’s ability to serve it.

The Draft EIR’s consistency analysis identifies how the project (1) would develop high-cube warehouse uses on a site designated Industrial by the General Plan; (2) would be compatible with surrounding land uses; and (3) is located in an area served with adequate infrastructure. Moreover, Objective 1.2 makes no reference to the Development Capacity Table on Land Use Element Page 1-

12. Hence, there is no basis to assess Objectively 1.2 using the Development Capacity Table.

The Development Capacity Table is further addressed in Response to GSEJA-3d.

Response to GSEJA-3b
The organization alleged the consistency analysis with Economic Development Element Objective 3.4 and claimed it is inconsistent with the objective because the Draft EIR identifies a significant unavoidable impact associated with air quality.

The Draft EIR’s Objective 3.4 consistency analysis is reproduced and discussed below:

Objective 3.4 Increase the number of firms within the
industries now represented in the City and
capture new, clean, nonpolluting industries
that are stable and compatible with City
needs in terms of traffic, air quality, and
employment.

Consistent: The proposed project would
develop 2.4 million square feet of high-cube
warehouse on an approximately 208-acre
site in the Green Island Business Park. These
types of uses currently exist within the
Airport Industrial Area. Additionally, the
proposed project is estimated to create
3,643 new jobs. The proposed project
would implement traffic improvements to
mitigate for impacts on traffic operations.

Economic Development Element Objective 3.4 expresses the City’s general desire to attract new businesses to the City that minimize traffic and air quality impacts while also providing stable employment opportunities and land use compatibility. The Draft EIR’s consistency analysis identifies how the project (1) would create new jobs; (2) represents the continued development of the Green Island Business Park; (3) is compatible with the Napa County Airport; and (4) would implement traffic improvements. Objective 3.4 is silent about what CEQA conclusions are acceptable in order to achieve consistency with this objective. Moreover, both Napa Logistics Park Phase II and Napa 2669
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-87 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 Airport Corporate Center were found consistent with Objective 3.4 for the same reasons as Giovannoni Logistics Center despite also having significant unavoidable air quality impacts. Thus, the City has established a precedent for interpretation of Objective 3.4. Hence, there is no basis to evaluate project consistency with Objective 3.4 based on CEQA conclusions. Notably, a local general plan policy that precluded all industrial development with even one significant unavoidable effect would likely frustrate the local government’s economic development objectives, as such significant unavoidable effects are very common, particularly in air basins that are not in attainment for all pollutants regulated under federal and State air quality laws. The question whether a particular industry is “clean” and “nonpolluting” is a relative one. Certainly, logistics centers are clean and nonpolluting in comparison with traditional heavy industries involving, for example, petroleum refining or chemical manufacturing.

Response to GSEJA-3c
The organization alleged the consistency analysis with Circulation Element Policy 1.11 is inconsistent with the policy because of the omission of medium and heavy-duty trucks from the VMT analysis.

The Draft EIR’s Guiding Policy 1.11 consistency analysis is reproduced and discussed below:

Guiding Policy

1.11 Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Through
layout of land uses, improved alternate
modes, and provision of more direct
routes, strive to reduce the total vehicle
miles traveled by City residents.

Consistent: The project site is located
within the Napa County Airport Industrial
Area, which has convenient access to SR-12
and SR-29. The development of the
proposed project’s 2.4 million square feet
of high-cube warehouse is within the North
Bay Region and would contribute to
reducing trip length by locating these
facilities closer to customers within this
region. Finally, the development of up to
3,643 new jobs in a housing-rich part of the
Bay Area region would allow employees to
work closer to where they live, thereby
reducing vehicle miles traveled.

Guiding Policy 1.11 expresses a general desire to reduce VMT through various planning techniques.

The Draft EIR’s consistency analysis identifies proximity to regional highways and residential uses as project attributes consistent with Guiding Policy 1.11. Moreover, Guiding Policy 1.11 is silent how a CEQA VMT analysis would inform a consistency finding, much less the methodology of such an analysis. Hence, there is no basis to use the conclusions of a CEQA VMT analysis as the basis for assessing consistency with Guiding Policy 1.11.

The organization’s specific comments about the Draft EIR’s VMT analysis, including the contention the analysis is deficient for failing to account for medium- and heavy-duty truck traffic, are addressed in Response to GSEJA-4a through GSEJA-4d, as well as Master Response 4. 2670
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-88 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 GSEJA-3d
The organization alleged the Draft EIR omitted a consistency analysis with Land Use Policy 1.3.4’s Development Capacity Table, which identifies up to 5,778,500 square feet of additional industrial development provided the circulation improvements in the General Plan are implemented.

No EIR can be legally inadequate for failing to address a proposed project’s consistency with a General Plan policy with which the project is consistent. Rather, CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, subdivision (d), requires that “[t]he EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans.” (Italics added; see also, City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 918-919 [EIRs need not address policies with which proposed projects are consistent].) City staff concludes the proposed project is consistent with the Development Capacity Table found in Land Use Policy 1.3.4, the introductory text of which states the City should “[l]imit the total additional new development that can be accommodated in the City and its Urban Limit to the following provided that the highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Element are implemented.” (Italics added.) One key term in that policy is “additional new development.” The Land Use Element is silent as to what is the baseline value that the additional new development can be compared to. Underscoring this issue, the California Department of Finance indicates the City of American Canyon has 5,050 single-family dwelling units as of January 1, 2022, which exceeds the total value of 4,882 in the Development Capacity Table.

Another key element of Land Use Policy 1.3.4 is the obvious linkage between “additional new development” and “highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Element[.]” This linkage shows the additional new development beyond the levels shown in the table following Policy 1.3.4 would be allowed provided highway improvements at issue were implemented. Thus, new development should not get out ahead of transportation infrastructure needed to support it.

Hence, it is clear the City never intended Development Capacity Table to be used as a hard and fast limit on General Plan buildout but rather intended the table to inform how much growth can occur until all of the contemplated circulation improvements were put in place.

This understanding of Land Use Policy 1.3.4 and its capacity table is evident from past land use and development decisions made by the City of American Canyon. The City annexed a substantial amount of acreage in the northern portion of the City in 2005 (including the Giovannoni property), thereby increasing buildout potential for nonresidential uses. The City completed the first segment of the Devlin Road extension from South Kelly Road to Napa Logistics Park in 2012, enabling this area to be developed. The City subsequently approved Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 in 2015, Napa Airport Corporate Center in 2018, and the Broadway District Specific Plan in 2019. Also, the City approved the Watson Ranch Specific Plan in 2019, which includes an extension of Newell Drive. The annexation, approval, or development of all of these projects suggests that the Development Capacity Table was never intended to be interpreted as a hard limit on growth.

Furthermore, the General Plan makes clear elsewhere the project site is within the (1) city limits and (2) is designated for “Industrial” use. Thus, when one considers to the totality of all Land Use 2671
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-89 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 Element goals, objectives, and policies that pertain to growth management, it is clear the City’s intention is to prioritize development of infill sites within the city limits served with existing infrastructure. Moreover, completion of Devlin Road between Green Island Road and Middleton Way is a General Plan-identified circulation improvement that provides a parallel route to SR-29 improves circulation in the project vicinity.

In sum, GSEJA’s suggestion that the Development Capacity Table represents a hard cap on new development in American Canyon is inconsistent with the plain language of the policy, the General Plan’s policy direction viewed as a whole, and the manner in which City decision-makers have historically interpreted Land Use Policy 1.3.4.

Response to GSEJA-3e
The organization alleged the Draft EIR omitted a consistency analysis with Land Use Goal 1T, which calls for the establishment of an Urban Limit Line through January 1, 2030.

Goal 1T applies to the American Canyon policy makers (i.e., the City Council) and not individual development projects. Regardless, as shown on the General Plan Land Use Map, the project site is within both the American Canyon city limits and Urban Limit Line.

Response to GSEJA-3f
The organization alleged the Draft EIR omitted a consistency analysis with Land Use Policy 1.22.9, which requires permitting and regulation of industrial land uses that handle hazardous materials.

The City of American Canyon General Plan allows a range of end users within the Industrial land use category, many of which do not handle large quantities of hazardous materials. Regardless, because no end users have been identified, it would be speculative to further discuss a potential end users consistency with Policy 1.22.9.

Furthermore, the Draft EIR evaluated hazardous materials impacts in Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and found all impacts would be less than significant and did not require mitigation.

Response to GSEJA-3g
The organization alleged the Draft EIR omitted a consistency analysis with Economic Development Element Objective 3.2, which calls for growth that generates net positive fiscal impacts for the City.

Fiscal impacts are outside the scope of environmental review because they do not have physical impacts on the environment. Nothing in CEQA requires the City to consider the proposed project’s consistency with this objective. (See, CEQA Guidelines, § 15131, subd. (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”]).

Response to GSEJA-3h
The organization alleged the Draft EIR omitted a consistency analysis with Economic Development Policy 3.2.1, which calls for a fiscal impact analysis for certain types of projects.

Fiscal impacts are outside the scope of environmental review because they do not have physical impacts on the environment. Regardless, a fiscal impact analysis, entitled American Canyon 2672
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-90 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 Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis and prepared by Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. dated May 6, 2022, was prepared in accordance with this policy. This analysis is included as Appendix K of this Final EIR.

Response to GSEJA-3i
The organization alleged the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan’s goals, objectives, and policies due to aforementioned comments about significant unavoidable air quality impacts and VMT.

Refer to Responses to GSEJA-3b and GSEJA-3c.

Response to GSEJA-3j
The organization reiterated prior comments about the proposed project’s inconsistency with the Development Capacity Table.

Please refer to Response to GSEJA-3d for a discussion regarding potential industrial development. As detailed in the Draft EIR and these responses to comments, the proposed project would not be inconsistent with the General Plan and no revisions or recirculation of the Draft EIR is required.

Response to GSEJA-4a
The organization alleged the VMT analysis omitted medium- and heavy-duty truck trips from the VMT analysis and, thus, it does not accurately reflect all project-related VMT.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to GSEJA-4b
The organization alleged the Statewide Travel Demand Model utilized in the VMT analysis was cited as a technical reference but not incorporated by reference pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, subdivision (f). Therefore, the City was not required, under subdivision (b) of that section, to make the data available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building.

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to GSEJA-4c
The organization referenced the VMT per employee number of 16.24 miles and alleged it was in conflict with a statement in the growth inducement analysis that the project labor force would come from Napa and Solano Counties.

Refer to Response to GSEJA-8b.

Response to GSEJA-4d
The organization alleged the Draft EIR’s VMT analysis referenced policies used by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Sacramento County, and the City of San José but failed to incorporate them by reference in the Draft EIR.
2673
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-91 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 complies with CEQA’s requirements for technical detail and citation of information outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15147 and 15148. Incorporation by reference is not required, or appropriate for all documents. See Section 15150(f). VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to GSEJA-5a
The organization alleged the Draft EIR’s Cumulative Effects analysis did not account for the Development Capacity Table and reiterated prior comments about the project’s square footage exceeding that allowed by the table.

As indicated in Response to GSEJA-3d, the organization’s interpretation of the Development Capacity Table materially differs from how the City of American Canyon interprets the table. Thus, there is no deficiency with the cumulative effects analysis as it relates to the Development Capacity Table. As is evident from Draft EIR, Section 4, Cumulative Effects, Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects, page 4-1 and in the cumulative analysis that follows, the City primarily relied on the so-called “list method” for identifying probable future projects that would create impacts that would compound those of past and present projects, along with the proposed project itself. This method is authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, subdivision (b)(1)(A). Table 4-1 includes probable future projects that are either awaiting approval, approved but not yet constructed, or under construction. This approach fully satisfied CEQA. Nothing in the law required the City to use the Development Capacity Table from General Plan Land Use Policy 1.3.4 as the basis for conducting cumulative impact analysis.

Response to GSEJA-5b
The organization alleged the Draft EIR’s Cumulative Effects analysis did not discuss the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Plan Bay Area growth projections for South Napa County. The organization claimed the proposed project’s 3,643 employees would represent 19 percent of South Napa County’s employment growth between 2015 and 2050. The organization noted that 3,643 employees would represent 72 percent of South Napa County population growth between 2015- 2050.

As indicated in Response to GSEJA-7b, the organization’s claims about project consistency with Plan Bay Area growth projections are not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, there is no deficiency with the cumulative effects analysis as it relates to Plan Bay Area growth projections. As noted in the Response to GSEJA-5a, the City primarily relied on the so-called “list method” authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, subdivision (b)(1)(A), for identifying probable future projects that would create impacts that would compound those of past and present projects, along with the proposed project itself. In doing so, the City fully complied with applicable CEQA requirements.

Response to GSEJA-6
The organization alleged the Draft EIR’s Alternative’s analysis failed to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives that meet the project objectives and eliminates all proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The organization asserted the Draft EIR must be revised to include such an alternative.
“There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a), citing Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the 2674
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-92 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 University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376).) “An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a); see also Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 196 [same].) A court must uphold an agency’s selection of alternatives “unless the challenger demonstrates that the alternatives are manifestly unreasonable and that they do not contribute to a reasonable range of alternatives.” (Cal. Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 988.)
Here, the Draft EIR includes a reasonable range of alternatives that need not be supplemented by additional alternatives to be legally adequate. The Draft EIR evaluated four alternatives in detail (No Project/No Development, No Project/Existing General Plan, Reduced Density, and Phase 1 Only) and considered two alternatives initially considered but ultimately rejected from further consideration (Phase 2 Only and Alternative Location). By any objective standard, this is clearly a “reasonable range” of alternatives, particularly given the characteristics of the proposed project.

As for the organization’s suggestion the Draft EIR must be revised to identify an alternative that meets all of the project objectives and eliminates all of the significant unavoidable impacts, this is not required by the CEQA Guidelines. Rather, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires evaluation of alternatives “which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” In this case, the Phase 1 Only Alternative was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it met the most project objectives while achieving the greatest reduction in the severity of project impacts.

Response to GSEJA-7a
The organization referenced the growth inducement analysis in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, and noted it does not reference the General Plan Land Use Element’s Development Capacity Table. The organization reiterated previous comments about the lack of analysis of this issue.

As discussed on Draft EIR Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, pages 6-1 and 6-2, growth inducement concerns facilitating substantial direct or indirect growth (e.g., new housing or new employment opportunities) or removal of a physical barrier to growth (e.g., extension of sewer into an unserved area). In the case of the proposed project, it is entirely nonresidential and located within an area served by urban infrastructure. The analysis explained the proposed project would employ an estimated 1,200 workers during construction and 3,643 workers when fully operational at buildout, but would likely be built incrementally over a period of years, with the result that jobs would be added in blocks as the project builds out. Thus, there would not be an “overnight” influx of new employment opportunities. The analysis also noted that in October 2021 the California Employment Development Department estimated the combined Napa- Solano labor force at 273,500, making the local labor force is sufficiently large to allow the project’ s employment opportunities to be filled locally. Nor would the proposed project require construction of additional housing in American Canyon to shelter its workers. As the Draft EIR explained, the City of American Canyon has more than 2,400 dwelling units in the pipeline. For comparison purposes, American Canyon’ s population was estimated to be 20,837. The addition of more than 2,400 dwelling units to 2675
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-93 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 City’ s housing inventory would more than offset the employment growth attributable to the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed project would pay the City’s Affordable Housing Nexus Fee (Ordinance 2016-05) which funds affordable housing projects generated by the need for additional housing caused by new employment.

In sum, the Draft EIR’s analysis appropriately focused on the potential for the proposed project’s new employment opportunities to cause unplanned growth. No such unplanned growth will occur. Nor will the local housing market be strained. Regardless, the Development Capacity Table would provide no insight into any of these issues and, thus, the Draft EIR appropriately did not reference it.

Refer to Response to GSEJA-3d for further discussion of the Development Capacity Table.

Response to GSEJA-7b
The organization stated the growth inducement analysis in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, did not address the cumulative growth impacts and noted the proposed project’s 3,643 employees would represent 19 percent of South Napa County’s employment growth between 2015 and 2050.

The organization noted that 3,643 employees would represent 72 percent of South Napa County population growth between 2015-2050.

The proposed project is the single largest industrial project in terms of square footage in American Canyon history. For its buildout employment to represent 19 percent of South Napa County’s employment growth between 2015 and 2050 would not be unexpected nor represent an inconsistency with regional growth projections.

The organization’s claim the proposed project’s employment growth would correlate 1:1 to population growth in South Napa County is unsupported by evidence. No end users have been identified and no hiring has occurred. Thus, it is unknown where project employees reside. Given that American Canyon is within 10 miles of population centers in Solano County (e.g., Vallejo, Benicia, and Fairfield) that are not within the South Napa County subregion, project employees would have numerous options of places to live. For these reasons, the organization’s claims in this regard are speculative.

Response to GSEJA-7c
The organization referenced a statement in growth inducement analysis in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, that the proposed project would “likely be built incremental over a period of years” and alleged it was inconsistent with how the air quality analysis evaluated buildout over a 20-month period. The organization asserted the Draft EIR must be revised to reconcile this inconsistency.

The Draft EIR’s buildout assumptions are addressed in Master Response 3.

As for the statement in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, that the proposed project would “likely be built incremental over a period of years,” is simply a statement to provide perspective to the reader regarding how buildout is anticipated to occur. Moreover, it is based on observations of actual buildout of neighboring Napa Logistics Park and Green Island Business Park. At the time of Final EIR publication, no end users had been identified, no resource agency permitting had been completed, and no design-level architectural plans or engineering studies had been completed for 2676
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-94 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 project structures. All of these items can take months, if not years, to complete, which serves to reinforce the Draft EIR’s basis that a 20-month buildout schedule is conservative. Regardless, the analysis in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, Section 6.2, Growth-Inducing Impacts, is based on whether the proposed project would result in direct or indirect growth-inducing impacts resulting, in part, from unplanned growth. The Draft EIR concludes the proposed project would be consistent with growth projections. Accordingly, even if the proposed project were to build out in 20 months, such a pace of development would not conflict with the conclusions of the growth inducement analysis.

Lastly, the statement in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-9 about “a period of 18 months” has been corrected to “a period of 20 to 24 months” and the change is noted in Final EIR Section 5, Errata. The change does not materially affect any conclusions of the air quality analysis since it used a 20-month buildout schedule.

Response to GSEJA-8a
The organization referenced discussion of population and housing in Draft EIR Section 7, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, and asserted the Draft EIR did not provide methodology for construction or operational employment estimates. The organization asserted the methodology must be disclosed.

The applicant submitted an Economic Impact Analysis prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to the City of American Canyon in December 2020. EPS estimated construction and buildout employment in Table 1, which were referenced in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description on page 2-8, and Chapter 6, Other CEQA Consideration on page 6-1 and 6-2. The methodology used by EPS is described as follows:

Construction Employment
The referenced 1,200-job year figure was estimated using an Input/Output model using the IMPLAN software, which is a commonly used and industry standard application for this type of modeling. EPS used the estimated construction costs for the project as input for the Input/Output analysis.

This 1,200-job figure includes both direct (on-site) jobs and indirect (jobs at other businesses supported by construction). If the intention is to just capture on-site job years of project construction, the more relevant figure would be 1,030-job years shown on Table 2 of the Economic Impact Analysis as the direct effect. The additional 170 employees are at other businesses supporting the construction, such as local lumber or equipment suppliers.

Additionally, this figure represents job years and not necessarily employee estimates. If project construction lasts for more than a year, this number may double count some employee as one employee who is employed for 2 years would count as 2 job years.

Buildout Employment:

Similar to construction impacts, the 3,643-job estimate was estimated using the Input/Output model provided by IMPLAN. This estimate represents the total job economic impact of the proposed project, including direct, indirect, and induced employment as the economic activity from the 2677
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-95 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 ripples through the local economy. The proposed project itself is not anticipated to directly employ all these jobs on-site.

EPS estimated direct on-site employment at buildout of the project on Table A-1 of the Economic Impact Analysis by applying a standard 1,000 square feet per employee assumption (a commonly used assumption for projects of this type) to the total square footage of the proposed project to arrive at an on-site employment estimate of 2,399 employees. This was used as the input for the IMPLAN analysis.

On a broader note, the applicant’s representative noted at the June 23, 2022, American Canyon Planning Commission Meeting (refer to Final EIR Section 4, Responses to June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Comments) that his firm has observed a trend of tenants consolidating separate, smaller spaces into single, larger spaces. Should this phenomenon play out at the proposed project, little to no change in overall net employment would occur.

In sum, it is possible the Draft EIR overestimated employment. However, more employment causes more impacts and, thus, even if 3,643 jobs overstates the actual buildout employment, it is consistent with providing a conservative analysis of reasonably foreseeable potential adverse impacts.

Response to GSEJA-8b
The organization referenced a statement in Draft EIR Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, page 6- 2 about the Napa-Solano labor force being sufficiently large enough to allow for the proposed project’s employment opportunities to be filled locally and alleged that there is no meaningful evidence to support this conclusion. The organization alleged the size of the labor force does not equate to the number of available workers, the number of workers qualified to work in the industrial sector, or the number of workers interested in working in the industrial sector. The organization claimed that relying upon the entire labor force of Napa and Solano Counties greatly exceeds the

16.24 VMT per employee utilized in the Transportation analysis. The organization alleged that using the Napa-Solano labor force will increase VMT during all phases of construction and operations and, therefore, the Draft EIR must be revised to account for longer distances.

As previously noted in Response to GSEJA-7b, no end users have been identified and no hiring has occurred. Thus, it is unknown what types of qualifications would be required, who would be interested in the proposed project’s employment opportunities, or where employees would reside.

In the absence of this information, the Draft EIR used official State employment data to assess regional labor force characteristics at a macro level and determine whether the proposed project’s employment opportunities could foreseeably cause substantial unplanned population growth. The Draft EIR noted the combined labor force of Napa and Solano Counties was 273,500 as of October 2021. The proposed project’s estimated buildout employment of 3,643 would represent 1.3 percent of the October 2021 labor force estimate. The Draft EIR concluded the Napa-Solano labor force was sufficiently large to fill the jobs locally and, thus, substantial unplanned population growth would not occur. Without specific information about end users, any further analysis in this regard would be speculative. It is reasonable to assume, however, that very few workers would live in those areas of Napa and Solano Counties that are most distant from the project site. Rather, most workers are likely 2678
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-96 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 live within a reasonable commute distance. The commenter implies that the VMT calculations for the proposed project should assume appreciable numbers of workers would be traveling from the farthest reaches of the two counties. There is no evidentiary basis for such an assumption.

As previously noted in Response GSEJA-8a, it is possible the Draft EIR overestimated employment.

Furthermore, as disclosed in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description on page 2-9, and Chapter 6, Other CEQA Consideration on page 6-2, and 6-3, the buildout period may take years, if not decades. Thus, it would be expected that the Napa-Solano labor force would be substantially larger than 273,500 and even more capable of filling the proposed project’s employment opportunities locally. Should either one of these things actually occur, it would reinforce the conservative, worstcase scenario nature of the analysis.

Lastly, the growth inducement analysis and VMT analysis employed separate methodologies. The growth inducement analysis as it relates to employment was based on the aforementioned regional assessment of the Napa-Solano labor force. The VMT analysis is based on a traffic model; refer to Draft EIR Section 3.12, Transportation, pages 3.12-16 and 3.12-17. Neither methodology relies upon the same data inputs nor is intended to address provide insight into both issues. Both analyses are conservative, though in different ways. Hence, attempting to commingle the conclusions misrepresents the analyses and the purposes for which they were prepared.

Regardless, the entire City of American Canyon and portions of the City of Napa, the City of Vallejo, and the City of Fairfield–the latter two are located in Solano County–are within 8 miles of the project site and, thus, the VMT per employee rate of 16.24 miles is readily attainable.

Response to GSEJA-8c
The organization alleged he Draft EIR did not discuss project consistency with ABAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Plan Bay Area 2050). The organization reiterated previous comments about employment and population growth in the South Napa County subregion between 2015 and 2050. The organization reiterated prior comments about the Draft EIR omitting information about the location or qualifications of project employees.

The Draft EIR evaluated project consistency with the City of American Canyon General Plan in Impact LU-1 in Section 3.9, Land Use. The proposed project was found to be consistent with all applicable provisions of the General Plan. Plan Bay 2050 uses local land use plans as the basis for its regional population and employment projections; hence, the proposed project is implicitly consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050.

Refer to Response to GSEJA-7b through Response to GSEJA-8b for further discussion.

Response to GSEJA-9
The organization stated the Draft EIR is flawed and a revised EIR must be prepared.

As indicated in Responses to GSEJA-2a through GSEJA-8c, the organization’s allegations of inadequate analysis are not supported by substantial evidence and, thus, there is no legal basis to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR.
2679
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-97 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 SWAPE-1
The organization provided introductory remarks and asserted the Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze the proposed project’s air quality and health risk impacts.

As indicated in Responses to SWAPE-2a through SWAPE-2e, the organization’s allegations of inadequate analysis are not supported by substantial evidence.

Response to SWAPE-2a
The organization states the Draft EIR fails to implement all feasible mitigation thus the conclusion the proposed project’s air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable are unsubstantiated. The organization recommends a revised EIR be prepared that incorporates additional mitigation measures, such as those listed under “Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions.” 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 Air Quality Plan (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. 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.

In addition, several of the measures recommended by the commenter are already incorporated into the analysis. For instance, MM AIR-2a, MM AIR-2b, and MM GHG-1a require the use of construction Best Management Plans (BMPs)—many are recommended by the BAAQMD—to reduce the generation of GHG emissions and fugitive dust during project construction, which correspond with the recommended measures for keeping construction equipment tuned to the manufacturer’s specifications, limiting on-site equipment and vehicle idling times, and reducing the volatile organic compound (VOC) content of paints and coatings used during construction. Moreover, MM GHG-1c and MM GHG-1d require the proposed project to construct charging stations and construct the proposed buildings compliant with Tier 2 voluntary standards contained in the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). These measures correspond to the commenter’s recommendations for including electric truck charging stations, light-duty vehicle charging stations, plugs for electric Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs), and a Tier 2 CALGreen energy efficiency building design. Finally, MM AIR-2d requires that trucks accessing the project site be model year 2014 or newer, which would achieve greater emission reductions than the commenter’s recommendation for requiring trucks accessing the site to be model year 2010 or newer. The additional measures recommended by the commenter would not result in an appreciable reduction in project emissions or were determined not to be financially or technically feasible. As such, this comment is noted, and no additional measures have been identified that could practicably be included to result in project emissions sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant. See Response to Comment SWAPE-2e below for a detailed assessment of each of the commenter’s proposed mitigation measures.
2680
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-98 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 SWAPE-2b
The organization notes that CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type, and goes on to state that, if more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values. The commenter adds that any such changes should be justified by substantial evidence. The organization contends that CalEEMod model input used in the Draft EIR is not consistent with information disclosed in the Draft EIR, thus the proposed project’s operation emissions are underestimated. The organization recommends an updated Draft EIR be prepared to include an updated air quality analysis.

The technical inputs into the CalEEMod modeling reflect the best professional judgment of the air quality specialists 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. That was done here based on input from the applicant, who will also serve as the construction contractor for the project. Although SWAPE might use different modeling inputs, the difference of opinion between SWAPE, on the one hand, and First Carbon Solutions and City staff, on the other, would not render the EIR inadequate. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) The City of American Canyon was entitled to rely on the expert judgment of First Carbon Solutions and City planners, whose opinions and judgment constitute substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 391, 413 [city decision-makers were entitled to rely on expert judgment of their planning staff; “[e]ven giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they may have had an expert compile and analyze their data for them, the fact that there are differing opinions arising from the same pool of information is not grounds for holding the EIR inadequate”].) As indicated in Response to SWAPE-2c, the organization’s specific allegations of inadequate analysis are not supported by substantial evidence.

Response to SWAPE-2c
The commentator states the operational model included in the Draft EIR fails to include the proposed 528 daily truck trips, thus the models underestimate the proposed project’s mobile-source operational emissions.

The commenter is incorrect in stating the air quality analysis failed to include 528 daily truck trips. As shown in Draft EIR Appendix B on page 3, and pages 8 through 29, emissions associated with trucking activity were calculated utilizing the ARB’s EMission FACtors (EMFAC) Version 2017 for heavy-heavy-duty vehicle classes. EMFAC Version 2017 was utilized as it is consistent with the vehicle emission factors contained in CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. Further, as identified in Section

3.2, Air Quality, and Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project’s emissions are delineated between area, energy, passenger vehicle, trucks, transport refrigerated units, water, and waste emission sources. As shown therein, the emissions associated with daily truck trips were considered in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission analyses. 2681
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-99 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 SWAPE-2d
The organization stated the Draft EIR’s evaluation of the proposed project’s potential health risk impact, and the conclusion of a less than significant impact, is incorrect because it relies on emissions estimates from a flawed air model and the Draft EIR fails to provide the input parameters and modeling assumptions, including daily breathing rates, exposure duration, age sensitivity factors, fraction of time at home, and exposure frequency values. The organization says it is unable to verify the accuracy of the proposed project’s cancer risk and asserts the cancer risk may be underestimated and should not be relied upon to determine project significance.

Please refer to Response to SWAPE-2c, which addresses inclusion of truck emissions in the emissions analysis. For the disclosure of daily breathing rates, exposure duration, age sensitivity factors, fraction of time at home, and exposure frequency values, a description of Health Risk Assessment (HRA) modeling inputs was provided in Appendix B to the Draft EIR, starting on page 329. As shown therein, the ARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) was utilized for calculating the proposed project’s potential health risk impacts. As disclosed on pages 332 and 333 of Appendix B, the HRA utilized the daily breathing rates, exposure duration, age sensitivity factors, fraction of time at home, and exposure frequency values recommended by the BAAQMD and lists out specific inputs utilized in HARP for residential and school receptors to correspond with those recommended values.

Response to SWAPE-2e
The organization stated the proposed project results in significant operational air quality impacts that should be mitigated further and provides several additional mitigation measures they request be added to the proposed project. The organization recommended an updated EIR be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, an updated air quality analysis, and a demonstrated commitment to implement these mitigation measures prior to project approval.

Table 3-1 below provides a feasibility analysis of each proposed mitigation measure. As indicated in the table, the proposed mitigation measures are (1) not necessary; (2) not feasible; (3) are already included as mitigation; or (4) have been included as new mitigation measures.

Table 3-1: Proposed Mitigation Measure Feasibility Analysis Proposed Mitigation Measure Analysis
Prohibiting off-road diesel powered equipment from
being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per
day.

Not Necessary: Because construction criteria
pollutant emissions are less than significant after
mitigation, no further mitigation is necessary.

Forbidding idling of heavy equipment for more than 2
minutes.

Not Necessary: MM AIR-2a limits idling to no more
than 5 minutes of idling in accordance with State
law. Because construction criteria pollutant
emissions are less than significant after mitigation,
no further mitigation is necessary.

Keeping on-site and furnishing to the lead agency or
other regulators upon request, all equipment
maintenance records and data sheets, including design
specifications and emission control tier classifications.

Not Necessary: Because construction criteria
pollutant emissions are less than significant after
mitigation, no further mitigation is necessary.

Furthermore, mandating that records be made
2682
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-100 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
available for inspection by a government agency
without a search warrant may be unlawful.

Using paints, architectural coatings, and industrial
maintenance coatings that have volatile organic
compound levels of less than 10 g/L.

Not Necessary: MM AIR-2b limits architectural
coatings to no more than 50 g/L, which is classified
as ‘Low VOC.’ Because VOC construction emissions
are less than significant after mitigation, no further
restrictions on VOC content are necessary.

Providing information on transit and ridesharing
program and services to construction employees.

Not Necessary: Because construction criteria
pollutant emissions are less than significant after
mitigation, no further mitigation is necessary.

Providing meal options on-site or shuttles between the
facility and nearby meal destinations for construction
employees.

Not Necessary: Because construction criteria
pollutant emissions are less than significant after
mitigation, no further mitigation is necessary.

Requiring that all facility-owned and operated fleet
equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater
than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed
2010 model year emissions equivalent engine
standards as currently defined in California Code of
Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this
requirement and shall make records available for
inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and State upon request.

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.

Requiring all heavy-duty vehicles entering or operated
on the project site to be zero-emission beginning in
2030.

Not Feasible: Zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles are
not widely available at the time of Final EIR
publication. Imposing such a requirement for a
technology in anticipation that it will become widely
available is speculative. 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.

Requiring all on-site equipment such as forklifts and
yard trucks to electric with the necessary electrical
charging stations provided.

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.

Nonetheless, MM AIR-2c requires that electric
landscaping equipment such as lawn mowers, leaf
blowers, and chainsaws be used during operations.
2683
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-101 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
These technologies are widely available and because
the proposed project would have landscaping, can
be clearly shown to reduce emissions.

Requiring tenants to use zero-emission light- and
medium-duty vehicles as part of business operations.

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.

Forbidding trucks from idling more than 2 minutes and
requiring operators to turn off engines when not in
use.

Not Feasible: State law limits idling to no more than
5 minutes. Limiting idling to fewer minutes would be
very difficult to enforce and would create confusion
between local and State vehicle idling limitations.

Posting both interior- and exterior-facing signs,
including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to the ARB, the air district, and the building manager.

New Mitigation: MM AIR-2e has been added to the
Draft EIR requiring that anti-idling signage be posted
in loading dock areas. This change is noted in Final
EIR Section 5, Errata. The residual significance of
Impact AIR-1 and AIR-2 remains significant and
unavoidable.

Installing and maintaining, at the manufacturer’s
recommended maintenance intervals, an air
monitoring station proximate to sensitive receptors
and the facility for the life of the project, and making the resulting data public in real time. While air
monitoring does not mitigate the air quality or
greenhouse gas impacts of a facility, it nonetheless
benefits the affected community by providing
information that can be used to improve air quality or
avoid exposure to unhealthy air.

Not Effective: This mitigation measure does not
reduce emissions. As the commenter recognizes, air
monitoring by itself does not mitigate the air quality
or greenhouse gas impacts of a facility.

Constructing electric truck charging stations
proportional to the number of dock doors at the
project.

Already Included as Mitigation: MM GHG-1d
requires electric vehicle charging stations in parking
areas. It should be noted that electric trucks –
particularly heavy-duty trucks – are not widely
available at the time of Final EIR release. Therefore,
installing additional charging stations at loading
docks likely would not reduce emissions to any
meaningful degree.

Constructing electric plugs for electric Transport
Refrigeration Units at every dock door, if the
warehouse use could include refrigeration.

Already Included as Mitigation: MM GHG-1d
requires electrical outlets for TRUs at each loading
dock.
2684
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-102 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
Constructing electric light-duty vehicle charging
stations proportional to the number of parking spaces
at the project.

Already Included as Mitigation: MM GHG-1d
requires electric vehicle charging stations in parking
areas in accordance with CalGreen Tier 2 standards.

Installing solar photovoltaic systems on the project
site of a specified electrical generation capacity, such as equal to the building’s projected energy needs.

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.

Requiring all stand-by emergency generators to be
powered by a non-diesel fuel.

Not Necessary: Operational particulate matter
emissions are less than significant and do not
require mitigation. Sensitive receptor exposure to
diesel particulate matter emissions is also less than
significant and does not require mitigation. Thus,
there is no basis under CEQA to impose mitigation
stand-by emergency generators.

Requiring facility operators to train managers and
employees on efficient scheduling and load
management to eliminate unnecessary queueing and
idling of trucks.

Not Feasible: As the future operators for the
proposed project are as yet unknown, this measure
would be difficult to enforce. Furthermore, emission
reductions or other air quality benefits resulting
from this measure are not able to be quantified due
to the unknown specifics of the future operation.

Therefore, this proposed measure would be
ineffective in providing air quality or GHG benefits,
as compared to the other measures being required
for the proposed project which include
requirements for timing of implementation and
specific enforcement criteria.

Requiring operators to establish and promote a
rideshare program that discourages single-occupancy
trips and provides financial incentives for alternative modes of transportation including carpooling, public
transit, and biking.

New Mitigation: MM AIR-2f has been added to the
Draft EIR requiring that a TDM Program be
implemented. This change is noted in Final EIR
Section 5, Errata. The residual significance of Impact
AIR-1 and AIR-2 remains significant and unavoidable.

Meeting CalGreen Tier 2 green building standards,
including all provisions related to designated parking
for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and
bicycle parking.

Already Included as Mitigation: MM GHG-1c
requires project buildings to meet CalGreen Tier 2
green building standards. MM GHG-1d requires
electric vehicle charging stations in parking areas in
accordance with CalGreen Tier 2 standards.

Achieving certification of compliance with LEEDTM
green building standards.

Already Included as Mitigation: MM GHG-1c
requires project buildings to meet CalGreen Tier 2
green building standards, which are functionally
equivalent to Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEEDTM). Furthermore, the
project architect is LEEDTM accredited and has
included various LEEDTM design features into the
proposed project.
2685
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-103 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
Providing meal options on-site or shuttles between the
facility and nearby meal destinations.

Not Feasible: Meals are a function of personal
preference, dietary needs, economics, and the
amount of time one has to eat. Given that the meal
preferences of project workers are unknown and
may change from day-to-day, requiring on-site meal
options or a shuttle to off-site meal locations as a
condition of project approval would be premature
and might commit future end users to expensive
programs with very limited effectiveness, if any, in
reducing emissions. Future end users might freely
decide to provide on-site opportunities for varieties
of meal types.

Posting signs at every truck exit driveway providing
directional information to the truck route.

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 SR-29. Hence, this mitigation measure
would not reduce emissions.

Improving and maintaining vegetation and a tree
canopy for residents in and around the project area.

Not Feasible: The project vicinity is entirely
nonresidential. The nearest residential
neighborhood is 4,000 feet to the south.

Nonetheless, the proposed project would provide
landscaping including trees along its street frontages
and within parking areas.

Requiring that every tenant train its staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and
compliance with ARB regulations, by attending ARB
approved courses. Also require facility operators to
maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance
and make records available for inspection to the local
jurisdiction, air district, and State upon request.

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. This measure does not provide direct
emission reductions or other air quality benefits;
rather, it assumes that increased education may
lead to reduced emissions. 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 steps to
educate staff on already existing requirements,
while not providing effective or quantifiable air
quality or GHG emission reduction benefits.

Requiring tenants to enroll in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SmartWay
program and requiring tenants to use carriers that are
SmartWay carriers.

Not Feasible: The requirement that tenants enroll in
the EPA SmartWay program would be onerous and
difficult to enforce against unknown future end
users of the project. Additionally, this measure
would have limited emission reduction potential
which is not possible to quantify. Requiring tenants
to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers would put
the project at a competitive disadvantage through
limiting the potential universe of carrier providers
for future operators, a limitation that would not be
faced at similar logistics centers.
2686
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-104 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
Providing tenants with information on incentive
programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and
Voucher Initiative Program, to upgrade their fleets.

New Mitigation: MM AIR-2g has been added to the
Draft EIR requiring that the project developer
provide information on available ARB and BAAQMD
incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program
and the Voucher Initiative Program, that support
upgrading fleets. This change is noted in Final EIR
Section 5, Errata. The residual significance of Impact
AIR-1 and AIR-2 remains significant and unavoidable.

Response to SWAPE-3
The comment consisted of a disclaimer that SWAPE reserves the right to amend its findings if new information is made available. No response is necessary.

Response to SWAPE-4
The comment consisted of Matthew Hagemann’s Curriculum Vitae. No response is necessary.

Response to SWAPE-5
The comment consisted of Paul Rosenfeld’s Curriculum Vitae. No response is necessary. 2687
From: Brent Cooper
To: Mary Bean
Cc: Joe Livaich; Bill Ross - External; Nicolle Jones; Jason Holley; Grant Gruber Subject: Giovannoni Logistics Center DEIR Letter
Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 6:29:56 PM
Hello All,
Attached is a letter for the Giovannoni Logistics Center.

Sincerely,
Brent Cooper, AICP
Community Development Director
City of American Canyon | Broadway Street, Suite 201 | American Canyon, CA 94503 (707) 647-4335
Begin forwarded message:

From: Mike Conklin
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 11:10 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Fire Dept Site
Ms. Nicolle Jones
Community Development Department
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street , Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
RE: Giovannoni Logistics Center EIR
Monday, July 18, 2022
Dear Ms. Jones,
Sentinels of Freedom is a 501C3 Wounded and Injured Veterans Support Organization that owns a 25.44 acre vacant/undeveloped property adjacent to the Napa Logistic Park.

For the record, we’d like to offer to sell this property to American Canyon for a new Fire Station and Training Center to support Fire operations at the North Side of American Canyon adjacent and West of the new PG&E project. We believe this would be an

SENTINELS

1 2688
excellent site to support Fire Services for the Industrial growth in that sector.

I request that you please enter this communication and attachments into the EIR Public Comments on the upcoming Giovannoni Logistics Center EIR discussions and meetings.

We’ll send the electronic records we have on our property and also my mail for your files.

We look forward to discussions with American Canyon on this concept and really think this could be a win/win for all concerned.

Thank you.

Very Respectfully, Mike Conklin
Mike Conklin
Chairman & CEO
Sentinels of Freedom
501(c)(3) TAX ID: 20-8139201
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> www.sentinelsoffreedom.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http3A__www.sentinelsoffreedom.org&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOfv5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=pWL0FyuA8vvicPruDI2xc2p2Eu_t3pyT1wGnHdG_DqM&m=BGnajKl9GVEc6fpvfKRcu6VBdJO8gqiNzXWkQIgkcQ&s=Etx0p3IiR551zknnEE0i5l7SsYwprI-5o5bFJBMKaXY&e=> PO Box 1316
San Ramon Ca 94583
925-216-8583 cell
925-380-6342 off
CNN HERO VIDEO (https://youtu.be/JdQ_fJUHesM<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_JdQ5FfJUHesM&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOfv5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=pWL0FyuA8vvicPruDI2xc2p2Eu_t3pyT1wGnHdG_DqM&m=BGnajKl9GVEc6fpvfKRcu6VBdJO8gqiNzXWkQIgkcQ&s=NfHWG3gaakwSKIVFf83OL-Y6DbjDmGS24xWD7DNTx6I&e=>) - Sentinels of Freedom overview with Founding Judge (Ret.), US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Jack Farley - Partnership with Lennar, a home construction and real estate company, to assist in housing for US Army Veteran and Graduated Sentinel Jay Wilkerson
- Highlights from our 2016 Annual Sentinels Gala which featured guests of honor General Joseph Votel, US Army

SENTINELS

1 2689
- Most recent 2019 Annual Sentinel Gala with guest speaker General Paul J. Selva, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff - US Army Veteran and Graduated Sentinel Cody McCullough Interview - US Marines Veteran and Graduated Sentinel Johnny Chinchilla Interview - US Army Veteran and Graduated Sentinel Mike Gonzales Interview - US Army Veteran and Graduated Sentinel Marlene Rodriguez Interview - A Special Message from US Marines Veteran and Sentinel Kyle Carpenter -Veterans Voices 2019 https://youtu.be/0f_VcsNttjA<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_0f5FVcsNttjA&d=DwMFAg&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOfv5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=pWL0FyuA8vvicPruDI2xc2p2Eu_t3pyT1wGnHdG_DqM&m=BGnajKl9GVEc6fpvfKRcu6VBdJO8gqiNzXWkQIgkcQ&s=lxoW4xk0oIGnMUW1iRQJ1rIyXiyL2H3z9snW0KO2PqU&e=> ________________________________
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.

SENTINELS

2690
2 SENTINELS

2691
© 2021 Microsoft Corporation © 2021 Maxar ©CNES (2021) Distribution Airbus DS soft C orp
oratio
n
©
2 0
21 M
a
x
ar ©
C
N
E
S (2
0 21) Distrib
utio
n
Airb
us D
S
©
2 0
21 Micros
2692
2693
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-111 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 Sentinels of Freedom (SENTINELS)
Response to SENTINELS-1
The Sentinels of Freedom, a 501(c3) nonprofit organization, indicated that it owns a 25.44-acre vacant property adjacent to Napa Logistics Park and would like to offer to sell the site to the City of American Canyon for the development of a fire station and training center.

The new “North” fire station is addressed in Master Response 2.

Response to SENTINELS-2
The comment consists of an Assessor’s Parcel Map showing the location of the Sentinels’ site. No response is necessary.

Response to SENTINELS-3
The comment consists of a conceptual site plan for warehouses on the Sentinels’ site. No response is necessary.

Response to SENTINELS-4
The comment consists of a conceptual site plan for warehouses on the Sentinels’ site. No response is necessary.
2694

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2695
5188-006acp
KEVIN T. CARMICHAEL
CHRISTINA M. CARO
THOMAS A. ENSLOW
KELILAH D. FEDERMAN
RICHARD M. FRANCO
ANDREW J. GRAF
TANYA A. GULESSERIAN
DARIEN K. KEY
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAN P. MARSHALL
TARA C. RENGIFO
MICHAEL R. SEVILLE
Of Counsel
MARC D. JOSEPH
DANIEL L. CARDOZO

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
520 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4721
TEL: (916) 444-6201
FAX: (916) 444-6209

ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
601 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-7037
___________
TEL: (650) 589-1660
FAX: (650) 589-5062
[email protected]
printed on recycled paper

July 20, 2022
Via Email and Overnight Mail
Brent Cooper, AICP,
Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Email: [email protected]
Nicolle Jones
Community Development Department
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
[email protected]
Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report – Giovannoni Logistics Center Project proposed by Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. (PL20-0042, PL20-0043 and SCH #2021010104)
Dear Mr. Cooper and Ms. Jones:

We are writing on behalf of the Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Development (“Napa/Solano Residents”) to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report1 prepared for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, PL20-0042, PL20-0043 and SCH #2021010104, (“Project”) prepared by the City of American Canyon (“City”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)2.

I. INTRODUCTION
The Project, proposed by Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. (“Applicant”), calls for development of up to 2.4 million square feet of cube warehouse space on a 208-acre project site located in the City of American Canyon (“City”), Napa County.3 Phase 1 of the Project would be built on 94.7 acres on the eastern portion of the site and 1 City of American Canyon, Draft Environmental Impact Report-Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (May 20, 2022) (hereinafter, “DEIR”), available at
https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=66927&dbid=1&repo=AmericanCanyo n&cr=1 2 Pub. Resources Code (“PRC”) §§ 21000 et seq.
3 DEIR, pg. 2-4.

NSRRD

1 2696
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
would include two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet.4 One of the buildings would be rail-served by the adjacent Napa Branch Line and each building would provide docks, grade level roll-up doors and trailer parking stalls.5 Phase 2 consists of approximately 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on the 113.1 acre western portion of the site.6 No design-level site plans for Phase 2 have been prepared. The DEIR purports to analyze Phase 1 at a project level and Phase 2 at a program level.7
The Project site is currently undeveloped land; there are no structures onsite.8 Vegetation consists primarily of non-native grasslands, with seasonal wetlands and associated plant species scattered throughout the site.9 The headwaters of No-Name Creek are located in the northwestern corner of the property, and the Creek flows off the site at the northwestern corner of the property.10 The drainage is hydrologically connected to the Fagan Slough, which flows into the Napa River.11 The Applicant proposes to preserve approximately

44.8 acres of the Project site as an open-space wetlands preserve to conserve and manage vernal pool and other wetland and grassland resources.12 The preserve is intended to mitigate wetlands and habitat impacts caused by the development of the Project.13 The Project will also construct 110,766 square feet of storm drainage retention on-site, to include a network of underground piping to convey runoff to bioretention and detention basins in the northern portion of the site.14 The City owns an approximately 8 acre strip of land that bisects the site north to south, and an extension of Devlin Road is currently under construction on this parcel and is projected to be completed prior to Phase 1 of the Project.15 Vehicular access to Phase 1 would be via four driveways on Green Island Road and four driveways on Devlin Road.16 Two driveways on each road would be dedicated for truck access and the remaining two would be dedicated for passenger vehicle 4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Id., pg. 2-1.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Id., pg. 2-6.
13 Ibid. 14 Id., pg. 2-7.
15 Id., pg. 2-1.
16 Id., pg. 2-6.

NSRRD

1 2697
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
access.17 Each of the Phase 1 buildings would include 430 parking stalls, including 10 ADA stalls, 26 electric vehicle parking stalls and nine Clean Air stalls.18 Vehicular access to Phase 2 would also occur from both Green Island Road and Devlin Road.19
The DEIR fails to comply with CEQA’s basic requirement to act as an “informational document.” It lacks meaningful details in critical areas, such as air quality, health risk, biological resources, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) and transportation impacts, without which the public and decisionmakers cannot adequately assess the Project’s significant impacts. Because of the DEIR’s shortcomings, it is deficient as a matter of law because it fails to properly disclose and mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts. The DEIR also lacks substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusions regarding the Project’s impacts and proposed mitigation. These deficiencies render the document inadequate for purposes of compliance with CEQA.

We reviewed the DEIR, technical appendices, and reference documents with the assistance of our expert consultants, including air quality and hazardous materials expert James J.J. Clark, Ph.D., wetlands biologist Sarah Corbin, wildlife biologist Scott Cashen, and transportation expert Norman Marshall, whose comments and qualifications are included as Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D, respectively.20 The City must address and respond to their comments separately and fully.21

II. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Napa/Solano Residents is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential environmental impacts associated with Project development. Napa/Solano Residents includes American Canyon residents James Aken, Samantha Spangler, Evelyn Hernandez, and Alex Somodio, and members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical 17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Exhibit A, July 12, 2022 letter to Richard Franco from James Clark (hereinafter, “Clark Comments”); Exhibit B, July 19, 2022 letter to Richard M. Franco from Sarah Corbin (Shannon & Wilson) (hereinafter, “Corbin Comments”); Exhibit C, July 19, 2022 letter to Richard M. Franco from Scott Cashen (hereinafter, “Cashen Comments”); Exhibit D, July 19, 2022 letter to Richard M.

Franco from Norman Marshall (hereinafter, “Marshall Comments”). 21 14 Cal. Code Regs. (“CCR”) §§ 15088(a), (c).

NSRRD

1 2
2698
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Workers Local 180, Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, Sprinkler Fitters Local 483, District Council of Ironworkers and their members and their families, and other individuals that live and/or work in the City of American Canyon and Napa/Solano Counties.

Napa/Solano Residents supports the development of sustainable commercial and industrial centers where properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize impacts on public health and the environment. Logistics centers like the Project should avoid adverse impacts to air quality, biological resources, transportation, and public health, and should take all feasible steps to ensure unavoidable impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Only by maintaining the highest standards can commercial and industrial development truly be sustainable.

The individual members of Napa/Solano Residents and the members of the affiliated labor organizations live, work, recreate and raise their families in and around American Canyon and Napa County. They would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work constructing the Project itself. They would be the first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards which may be present on the Project site.

They each have a personal interest in protecting the Project area from unnecessary, adverse environmental and public health impacts.

Napa/Solano Residents and its members also have an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for the members they represent. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for industry to expand in American Canyon and Napa County, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live and recreate in the County, including the Project vicinity. Continued environmental degradation can, and has, caused construction moratoriums and other restrictions on growth that, in turn, reduces future employment opportunities.

Finally, Napa/Solano Residents is concerned with projects that can result in serious environmental harm without providing countervailing economic benefits.

CEQA provides a balancing process whereby economic benefits are weighed against significant impacts to the environment.22 It is in this spirit we offer these comments.
22 Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(3); Citizens for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 171.

NSRRD

2 2699
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
III. LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA requires public agencies to analyze the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions in an EIR.23 “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.”24
CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project.25 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’”26 The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.”27 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”28
Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring consideration of environmentally superior alternatives and adoption of all feasible mitigation measures.29 The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.”30 If the project will have a significant effect on 23 PRC § 21100.
24 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390 (internal quotations omitted).
25 Pub. Resources Code § 21061; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(1); 15003(b)-(e); Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 517 (“[T]he basic purpose of an EIR is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [that] a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.”). 26 Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 392). 27 County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810; see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v.

Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”) (purpose of EIR is to inform the public and officials of environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made). 28 CEQA Guidelines § 15003(b).
29 Id. § 15002(a)(2), (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, 52 Cal.3d at p. 564.
30 CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2).

NSRRD

3 2700
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment” to the greatest extent feasible and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.”31 While courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”32 As the courts have explained, a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”33 “The ultimate inquiry, as case law and the CEQA guidelines make clear, is whether the EIR includes enough detail ‘to enable who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.’”34 IV. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT
The DEIR does not meet CEQA’s requirements because it fails to include an accurate, complete and stable description of key Project components, rendering the DEIR’s impact analysis inadequate. California courts have repeatedly held that “an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.”35 CEQA requires that a project be described with 31 PRC § 21081(a)(3), (b); CCR §§ 15090(a), 15091(a), 15092(b)(2)(A), (B); Covington v. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Dist. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 867, 883. 32 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409, fn. 12).
33 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355; see also San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v.

County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722 (error is prejudicial if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process); Galante Vineyards, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1117 (decision to approve a project is a nullity if based upon an EIR that does not provide decision-makers and the public with information about the project as required by CEQA); County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946 (prejudicial abuse of discretion results where agency fails to comply with information disclosure provisions of CEQA). 34 Sierra Club, 6 Cal.5th at p. 516 (quoting Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 405). 35 Stopthemillenniumhollywood.com v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1, 17; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (“CBE v. City of Richmond”) (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 85–89; County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (3d Dist. 1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193.

NSRRD

3 4
2701
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
enough particularity that its impacts can be assessed.36 Without a complete project description, the environmental analysis under CEQA is impermissibly limited, thus minimizing the project’s impacts and undermining meaningful public review.37 Here, the DEIR’s description of the Project is inconsistent and unstable, in that the size of the Project and buildout horizon change depending on the impact being analyzed. Moreover, the DEIR does not consistently analyze both phases of the Project.

A. The DEIR Does Not Consistently Apply The Buildout Horizon Or Building Sizes Set Forth In The Project Description.

The DEIR describes the Project as an approximately 2.4 million square foot logistics center on approximately 163 acres of the approximately 208-acre Project site.38 The Project is to be developed in two phases: Phase 1 would include two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling approximately 1.1 million square feet on the

94.7 acre eastern portion of the site, and Phase 2 would develop 1.3 million square feet of warehouse on the 113.1 acre western portion of the site.39 With respect Project buildout horizon, the DEIR states, “For 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 18 months. As a practical matter, the proposed project would buildout over a period of years or decades. Phase 1 would be developed first, followed by Phase 2 [emphasis added].”40 As an initial matter, the DEIR’s project description is flawed in that it assumes (and purports to analyze) a buildout scenario that admittedly will not occur, i.e. concurrent development of both phases over an 18-month period. If, “as a practical matter, the project would buildout over a period of years or decades,” the DEIR’s analysis should not be based on the unrealistic assumption that both phases will be developed concurrently in a year and a half. The DEIR’s project description should set forth a buildout horizon that it reasonably expects to occur, so that the lead agency may properly assess the real-world expected impacts of the Project.

The buildout horizon has important consequences for analyzing the Project’s 36 CCR § 15124; see, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 192–193.
37 Id.
38 DEIR, pg. 2-4.
39 Ibid.
40 Id., pg. 2-9.

NSRRD

4 5a
2702
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
significant impacts. For example, wetlands biologist Sarah Corbin notes that “a prolonged construction schedule that extends beyond 18 months and instead extends over several years (e.g., multiple nesting seasons and multiple “rainy seasons”) increases the potential for construction-related impacts to aquatic resources.”41
Despite setting forth a specific assumption regarding buildout timeframe and purporting to use that assumption as the basis for its impacts analysis, the DEIR goes on to ignore its own “worst-case” assumption regarding Project buildout.

Nowhere else in the DEIR is the Project described or analyzed as a concurrent (i.e., at the same time) buildout of both Phases over an 18-month period. For example, the DEIR’s air quality analysis assumes that Phase 1 construction will begin in early 2022 and be complete 10 months later, with Phase 2 construction, with Phase 2 to begin immediately following and be completed 10 months later.42 In other words, this analysis assumes a 20-month buildout of Phases 1 and 2 consecutively, rather than 18 months concurrently. Similarly, the DEIR’s Health Risk Assessment models diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions assuming a 24- month buildout, i.e., 1 year of Phase 1 construction, immediately followed by 1 year of Phase 2 construction, followed by 30 years of operations for both Phases.43 These inconsistencies matter because construction time frame is a key variable in the modeling used to estimate the Project’s construction emissions for purposes of analyzing air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.44
As with the Project’s buildout horizon, the DEIR contains inconsistent descriptions of the size of the buildings to be constructed. The Project description describes Phase 1 as consisting of two buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet.45 However, immediately following that description, Table 2-1 summarizes Phase 1 as including Building A (627,976 square feet) and Building B (469,512 square feet), for a total of 1,097,488 square feet.46 For purposes of modeling air emissions, Appendix B assumes that Building A will be 601,383 square feet and Building B will be 469,521 square feet, for a total of 1,070,904 square feet.47 By modeling air emissions using smaller building sizes than those set forth in the Project 41 Corbin Comments, pg. 3.
42 DEIR, pgs. 3.2-35 and 3.2-47.
43 Id., pg. 3.2-60. 44 Id., Appendix B, pg. 2.
45 Id., pg. 2-4.
46 Id., pg. 2-5.
47 DEIR, Appendix B at pg. 1.

NSRRD

5a
5b
5c
2703
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
description, the DEIR’s emissions calculations reflect lower, and potentially inaccurate, construction and operational emissions.

These discrepancies must be addressed in a revised and recirculated EIR with accurate, stable and realistic descriptions of the size and buildout horizon of the Project so that decisionmakers can adequately assess the Project’s significant impacts in all impact areas.

B. The DEIR’s Analysis Of Hydrological Impacts Fails To Consider Any Impacts Associated With Construction And Operation Of Phase 2 Of The Project.

Another example of the DEIR’s analysis not matching the assumptions in the Project description (Phases 1 and 2 developed concurrently) is the analysis of hydrological impacts. This analysis focuses solely on Phase 1’s impacts to runoff and downstream impacts, as if Phase 2 will never be constructed. While the DEIR purports to analyze stormwater and drainage impacts of both Phases, in reality only Phase 1 impacts are analyzed.

The currently undeveloped Project site includes No-Name Creek, which runs from east to west along the northern portion of the property and eventually drains into the Napa River. The Project’s Phase 1 plans include a stormwater management system to collect and store runoff from the more than one million square feet of newly impervious surfaces (i.e., buildings and parking lots) that will be constructed as part of the Project.

The DEIR’s analysis of hydrological impacts is based on the Preliminary Hydrological and Hydraulic Modeling study (“Hydrological Study”),48 which purports to “model, assess, and outline how the changes in existing, and proposed land cover, along with the proposed construction of Devlin Road, will impact the hydrology and hydraulics of the creek directly downstream of the Project area and along the reach to its confluence with the Napa River.”49 Notably, the DEIR purports to use this Study to analyze hydrological impacts of both Phase 1 and Phase 2.50 However, the Hydrological Study expressly only analyzed hydrological impacts of the development of Phase 1: “The first phase of the Project, referred to as the Giovannoni Logistics Center East and covered herein, proposes the construction 48 DEIR, Appendix F.
49 Id., pgs. 1-2.
50 Id., pgs. 3.8-10, 3.8-12, 3.8-13.

NSRRD

5c
6 2704
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
of two warehouses (gross square footage of the two buildings is roughly one million square feet) along with parking lots…on roughly 70 acres.”51 The Hydrological Study divides the Project area into two drainage management areas (“DMAs”) comprised of a mix of parking lot, roof area and pervious landscaping.52 The two DMAs roughly correspond with the footprints of the two proposed Phase 1 buildings.53 The modeling implicitly assumes no development of Phase 2 on the western portion of the Project site, although Phase 2 would add more than one million square feet of impervious surfaces. The hydrological impacts of Phase 1, i.e., whether the Project’s storm management system can adequately control runoff and whether there will be downstream impacts, cannot be assessed without consideration of the additive effects of Phase 2 development.

V. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE EXISTING

BASELINE
The DEIR fails to accurately disclose the baseline environmental conditions related to the Project’s biological impacts. As a result, the DEIR lacks the necessary baseline information against which to measure the Project’s environmental impacts with regard to impacts to wetlands and wildlife habitat.

The existing environmental setting is the starting point from which the lead agency must measure whether a proposed project may cause a significant environmental impact.54 CEQA defines the environmental setting as the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, from both a local and regional perspective.55 Describing the environmental setting accurately and completely for each environmental condition in the vicinity of the Project is critical to an accurate, meaningful evaluation of environmental impacts. The courts have clearly stated that, “[b]efore the impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an [environmental review document] must describe the existing 51 DEIR, Appendix F, pg. 1.
52 Id., pg. 3.
53 Id., Figure 1.
54 See, e.g., Communities for a Better Env’t v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (March 15, 2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 316.
55 CCR §15125(a) (emphasis added); Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1453 (“Riverwatch”).

NSRRD

6 7
2705
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
environment. It is only against this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined.”56
A. The DEIR Fails To Accurately Delineate Or Provide Any Functional Assessment Of The Existing Wetlands.

As discussed above, the Project site is currently undeveloped and contains several acres of both grassland and wetlands, which include palustrine emergent wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools. Development of the Project will directly impact, i.e., fill and pave over, more than 4 acres of wetlands. The DEIR undertakes to analyze and mitigate these impacts, but fails at the most basic level:
it fails to accurately delineate the full extent of the existing wetlands and provides no assessment at all of the wetlands’ current functions. These errors and omissions make it impossible to adequately analyze the Project’s wetlands impacts or whether the proposed mitigation will be effective.

1. The Project Site Wetlands Are Not Accurately Delineated.

Wetlands biologist Sarah Corbin reviewed the DEIR’s wetlands impact analysis, including the supporting technical appendices, and found numerous errors and discrepancies that undermine the Project site’s wetlands delineation report (“Delineation Report”), which provides the baseline against which the DEIR evaluates biological impacts.57 For example, several of the wetland determination survey data sheets supporting the Delineation Report incorrectly failed to identify an observed plant species as a wetlands indicator species, meaning that the area surveyed was incorrectly classified as upland rather than wetland.58 In addition, there is a glaring inconsistency with respect to a wetland area identified as Wetland IW-9 in the Delineation Report.59 Wetland IW-9 is an isolated linear wetland in the southeast portion of the Project area that would partially coincide with or be immediately adjacent to the Project development footprint.60 However, that wetland is absent from the October 2016 Confirmed Aquatic Resources Delineation Map, and this absence is carried through in the DEIR figures and analysis. Ms. Corbin finds that there “is no wetland determination data sheet to support the wetland’s inclusion or exclusion and no discussion of the change in the DEIR or supporting 56 County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 952. 57 Corbin Comments, pgs. 1-2.
58 Id., pg. 2. 59 Id., pg. 4.
60 Ibid.

NSRRD

7 8
9 2706
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
documents.”61 These errors mean that more wetland was present on the Project site during the delineation report fieldwork than is reflected in the resulting report and ultimately in the DEIR.62
The Delineation Report, and the required Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) Jurisdictional Determination approving it, are nearly six years old. Corps Jurisdictional Determinations are valid for five years, meaning it will need to be updated before the Project can obtain the necessary Corps permits to fill any wetlands. Even though the Jurisdictional Determination was still valid in January 2021 when the Notice of Preparation for the DEIR was published, the wetlands delineation on which the DEIR’s impact analysis is based is now out of date and does not accurately reflect current baseline conditions at the Project site. The Corps applies expiration dates to Jurisdictional Determinations because wetland boundaries are expected to change over time due to both natural (e.g., climate patterns) and human-caused activities.63 Indeed, Ms. Corbin’s review of recent aerial imagery of the Project site appear to demonstrate potential wetlands that were not identified as such in the delineation report.64 For all of the foregoing reasons, the wetlands delineation must be updated to provide a proper baseline against which the Project’s impacts can be accurately analyzed and the resulting analysis must be set forth in a revised and recirculated DEIR.

2. The DEIR Lacks Any Assessment of Wetland Functions
Wetlands can serve a number of important functions, such as providing rest and foraging habitat for migratory waterfowl, breeding habitat for amphibians and invertebrates, flood storage potential, and filtration of pollutants and excess nutrients surface water and groundwater.65 The DEIR does not include a functional assessment of the Project site’s existing wetlands and hence no functional impact analysis is provided (indeed, such analysis is not possible without the assessment).

As Ms. Corbin explains, “[w]etlands impact analyses are incomplete without a functional assessment that evaluates hydrologic, water quality, and habitat functions of the site wetlands.”66 Without knowing the specific functions of the wetlands being impacted, it is therefore impossible to accurately assess those 61 Ibid.
62 Id., pgs. 2-4. 63 Id., pg. 2.
64 Ibid. 65 Id., pg. 3.
66 Ibid.

NSRRD

9 10
2707
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
impacts or to evaluate whether mitigation will adequately replace or mitigate those lost functions. While the DEIR states that a functional assessment will be completed with the Project’s Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan at some later date, that will be too late for the decisionmakers to evaluate this Project’s wetlands impacts or to determine whether the proposed mitigation is appropriate.

To assess the environmental impacts of a proposed project, CEQA requires that the lead agency examine the changes to existing environmental conditions that would occur if the project were implemented.67 Because the DEIR lacks any baseline description of the existing wetlands functions, analysis of the Project’s impacts and proposed mitigation measures is impossible.68 The DEIR must be revised and recirculated after including an appropriate functional assessment and proper analysis of the Project’s wetlands impacts.

B. The DEIR Fails To Establish A Proper Baseline With Respect To Impacts To Biological Resources.

In addition to the DEIR’s failure to provide a functional assessment of the Project site’s wetlands, Mr. Cashen identifies additional deficiencies in the DEIR’s description of the environmental setting.

First, the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project would have no impact on the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp is not supported by current scientific evidence. As Mr. Cashen explains, the Project site contains vernal pools and provides potential habitat for this species.69 The DEIR relies on dry season vernal pool fairy shrimp surveys in summer of 2016 and wet season vernal pool fairy shrimp surveys in the winter of 2016-17.70 Mr. Cashen states that the results of those surveys are outdated and can no longer be used to assume the absence of the species at the Project site.71 The DEIR provides no evidence supporting its assumption that these several years old surveys accurately describe the Project site’s environmental setting as of the time the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was posted.72
67 See, e.g., 14 CCR § 15126.2(a).
68 County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App. 4th 931, 953. 69 Cashen Comments, pg. 2.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
72 See, 14 CCR § 15125.

NSRRD

10 11
2708
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Vernal pool fairy shrimp disperse among individual pools through flooding, wind, birds, other vertebrates and various human activities.73 This species can therefore rapidly colonize new pools or recolonize pools from which they have been extirpated.74 Mr. Cashen cites several studies that recognize viable cysts can survive passage through the digestive tract of waterfowl, as well as attach to feathers of feet of wading birds, thus promoting long-distance dispersal of vernal pool fairy shrimp among pools. As thousands of vernal pool fairy shrimp were recently detected in a vernal pool near the Napa County Airport, approximately 2,700 feet from the Project site, and because waterfowl and shorebirds frequent the Napa County Airport site and the Project site, it reasonably foreseeable that birds have transported vernal pool fairy shrimp within the five years that have elapsed since the surveys supporting the DEIR were conducted. Negative results from fiveyear old surveys do not justify the DEIR’s definitive determination that the Project will have no impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp.

The DEIR also relies on botanical field surveys conducted at the Project site in April-May 2021 and set forth in the Helm Biological Consulting report (“HBC report”). The DEIR states that based on these surveys, “no special-status plant species occur on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to special-status species would occur from construction of the proposed project. No mitigation is warranted for special-status plants.”75 Mr. Cashen explains why this conclusion is unsupported.

First, the surveys were conducted during a drought year. Many vernal pool plant species have seeds that can remain dormant for many years, an adaptation that allows them to survive drought periods.76 The HBC report admits that nine of the rare plant species that could occur at the Project site are wetland-dependent and that below-average annual rainfall in 2020-21 could have affected the ability to detect the presence of such species.77
Second, the HBC Report surveys did not encompass the blooming periods of all of the target species. Specifically, Napa bluecurls is an annual herb that blooms between June and October. Mr. Cashen cites evidence documenting that, of 19 specimens of Napa bluecurls collected in Napa County, all 19 were collected 73 Cashen comments, pg. 2.
74 Ibid.
75 DEIR, pg. 3.3-23.
76 Cashen Comments, pg. 4-5.
77 DEIR, Appendix C-9, (HBC Report, App. A).

NSRRD

11 2709
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
between July and September. Pappose tarplant is an annual herb that blooms between May and November. Although the HBC Report included surveys performed on May 4 and May 17, 2021, Mr. Cashen cites evidence showing that it is extremely rare for pappose tarplant to bloom that early in Napa County; the vast majority of such specimens have been collected in September and October.78 Because the HBC Report surveys were not conducted when all potentially occurring rare plants would be both evident and identifiable (as required by California Department of Fish and Wildlife survey protocols), there is insufficient evidence to support the DEIR’s determination that “no special-status plan species occur on the project site.”79
VI. THE DEIR FAILS TO DISCLOSE, ANALYZE AND MITIGATE

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
An EIR must fully disclose all potentially significant impacts of a Project and implement all feasible mitigation to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. The lead agency’s significance determination with regard to each impact must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.80 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.81 Moreover, the failure to provide information required by CEQA is a failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA.82 Challenges to an agency’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.83 In reviewing challenges to an agency’s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence, the court will ‘determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.’84 78 Cashen Comments, pg. 4.
79 DEIR, pg. 3.3-23.
80 14 CCR § 15064(b).
81 Kings Cty. Farm Bur. v. Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 732. 82 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236. 83 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
84 Id., Madera Oversight Coal., Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal. App. 4th 48, 102.

NSRRD

11 12
2710
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Even when the substantial evidence standard is applicable to agency decisions to certify an EIR and approve a project, reviewing courts will not ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’”85
A. The DEIR Fails To Disclose Or Adequately Analyze
Transportation Impacts.

The DEIR concludes that the transportation impacts of the Project will be less than significant without mitigation. However, the transportation impacts analysis is flawed in numerous ways, most notably with respect to the Project’s vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) impacts. In addition, the DEIR’s faulty and unsupported conclusions with respect to VMT and trip generation completely undermine the DEIR’s air quality and GHG analyses, which rely heavily on those same factors.

1. The DEIR’s Significance Threshold For VMT is Not Based On Substantial Evidence.

The CEQA Guidelines authorize agencies to select “thresholds of significance” to assist in determining whether a project’s effect will be deemed significant.86 Lead agencies may rely on a previously adopted regulatory threshold, or may use thresholds on a case-by-case basis.87 In either case, the selection of a threshold of significance must be supported by substantial evidence.88 When an impact exceeds a CEQA significance threshold, the agency must disclose in the EIR that the impact is significant.89
The DEIR’s VMT significance threshold is not supported by substantial evidence. The DEIR states that it relies on “established policies currently used by the OPR, Sacramento County, and the city of San Jose” in selecting its significance threshold: “a VMT impact would be identified at an industrial project if the project 85 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355.
86 14 CCR § 15064.7(a); CBIA v. BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369. 87 14 CCR § 15064(b).
88 14 CCR § 15064(b).
89 14 CCR § 15064.3(b)(1) (vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact); Comtys. for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-111.

NSRRD

12 13
14 2711
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
VMT per employee is higher than the regional average VMT per employee.”90 The DEIR defines “regional average VMT” as the nine county Bay Area average and asserts that this average is 23 miles per employee as reportedly stated by the City of Vallejo in its CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines.91 However, this is the entire extent of the “analysis” performed by the City in adopting 23 miles per employee as the VMT significance threshold in this DEIR. The DEIR doesn’t make even the slightest effort to explain how Vallejo derived that number and whether it is an appropriate significance threshold for this Project. Nor is there any discussion as to why the nine county Bay Area—a region covering nearly 7000 square miles and including the full spectrum of land uses—provides a valid regional average against which to measure the impacts of this Project.

As discussed below, the City recently applied a lower, data-based VMT threshold to analyze the impacts of a comparable commercial distribution center project located less than 2 miles from the Project site, resulting in a finding of significant VMT impacts. By contrast, the significance threshold applied to the Project lacks any supporting data or discussion, and resulted in an unsupported finding of less than significant VMT impacts. This fails to comply with CEQA’s requirements. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to provide evidentiary support for the threshold selected for the Project, or the City must apply a more appropriate, data-based threshold to its VMT analysis.

2. The DEIR’s VMT Estimates For The Project Are Inadequate As A Matter Of Law.

Determining whether a project may have significant effects plays a critical role in the CEQA process; this determination calls for careful judgment by the lead agency, based on scientific and factual data.92 The CEQA Guidelines are explicit that, while the agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT impacts, any assumptions used to estimate VMT “should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project.”93 The Guidelines expressly apply section 15151’s standard of adequacy to the VMT analysis: “the EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision 90 DEIR, pg. 3.2-17.
91 Ibid.
92 14 CCR § 15064(b)(1).
93 14 CCR § 15064.3(b)(4).

NSRRD

14 15
2712
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.”94 The DEIR’s VMT analysis complies with none of these CEQA requirements, as there is essentially no analysis and its conclusions rely on wholly unsupported and unexplained assumptions. A conclusory discussion of a significant environmental impact can support a court’s determination that an EIR is inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence review.95 The DEIR includes no analysis of the Project’s estimated VMT. Rather, it purports to pull a number from the California Statewide Travel Demand Model (“CSTDM”) with no explanation of what the model is, how the number was computed or whether it is appropriately adopted as the estimated VMT for the Project. The entirety of the VMT “analysis” for this 2.4 million square foot warehouse Project is as follows:

According to Statewide Travel Demand Model estimates, this 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 project would be considered to have a less-thansignificant impact.

The DEIR simply adopts the 16.24 number as the “Project VMT rate” with no further discussion.96 No other information about the CSTDM is included in the DEIR; it is not even cited in the references for the Traffic Impact Study supporting the Transportation analysis.97 The DEIR and supporting materials provide no information allowing the reader to verify the 16.24 number, and offer no explanation of what a TAZ is, what it purports to measure or why 16.24 miles per employee can simply be adopted as the estimated VMT for the Project. As transportation expert Norman Marshall states, “it is impossible to know how the DEIR arrived at 16.24 as the Project VMT using the CSTDM, because neither the DEIR nor the technical appendices contain any detail, analysis or calculations supporting that figure.”98
94 14 CCR § 15064.3(b)(4), 14 CCR § 15151.
95 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 514. 96 Id., Appendix H, pg. 20, Table 10.
97 See DEIR, Appendix H.
98 Marshall Comments, pg. 8.

NSRRD

15 2713
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), which developed the CSTDM, includes the following language on the model’s home webpage: “[t]he CSTDM provides an advanced tour/activity models to help Caltrans develop and evaluate transportation related policies and programs of projects that best meet our mobility goals. This model is not an appropriate tool for individual project level analysis.”99 The DEIR does not discuss why, despite this admonition, it uses the CSTDM as the sole source for estimating this Project’s VMT impacts. As Mr.

Marshall points out, regional travel models are commonly used to estimate VMT, but the statewide model is too coarse to reliably estimate VMT for any particular project.100
In 2021, the City prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration101 (“IS/MND”) for a 217,000 square foot wine distribution center located less than 2 miles from the Giovannoni Project site. In that IS/MND, the City assessed the potential VMT impacts as required by CEQA by performing data-based analyses, using multiple data sets, to estimate both the existing Napa County-wide average trip length/VMT per employee (which it adopted as the significance threshold) and the project area average trip length/VMT per employee. Notably, for that project the City used the same sets of data to derive both the significance threshold and the estimated project VMT. There, the City explained the nature of each of the data sets it utilized, the pros and cons of each, and the calculations used to derive a VMT significance threshold and project VMT. The City used CSTDM as one of several data points (while recognizing that TAZs’ imprecise geography masks localized variation) in estimating county-wide and project area VMT per employee. It found that based on the CSTDM, the Countywide average VMT per employee was estimated to be 23.7, the Citywide average VMT per employee was 38.7 and the TAZ where the project is located has a VMT per employee rate of 38.1. After its full analysis using multiple data points, however, the City found a countywide average of 12.85 miles average commute length per employee, reduced that figure by 15% consistent with OPR guidance to establish a significance threshold of 10.92 miles, and found a project area average commute length per employee of 16.28 miles.

Based on those findings, the project’s VMT was a significant impact requiring mitigation.
99 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/division-of-transportation-planning/dataanalytics-services/statewide-modeling/california-statewide-travel-demand-model 100 Marshall Comments, pg. 6. 101 City of American Canyon, Recirculated Draft Initial Study for the SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project (April 2021) (hereinafter IS/MND”), available at https://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/266599-4/attachment/aVkmgEflxLtuZTq6C_RV0W7gVOr14ykMtI6IpGrGiqEWWqdd33JzFQR6zE3azwdGO4aDixye5LNgU110.

NSRRD

15 2714
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
In stark contrast to the analysis performed for the wine distribution center IS/MND, the Giovannoni DEIR uses one data source to identify the significance threshold and another to estimate project VMT, and offers no explanation or analysis whatsoever of those numbers or whether the analyses from which they were derived are comparable. The DEIR is essentially asking the reader to compare one black box to another black box. It bears emphasizing that when the City actually performed a data-based VMT analysis of a similar project in a similar location, it came up with a significantly lower significance threshold (i.e., 10.92 miles per employee vs. 23 miles per employee.) But regardless of the actual numbers, it is clear that the Giovannoni DEIR doesn’t come close to “including a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account” of the VMT impacts of the Project.102 The DEIR’s discussion of VMT is so cursory that it fails to comply with the basic CEQA requirement to discuss and analyze transportation impacts and makes the DEIR invalid as an informational document as a matter of law.103 This lack of analysis is a fatal flaw which must be addressed in a revised and recirculated EIR.

3. The DEIR Underestimates Trip Length And Trip Generation, Which Leads To Underestimation Of GHG And Air Quality Impacts.

As explained above, the DEIR’s conclusion that the Project will have no significant VMT impacts is not supported by substantial evidence, as the DEIR lacks any analysis or basis for that finding. As Mr. Marshall explains, the DEIR’s chosen Project trip length (16.24 miles per employee) likely significantly underestimates average VMT per employee for the Project.104 He explains why (consistent with Caltrans’ admonition that the CSTDM is not appropriate for project level analysis) using large TAZs is not a reliable way of estimating average Project trip length.105 He offers an alternative, more accurate method of estimating VMT per employee for this Project. He uses the U.S. Census Bureau’s 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.106 Notably, the City also considered LODES data in the IS/MND discussed above. Census blocks are much smaller than 102 See 14 CCR § 15151.
103 Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal. 5th at 514.
104 Marshall Comments, pgs. 6-9.
105 Id., pgs. 6-8.
106 Id., pg. 8.

NSRRD

15 16
2715
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the TAZs in the CSTDM; the City of American Canyon alone has 236 census blocks but only 2 TAZs. Therefore, the LODES data offer a more accurate look at actual commutes in the Project area than the DEIR’s estimate purportedly derived from the CSTDM.

Using the LODES data, Mr. Marshall estimates average commute distances to American Canyon jobs by (1) calculating the direct (“as the crow flies”) distance between the centers of each census block; (2) eliminating commutes of over 100 miles where the data may be spurious and inflate the average; and (3) multiplying by 110% to account for actual routing along roads.107 The resulting average (mean) one way commute distance is 22 miles. To compare this average one-way commute distance to daily VMT per employee, the 22-mile average was further adjusted by (1) multiplying by 2 to account for round trips; (2) multiplying by 5/7 to account for a 5-day work week; and (3) multiplying by 95% to account for non-single occupant auto commutes.108 The resulting daily mean VMT per employee is 29.9 which is significantly higher than the DEIR’s estimate for the Project (16.24 VMT per employee) and exceeds the significance threshold adopted by the City for this Project (23.0 VMT per employee). Again, while CEQA gives lead agencies discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to estimate a project’s VMT, the assumptions underlying the analysis must be documented and explained in the EIR.109 It also must contain a sufficient degree of analysis to enable decision makers to intelligently evaluate environmental impacts.110 The DEIR contains virtually no analysis or explanation of its VMT estimates and therefore violates CEQA because it lacks enough detail “to enable those who did not participate in in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project.”111
Like the VMT analysis, the DEIR’s trip generation analysis is not supported by substantial evidence, as it relies on unsupported assumptions which contradict assumptions made elsewhere in the DEIR.

First, the DEIR unreasonably and without justification assumes the lowest trip-generating uses for the Project. The DEIR estimates the number of vehicle 107 Id., pg. 9.
108 Ibid.
109 14 CCR § 15064.3(b)(4).
110 14 CCR § 15151. 111 Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal. 5th at 516, quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 405.

NSRRD

16 2716
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
trips using daily trip rates published in the Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) (“Manual”).112 However, as Mr. Marshall points out, the DEIR applies the lowest trip generation rate among several different types of high-cube warehouses.113 The DEIR uses the Manual rates of 1.4 total vehicle trips and 0.22 truck trips per day attributable to “transload and short-term storage warehouses.”114 The DEIR contains no information to validate the selection of transload and short-term warehouses, as opposed to fulfillment center or parcel hub warehouses which have trip generation rates several times higher. Indeed, it appears that specific tenants and uses for the Project are unknown, a fact that is accounted for elsewhere in the DEIR: “as the proposed project is a speculative warehouse development which could accommodate cold storage and accompanying TRUs, this analysis [i.e., air emissions and GHG emissions modeling] considers two project scenarios: a cold warehouse project scenario and a dry warehouse project scenario.”115 The DEIR’s Health Risk Assessment models cold storage uses only.116 Despite recognizing the uncertainty as to the type of warehouse uses the Project will ultimately employ, and specifically analyzing for cold storage uses in other parts of the DEIR, the DEIR offers no justification for assuming that the Project will employ the lowest tripgenerating use (and no cold storage use) in its transportation analysis. At a minimum, the transportation analysis should have assumed the Manual’s trip generation rates for cold storage warehouses, which is 51% higher than the rate selected for total trips and more than 3 times higher than the rate for truck trips.117 Second, the DEIR uses the Manual’s trip rates discussed above to project the Project’s daily trips for passenger cars (2,832 daily trips) and trucks (528 daily trips) at full buildout of the Project. However, like the prospective warehouse functions used for the trip generation rate, the daily trips estimate is inconsistent with assumptions made elsewhere in the DEIR. The DEIR estimates that the Project will employ 3,643 workers at full buildout.118 As Mr. Marshall points out, the employment estimate cannot be squared with the number of commute trips projected for the Project in the trip generation analysis.119 Mr. Marshall assumes that the 3,643 workers make two trips per day (multiply by 2 for round trip commutes), work five days a week (multiply by 5/7) and that 95% of workers 112 DEIR, Appendix H, pg. 13.
113 Marshall Comments, pg. 3. 114 Ibid.
115 DEIR, pgs. 3.2-35 and 3.6-47.
116 Id., pg. 3.2-60.
117 Marshall Comments, pgs. 3, 6.
118 DEIR, pg. 2-8.
119 Marshall Comments, pg. 5.

NSRRD

16 2717
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
commute alone (multiply by .95).120 Using these assumptions, the Project would generate 4,944 daily commute trips, more than 2,000 trips over the number estimated by the DEIR using the unsupported trip rates in the trip generation analysis.

Finally, the DEIR claims that the truck trip rate assumed for the Project (.22 trips per 1,000 square feet) was estimated using the Manual rates and “validated using local vehicle classification counts conducted in June 2021.”121 As Mr.

Marshall points out, though, the classification counts tell us only about the truck percentages in traffic in the vicinity of the proposed Project. “These percentages tell us nothing about truck trip generation for the proposed facility.”122 Ultimately then, the trips lengths and trip generation rates used by the DEIR in its analysis of transportation impacts are unexplained, unsupported and/or contradicted by assumptions applied elsewhere in the DEIR. For all the reasons discussed above (and in the Marshall comments), the finding that the Project will not have significant transportation impacts—especially with respect to VMT—is not supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, these unsupported trip length and trip generation figures are key variables in the modeling used by the DEIR to analyze Project GHG and air quality impacts.123 Given that the trip figures are unreasonably low, the modeling underestimates the Project’s emissions of air pollutants and GHG. The City must therefore revise and recirculate the EIR with valid, supported trip length and trip generation estimates and using those new figures, re-analyze VMT, air quality and GHG impacts.

While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.”124 As the courts have explained, “a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.”125 That is precisely the case here. 120 Ibid. 121 DEIR, pg. 3.12-11. 122 Marshall Comments, pgs. 5-6. 123 See e.g., DEIR at 3.2-50; App, B note 9, pg. 3. 124 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added), quoting, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12. 125 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water NSRRD

16 2718
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

The DEIR’s GHG analysis states that the Project would have significant impacts if it would (1) generate GHGs, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (GHG-1), (2) conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG-2), (3) result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (GHG-3), or (4) conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.126 Applying each of these significance criteria, the DEIR finds that the Project would not have significant impacts with respect to GHG emissions.

As discussed below, these conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence.

1. Impact GHG-1
The DEIR analyzes whether the Project would generate GHGs that may have a significant impact on the environment by applying the CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts, recently adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”).127 These thresholds set forth specific criteria for determining whether new land use development projects contribute their “fair share”128 of what is required to meet California’s goal of carbon-neutrality by 2045. BAAQMD’s thresholds require that new projects must incorporate either A or B from the following:

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117; County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 931, 946.
126 DEIR, pg. 3.6-40.
127 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en (“BAAQMD Thresholds”) 128 See, Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 220-23.

NSRRD

17 18
2719
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).129 In analyzing the Project’s operational GHG impacts (GHG-1), the DEIR adopts these thresholds of significance, “with minor refinements.”130 The refinements recognize that, with respect to VMT, the BAAQMD Thresholds refer to residential, office or retail projects, but not industrial projects like this one. The DEIR adopts the BAAQMD approach used for office projects, i.e., whether the Project achieves a 15 percent reduction below the existing VMT per employee.131 In analyzing whether the Project satisfies this criterion, the DEIR relies solely on the VMT analysis contained in the Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) prepared for the Project.132 The DEIR asserts a “29 percent reduction in employee VMT when compared to the existing regional VMT. As discussed [in the TIS], the region’s existing average daily employee VMT is 23 miles while the proposed project’s employee VMT would be 16.24 miles.”133
As discussed in detail above, however, neither the DEIR’s VMT discussion nor the TIS on which it is based contain any analysis or information supporting the conclusion that the relevant regional average VMT is 23 miles per employee or that 129 BAAQMD Thresholds, pg. 2.
130 DEIR, pg. 3.6-44.
131 Id., pg. 3.6-45.
132 Id., pg. 3.6-56.
133 Ibid.

NSRRD

18 2720
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
the Project VMT will be 16.24 miles per employee. Indeed, those conclusions are contradicted by the City’s own analysis of a similar project and by the analysis performed by transportation expert Norman Marshall. Because the DEIR’s claimed 29 percent reduction in VMT is totally unsupported, the conclusion that the Project complies with the modified BAAQMD significance thresholds adopted by the City is not supported by substantial evidence.

2. Impact GHG-2
The DEIR purports to analyze the Project’s consistency with “the applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.”134 Citing BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the DEIR states that for this impact to be less than significant, the Project must demonstrate consistency with the applicable GHG emissions reduction plan.135 Like the BAAQMD Thresholds for evaluating climate impacts (set forth above), the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines define a qualified GHG reduction strategy by reference to State CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5.136 Section 15183.5(b) sets forth specific elements for qualified GHG emissions reductions plans that may be used in later project level analysis of cumulative GHG impacts.137 “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…”138
The DEIR purports to assess the Project’s GHG impacts with respect to three “applicable plans adopted to reduce GHG emissions,” i.e., the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) 2017 Scoping Plan, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”) Plan Bay Area 2050, and the City of American Canyon’s Energy Efficient Climate Action Plan (“EECAP”). 139 The DEIR makes no showing that any of these is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b). Indeed, the DEIR expressly recognizes that American Canyon’s EECAP “does not meet the requirements to be considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy capable of being tiered from under CEQA 134 Id., pg., 3.6-46.
135 Ibid.
136 https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en (“BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines”), Appendix D, pg. D-25. 137 14 CCR § 15183.5(b)(1).
138 14 CCR § 15183.5(b)(2).
139 DEIR, pg. 3.6-61.

NSRRD

18 19a
2721
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Guidelines section 15183.5(b).”140 Nor does the DEIR contain any discussion of the elements of a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan set forth in section 15183.5(b) with respect to the 2017 Scoping Plan or MTC Plan Bay Area 2040. The DEIR fails to explain why consistency with these plans is an appropriate significance threshold for GHG impacts, and the subsequent conclusion that the Project will have no significant impacts is not supported by substantial evidence.

Even if the cited plans were qualified GHG emissions reduction plans, the DEIR’s analysis is riddled with holes and cannot support a finding of no significant impact. With respect to the MTC Plan Bay Area, the DEIR’s analysis simply makes no sense:

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. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals of Plan Bay Area, which include concentrating new investment in areas that would encourage job growth. In addition, the proposed project would be developed in an area with existing infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed project would generally not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050.141
What is missing from this series of seemingly unrelated sentences is any mention of GHG or any specific requirements in the plan to reduce GHG emissions.

Vague assertions that the Project is “consistent with overall goals” and “generally would not conflict with land use concepts” clearly do not support a finding of consistency with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

The DEIR’s analysis of the Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is similarly specious. The DEIR identifies a series of nine specific emissions reduction measures from the Scoping Plan and purports to analyze the Project’s consistency with those measures.142 However, immediately before listing these measures, the DEIR states “[a]s shown in Table 3.6-6, none of the measures are 140 Id., pg. 3.6-54; see also pg. 3.6-38. 141 DEIR, pg. 3.6-64. 142 Id., Table 3.6-6 at pgs. 3.6-66—3.6-68.

NSRRD

19a
19b
19c
2722
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
applicable to the proposed project [emphasis added].”143 Following Table 3.6-6, the DEIR continues, “[a]s shown in Table 3.6-6, the proposed project’s implementation would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.”144 The reader is left to guess how the lack of conflict with a series of inapplicable measures demonstrates consistency with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Finally, the DEIR analyzes the Project’s consistency with American Canyon’s EECAP which, again, is admittedly not a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan.

Seven different GHG emissions reduction measures are identified, five of which are found to be inapplicable to the Project.145 The two measures applicable to the Project are (1) new construction should have solar ready roofs that are pre-wired and ready for the installation of solar photovoltaic panels and solar water heating systems and (2) the project should reduce water use through building and landscape design and improvements. 146 The DEIR claims that the Project would include roof structures designed to accommodate additional weight for rooftop solar (not that it will be pre-wired and ready for installation) and would include water efficient landscaping and include water use reduction methods. The DEIR does not say that these measures will be binding and enforceable on the Project Applicant, nor are they included as mitigation measures. Unenforceable statements that the Project will comply with these two measures contained in a non-qualified GHG emissions reduction plan cannot and does not support a finding that the Project is consistent with a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan.147

3. Impact GHG-3
The DEIR asserts that a significant impact would occur if the Project would result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary use of energy, i.e., if the Project would conflict with any of the following energy conservation goals: (1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.148 With respect to the first goal, the DEIR again cites the unsupported assumption that the Project will result in an 143 Id., pg. 3.6-66. 144 Id., pg. 3.6-68.
145 Id., Table 3.6-5, pgs. 3.6-64—3.6-66.
146 Id., Table 3.6-5 at pg. 3.6-66.
147 Lotus v. Dep't of Transp. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 651-52. 148 Id., pg. 3.6-70.

NSRRD

19c
19d
20 2723
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
approximately 29 percent reduction in employee VMT from regional average estimates, and asserts that therefore overall energy consumption related to employee transportation would decrease from that experienced by the region’s current average employee transportation behavior. Once again, the DEIR builds on its unsubstantiated VMT analysis, which undermines the conclusion that the Project will decrease overall energy consumption related to employee vehicle use.

The DEIR’s finding of no significant impact with respect to Impact GHG-3 is therefore not supported by substantial evidence.

Because the DEIR’s GHG analysis fails to employ appropriate significance thresholds and lacks substantial evidence supporting the finding of no significant GHG impacts, the DEIR must be revised and recirculated with an appropriate GHG analysis.

C. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate the Project’s Potentially Significant Air Quality Impacts.

The DEIR’s air quality analysis concludes, with respect to health risks to sensitive receptors, that neither the Project’s construction or operation will cause a significant impact.149 This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence because the health risk assessment (“HRA”) on which it is based fails to consider (1) impacts from exposure to all toxic air compounds (“TAC”) in diesel exhaust, and (2) the effects on emissions from building downwash. In addition, the DEIR fails to consider and incorporate a number of feasible mitigation measures to reduce emissions of air pollutants and GHGs.

1. The Health Risk Assessment Fails To Consider Impacts Of TAC Emissions.

The DEIR fails to analyze the potentially significant air quality impacts from the gaseous form of diesel exhaust. As Dr. Clark explains, diesel exhaust is composed of particulate matter as well as vapor.150 The DEIR does not account for the vapor components of diesel emissions in its HRA, and thus fails as an informational document as it does not provide an analysis of the full range of the Project’s potential health impacts.
149 DEIR, pg. 3.2-63.
150 Clark Comments, p. 4.

NSRRD

20 21
22 2724
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
A lead agency’s significance determination must be supported by accurate scientific and factual data.151 An agency cannot conclude that an impact is less than significant unless it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding.152 These standards apply to the DEIR’s analysis of the air quality impacts of the Project.

In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, the California Supreme Court affirmed CEQA’s mandate to protect public health and safety by holding that an EIR fails as an informational document when it fails to disclose the public health impacts from air pollutants that would be generated by a development project.153 In Sierra Club, the Supreme Court held that the EIR for the Friant Ranch Project—a 942-acre master-planned, mixed-use development with 2,500 senior residential units, 250,000 square feet of commercial space, and open space on former agricultural land in north central Fresno County—was deficient as a matter of law in its informational discussion of air quality impacts as they connect to adverse human health effects.154 As the Court explained, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.”155 The Court concluded that the County’s EIR was inadequate for failing to disclose the nature and extent of public health impacts caused by the project’s air pollution. The EIR failed to comply with CEQA because the public, after reading the EIR, “would have no idea of the health consequences that result when more pollutants are added to a nonattainment basin.”156 CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.157
151 14 C.C.R. § 15064(b).
152 Kings County Farm Bureau, 221 Cal.App.3d at 732.
153 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522. 154 Id. at 507–508, 518–522.
155 Id. at 519, citing Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 514–515.
156 Id. at 518. CEQA’s statutory scheme and legislative intent also include an express mandate that agencies analyze human health impacts and determine whether the “environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Public Resources Code § 21083(b)(3) (emphasis added).) Moreover, CEQA directs agencies to “take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.” (Public Resources Code § 21000(d) (emphasis added).) 157 Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522.

NSRRD

22 2725
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
In Berkeley Jets, the Court of Appeal held that an EIR must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.158 In that case, the Port of Oakland approved a development plan for the Oakland International Airport.159 The EIR admitted that the Project would result in an increase in the release of TACs and adopted mitigation measures to reduce TAC emissions, but failed to quantify the severity of the Project’s impacts on human health.160 The Court held that mitigation alone was insufficient, and that the Port had a duty to analyze the health risks associated with exposure to TACs.161 As the CEQA Guidelines explain, “[t]he EIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected.”162
The failure to provide information required by CEQA makes meaningful assessment of potentially significant impacts impossible and is presumed to be prejudicial.163 Challenges to an agency’s failure to proceed in the manner required by CEQA, such as the failure to address a subject required to be covered in an EIR or to disclose information about a project’s environmental effects or alternatives, are subject to a less deferential standard than challenges to an agency’s factual conclusions.164 Courts reviewing challenges to an agency’s approval of an EIR based on a lack of substantial evidence will “determine de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.”165
CARB defines diesel exhaust as a complex mixture of inorganic and organic compounds that exists in gaseous, liquid, and solid phases.166 CARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) identify 40 components of diesel exhaust as suspected human carcinogens, including formaldehyde, 1,3- butadiene, and benzo[a]pyrene.167 The gas and particle components both contribute to health risks. The inhalation unit risk factor identified by OEHHA for use in risk assessments is for the DPM fraction of diesel exhaust and not the vapor phase 158 Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1369–1371.
159 Id. at 1349–1350.
160 Id. at 1364–1371.
161 Id. 162 14 C.C.R. § 15003(b).
163 Sierra Club v. State Bd. Of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236–1237. 164 Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 435.
165 Id. (internal quotations omitted).
166 Clark Comments, p. 4.
167 Id., pgs. 4-5
NSRRD

22 2726
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
components identified by CARB and U.S. EPA.168 Here, the City only used the DPM fraction of diesel exhaust in its analysis of the construction and operational emissions and ignores the presence of TACs being emitted with diesel exhaust.169 By failing to include an analysis of the additional TAC components of diesel exhaust, the DEIR does not provide a full picture of the Project’s potential health impacts and fails as an informational document as required by CEQA. The County must update the HRA with the TAC impacts included and include the results in a revised and recirculated EIR.

2. The Modeling Used For The Health Risk Assessment Failed To Account For Building Downwash.

Dr. Clark reviewed the AERMOD modeling used by the DEIR to support the HRA and found that the modeling has a significant flaw: it fails to account for the impact on air emissions from building downwash.170 Building downwash occurs as wind flows over and around buildings and impacts the dispersion of pollution from nearby sources.171 A plume of contaminants caught in the path of this flow is drawn into the wake, temporarily trapping it in a recirculating cavity.172 This downwash effect leads to higher ground-level concentration of chemicals emitted from sources and increases as the relative difference between the release height and top of the building increases.173 For the closest receptors to the Project site, the residences to the east of the Project, this difference will create an additional air quality impact that is not accounted for in the City’s analysis.174 Omission of the building downwash effect underestimates the exposure point concentrations for receptors near the building(s). The City should update its HRA to account for this effect and include the results in a revised and recirculated EIR.

3. The DEIR Fails to Consider and Implement All Feasible Mitigation Measures to Reduce Project Emissions.

In response to the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR for this Project, CARB provided a letter to the City stating that “the final design of the Project should include all existing and emerging zero-emission technologies to minimize diesel PM 168 Id., pg. 5.
169 Id., pg. 5.
170 Id., pgs. 3-4.
171 Id., pg. 4.
172 Ibid.
173 Ibid.
174 Ibid.

NSRRD

22 23
24 2727
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions, as well as the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.”175 CARB also encouraged the City and the Applicant to implement the measures listed in Attachment A to its letter, in order to reduce the Project’s construction and operational air pollution emissions.176 Dr. Clark echoes CARB’s suggestion, and provides his own list of mitigation measures that include CARB’s proposals and others proposed by Air Quality Management Districts in California:

1. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements that requires tenants to use the cleanest technologies available, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles and equipment that will be operating on site.

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

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

4. Include contractual language in tenant lease agreements requiring all TRUs, trucks, and cars entering the Project site be zero-emission.

5. 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 zero-emission vehicles, and be fully zeroemission beginning in 2030.

6. 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 CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation,177 Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP),178 and the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation.179 175 DEIR, Appendix A, February 8, 2021 letter from Heather Arias to Brent Cooper. 176 Ibid., Attachment A.
177 In December 2008, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty tractors that pull 53-foot or longer box-type trailers. The regulation applies primarily to owners of 53-foot or longer box-type trailers, including both dry-van and refrigerated-van trailers, and owners of the heavy-duty tractors that pull them on California highways. CARB's Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/hdghg/hdghg.htm.
178 The PSIP program requires that diesel and bus fleet owners conduct annual smoke opacity inspections of their vehicles and repair those with excessive smoke emissions to ensure compliance.

CARB's PSIP program is available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/enf/hdvip/hdvip.htm. 179 The regulation requires that newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting NSRRD

24 2728
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper

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

8. 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.

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

10.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 Port as the Lead Agency should commit to reevaluating the Proposed Project through CEQA prior to allowing this land use or higher activity level.

11.Ensure that any check-in point for trucks is well inside the Proposed Project site to ensure that there are no trucks queuing outside of the facility.

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

13.Establish area(s) within the Proposed Project site for repair needs.180 The DEIR fails to consider or implement these feasible mitigation measures.

D. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate Hydrological Impacts
Wetland biologist Sarah Corbin identifies several potentially significant hydrological impacts that are not disclosed and/or are inadequately analyzed. She also cites several ways in which the DEIR fails to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed wetlands mitigation set forth in MM BIO-3a-3d.

1. The DEIR Fails To Disclose Or Adequately Analyze Hydrologic Impacts.

First, as discussed above, the lack of an accurate wetlands delineation and the failure to perform any functional assessment means that the DEIR cannot and does not describe or analyze the nature and extent of wetlands impacts. This January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 201 0 model year engines or equivalent. CARB's Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation is available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm
180 Clark Comments, pgs. 7-8.

NSRRD

24 25
26 2729
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
failure alone requires that the DEIR be revised and recirculated with a full disclosure and analysis of potentially significant wetlands impacts.

Second, the DEIR states that underground piping will convey stormwater from the Project’s new pollution-generating impervious surfaces to bioretention and detention basins on the north boundary of the Project.181 The DEIR further identifies “passive or active control devise [sic] to allow treated stormwater to enter the wetland swale,” i.e. the created wetlands in the wetland preserve area.182 However, the DEIR fails to discuss how drainage patterns to and hydrology sources in the unimpacted and created wetlands will be maintained. Without pre- and postProject water budget analyses for the site wetlands, impacts to the “preserved” wetlands area cannot be properly evaluated and the DEIR’s determination that additional wetlands will not be impacted is not supported by substantial evidence.183
Third, the Project proposes use of a specialized biosoil in the bioretention facility to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff. However, the DEIR also states that “the wetland preserve would facilitate the natural sequestration of pollutants of stormwater leaving the project site.”184 Using the wetland preserve as part of the Project’s post-construction stormwater management strategy (i.e., to filter pollutants) will have long term detrimental impacts to these wetlands.185 CEQA requires that if a mitigation measure itself would create significant impacts, those impacts must be discussed in the EIR.186 These impacts are neither described nor analyzed in the DEIR, in violation of CEQA.

Fourth, the DEIR fails to disclose or analyze potentially significant indirect impacts to the Project site wetlands. As Ms. Corbin explains, buffers around wetland areas are critical to ensuring the long-term viability of those sites and may provide habitat or corridors necessary for the ecological functioning of the wetlands.187 The importance of such buffers are emphasized in the Army Corps of Engineers mitigation guidelines for vernal pools, which require at least 100 feet 181 Corbin Comments, pg. 4; DEIR, pg. 3.8-13.
182 DEIR, Exh. 3.3-4.
183 Corbin Comments, pg. 4.
184 DEIR, pg. 3.8-11.
185 Corbin Comments, pg. 4.
186 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(1)(D).
187 Corbin Comments, pg. 5.

NSRRD

26 2730
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
buffers “around all vernal pools and mitigation sites.”188 Such buffers should consist of “native vegetation or regionally characteristic annual grassland without cut or fill as a result of adjacent development” and the “appropriate buffer width will depend on adjacent land uses.”189
Here, buffer widths between wetlands and the Project footprint are not provided but the DEIR’s figure scales suggest they are less than 100 feet in many places, particularly adjacent to the Project footprint’s northern boundary.190 In addition, buffers surrounding several wetland areas are identified in the DEIR as proposed landscape areas, which suggests they will not consist of “native vegetation or regionally characteristic annual grassland without cut or fill as a result of adjacent development,” per Corps guidelines. Indirect impacts to these wetland areas from disturbed or landscaped buffers are not disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR.

Finally, the connections and corridor between the wetlands in the southeastern Project area (Wetlands IW-7 to IW-10) and the remaining wetland complex to the north and east will disappear once the Project is developed.191 This corridor disconnection, the overall reduction of undeveloped/unlandscaped buffer widths that will remain post-Project development and the indirect effects on the remaining site wetlands are not disclosed or analyzed in the DEIR. These potentially significant, unmitigated impacts must be fully analyzed in a revised and recirculated EIR.

2. The DEIR Contains No Evidence That Proposed Mitigation Will Be Effective.

In addition to the failure to describe and analyze potentially significant impacts to wetlands, the DEIR fails to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation measures will be effective in reducing the Project’s significant wetlands impacts.

Courts do not defer to determinations that mitigation measures will work when their efficacy is not apparent and there is no evidence in the record showing that they will be effective in remedying the identified impact.192 188 Id., citing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2016b, Draft mitigation and monitoring guidelines for vernal pools: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division, November, 23 p.6, available: https://www.spd.usace.army.mil//Portals/13/docs/regulatory/publicnotices/DVPGL.pdf. 189 Id. 190 Corbin Comments, pg. 5.
191191 Id., pg. 5.
192 King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. County of Kern (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 814, 866 NSRRD

26 27
2731
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
The DEIR includes mitigation measures MM BIO-3a—BIO-3d, which would create a “wetland preserve” area adjacent to the northern boundary of the Project site.193 This plan proposes to preserve 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and

0.13 acre of vernal pool, create 0.992 acre of seasonal wetlands in advance of or concurrent with Phase 1 development, and create 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools in advance of Phase 2.194 The DEIR concludes that implementation of these measures would offset impacts to the Project site wetlands “in-kind” and ensure that there is no net loss of wetland area, “thus reducing potential impacts to a level considered less than significant.”195 As Ms. Corbin and Mr. Cashen explain, while the wetlands mitigation measures may result in no net loss of wetland area, there is no discussion, let alone evidence, to support the conclusion that the mitigation will replace lost wetland functions and value.196 As discussed, neither the DEIR nor the supporting documentation contain any assessment of the wetland functions that will be lost by the development of the Project. Because of this failure, Ms. Corbin finds “we are unable to evaluate if the proposed mitigation will adequately replace lost wetland function.”197
Mr. Cashen echoes this criticism of the DEIR, noting that despite recognizing the impacts to several acres of wetland, “nowhere does the DEIR discuss the ecological functions of the wetlands at the Project site.”198 The wetlands and surrounding grasslands on the site currently occupy more than 200 acres of undeveloped land, which provide habitat for a variety of plant and bird species.

After development, the “wetland preserve” would be limited to a 44.8 acre area that would “(a) be located between the Project site and the Napa Logistics Center site [an adjacent large warehouse development]; (b) be bisected by the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project, and (c) have no connectivity to any other open space lands.

Thus, the preserve would function as a habitat “island” surrounded by urban (industrial) development.”199 The preserve would be subject to ongoing disturbance caused by traffic, noise and human activity associated with Project operation, which would degrade the preserve's functions as wildlife habitat.200 193 DEIR, pgs. 3.3-32—3.3-37
194 Id., pgs. 3.3-28—3.3-29.
195 Id., pg. 3.3-32.
196 Corbin Comments, pgs. 5-9; Cashen Comments, pgs. 5-6. 197 Corbin Comments, pg. 6.
198 Cashen Comments, pg. 5.
199 Id., pg. 6.
200 Ibid.

NSRRD

27 2732
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
Given the foregoing, the failure to assess the existing wetlands functions or to analyze whether the wetland preserve will mitigate those functional losses is a glaring omission. “Although the proposed mitigation might ensure no net loss of wetland area, it would not ensure no net loss of wetland function and values.” 201 Without an understanding of existing wetland function, it is not possible to determine whether the proposed mitigation will in fact replace or mitigate those lost functions. The DEIR therefore lacks any evidence demonstrating that mitigation measures MM BIO-3a—3d will in fact mitigate the Project’s functional impacts to wetlands.

Ms. Corbin discusses several additional ways in which the DEIR fails to support the conclusion that the proposed wetland mitigation will actually be effective.

First, the DEIR lacks any evidence supporting the assumption that the proposed wetlands mitigation ratios will adequately mitigate the Project’s significant impacts. The Project proposes to mitigate for Phase 1 and Phase 2 impacts at 2:1 and 1:1 ratios, respectively. Both the Devlin Road and Green Island Biological Assessments, prepared for the City in connection with projects adjacent to this Project Site and included in supporting materials for the DEIR, identify 2:1 as the typical Corps and Regional Water Quality Control Board required mitigation ratios.202 The Corps identifies vernal pools as “difficult to replace resources” and “regionally significant habitat types,” making vernal pool wetland creation an inherently high risk mitigation that warrants a higher than typical mitigation ratios.203 The Corps also states that mitigation ratios greater than 1:1 are typically required because “mitigation sites often provide reduced functions compared to the impacted aquatic resources.”204 The DEIR offers no evidence supporting the assumption that these mitigation ratios, particularly the 1:1 ratio for Phase 2, will effectively mitigate lost wetland area and functions.

Second, the DEIR lacks evidence supporting that the proposed new wetlands area can be created and maintained. Ms. Corbin cites evidence demonstrating the difficulty of wetlands creation, especially with respect to vernal pools.205 Successful 201 Ibid. 202 DEIR, Appendix C, C-6 and C-7.
203 Corbin Comments, pg. 6.
204 Id., pg. 7, citing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2015, Final 2015 regional compensatory mitigation and monitoring guidelines for South Pacific division: January, 70 p., available:
https://www.spd.usace.army.mil/portals/13/docs/regulatory/mitigation/mitmon.pdf. 205 Id., pg. 6.

NSRRD

27 2733
July 20, 2022

5188-006acp
printed on recycled paper
wetland creation is “largely driven by ability to provide appropriate hydrology,” i.e., it requires a source of water to create and maintain wetlands.206 The DEIR does not provide any hydrologic analysis demonstrating wetland creation potential in the proposed mitigation area. Such analysis should include a water budget analysis, typically supported by hydrology monitoring in the proposed wetland creation area.207 None of that analysis, crucial to assessing whether the proposed mitigation will be effective, is provided in the DEIR.

Finally, the wetland mitigation performance standards set forth in BIO MM 3-d will not ensure that such mitigation will be effective. This mitigation measure states that 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 [emphasis added].”208 As previously discussed, though, the DEIR provides no assessment of the impacted wetlands’ functions. Nor is there a discussion of the impacted wetlands varied habitat conditions (e.g., isolated vs. non-isolated wetlands).

Without an understanding of the impacted wetland functions, “there is no basis for establishing meaningful mitigation goals and associated meaningful performance standards to achieve no net loss.”209 By focusing on mitigation area size without replacing lost ecological function, the DEIR lacks any supporting evidence for its conclusion that the proposed wetland mitigation will be effective, and the plan does not comply with the State’s no net loss policy.210
E. The DEIR Fails to Disclose, Analyze or Mitigate Biological Impacts.

1. The DEIR Fails To Adequately Analyze And Mitigate Impacts To The Swainson’s Hawk.

Mr. Cashen discusses in detail how the DEIR fails to adequately disclose or mitigate significant impacts to Swainson’s hawk, a California threatened species.211 The DEIR fails to accurately describe the Project’s significant impacts to Swainson’s 206 Ibid.
207 Ibid.
208 DEIR, pg. 3.3-33.
209 Corbin Comments, pg. 8.
210 Ibid. 211 Cashen Comments, pgs. 7-9, 14-15.

NSRRD