American Canyon City Council
February 21, 2023

2845
Cashen, Curriculum Vitae 8

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

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

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

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

CASHEN

2846

EXHIBIT D
CASHEN

2847
1 794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05075
Norman Marshall, President
(802) 356-2969
[email protected]

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

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

SM

1 2848
2 Project Trip Generation Could Be Much Higher Than Assumed The project is comprised of up to 2.4 million square feet of warehouse. (DEIR, p. 1) The tenants have not been identified, and the nature of the operations are unknown at this time.

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

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

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

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

SM

2 2849
3 Figure 1: Weekday Daily Trips for Different Types of High-Cube Warehouses Source: Trip Generation Manual 10th edition
No justification is given for the choice to use the lowest trip generation category. In fact, it appears that the category is unknown now. The DEIR uses only the term “high-cube warehouse” which could be in any of the categories and the DEIR expressly recognizes that the proposed project may include cold storage.

The DEIR states:

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

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

1.4 1.81

6.44 4.63

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

2 2850
4 The data in the Western Riverside COG study are much more variable than the average rates suggest. As shown in the figure below, the different fulfillment center sites have wildly different trip generation rates, with an Amazon facility having an especially high rate.

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

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

SM

2 2851
5 Figure 3: Western Riverside COG Warehouse Trip Generation Study Exhibit 11 The DEIR estimated a total of 2,832 daily trips at buildout. (Table 3-12-5, p. 3.12-12) The DEIR also estimated a total of 3,643 workers at buildout. If it is assumed:
x Workers make round trip commutes (number of workers x 2.0), x Each worker works a 5-day week (x 5/7), and
x Most workers commute in single-occupant vehicles (x 95%), then The 3,643 workers would make 4,944 commute trips on the average day, or more than 2,000 more than the trip generation estimate in the DEIR. And this represents commute trips only. It does not include any truck trips or trips associated with local delivery operations. The DEIR is trying to have it both ways – asserting a high employment count as an economic benefit and asserting a low trip generation estimate that implicitly assumes considerably lower employment.

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

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

2 2852
6 truck trip generation for the proposed facility. This apparently is the basis for the 0.22 truck trip rate in the DEIR, but this application of the traffic count data is invalid.

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

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

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

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

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

2 3
2853
7 Figure 4: CSTDM TAZs in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project Along with TAZ Areas (Square Miles) The proposed project is between the American Canyon label and the airport logo, i.e., near the border between two TAZs, each sized about 8 square miles. In calculating model VMT, some workers would live close enough that both workplace and residence would be inside the same TAZ. Any trip completed within a single TAZ is assigned an arbitrary intrazonal trip length that cannot be determined without examining the model files. The model distance could be as small as a quarter mile, but the actual trips could be several miles in length. The travel distance in the model between any two TAZs is determined by where artificial “centroid connectors” are arbitrarily placed within each TAZ In the case of these two SM

3 2854
8 8-square-mile TAZs, it could be as little as a mile or as much as five miles or more. There is no way to know without examining the model files. The TAZs to the east and west are huge – 29 square miles and 60 square miles. The model travel distances to those TAZs are similarly dependent on the arbitrary placement of the centroid connectors. Model distances to more distant TAZs are similarly arbitrary.

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

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

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

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

3 2855
9 Average (mean) commute distances to American Canyon City jobs were estimated from these LODES data by:
x calculating the direct (“crow flies”) distance between the centers of each Census block, x eliminating commutes of over 100 miles where the data may be spurious and would inflate the average, and
x multiplying by 110% to account for actual routing along roads The resulting mean one-way commute distance is 22.0 miles.

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

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

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

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

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

3 4
2856
10 Employer-sponsored vanpools can be very effective in situations like this one where many employees working set shifts are concentrated at one location, but where the workforce is dispersed over a wide area.

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Norman L. Marshall
SM

4 5
2857
11 Resume
NORMAN L. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
[email protected]
EDUCATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 2858
12 model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SM

2859
13 South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) – In work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal South Caroline including a new proposed freeway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2860

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2861
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-279 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Napa-Solano Residents For Responsible Growth (NSRRG)
Note to Reader: This letter includes the attachment from James Clark (CLARK), Shannon & Wilson Inc. (S&W), Scott Cashen (CASHEN), and Smart Mobility (SM).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buildout assumptions are addressed in Master Response 3.

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

The text in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-9 has been revised to state 20 to 24 months for consistency. The change is noted in Final EIR Section 5, Errata. The change simply brings the text on page 2-9 into alignment with the construction air quality analysis and does not change any conclusions or mitigation measures.
2862
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-280 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Health risk is measured on an annual basis (i.e., 12-month increments). Hence, a 12-month buildout period for each phase is the closest period available for each phase.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To preface this response, as discussed on Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, pages 3.3-20 and 3.3-21, three separate biological consulting firms (HBG, Monk & Associates, and LSA Associates) assessed the project site between 2016 and 2021. The studies included biological resource reports, habitat assessments, botanical field surveys, and an aquatic resource delineation. Additionally, FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) peer reviewed these biological firms’ work prior to release of the Draft EIR and determined it to be adequate. In sum, the project site is perhaps the most biologically studied site in American Canyon in the last decade and, thus, there is an abundance of information about the baseline biological conditions of the project site. 2863
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-281 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx With that in mind, the Draft EIR used this abundance of information to describe the existing biological conditions in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, on pages 3.3-1 through 3.3-7. This discussion included (1) climate; (2) hydrology; (3) topography and soils; (4) plant communities; (5) wildlife; (6) special-status plant and wildlife species; and (7) wetlands descriptions. Draft EIR Exhibit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.
2864
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-282 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRG-15
The organization alleged the VMT analysis provided no justification the threshold of 23 miles per employee and improperly used the California Statewide Travel Demand Model. The organization referenced the VMT analysis for a 217,000-square-foot wine distribution warehouse (SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project) less than 2 miles, which employed a different methodology and thresholds.

The VMT analysis is addressed in Master Response 4.

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

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

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

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

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

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

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

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

One of the primary benefits of having a “qualified” plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 is the ability to streamline the cumulative impact analysis in environmental documents for later development projects. As subdivision (b)(2) of Section 15183.5 explains, “[a] plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, once adopted 2865
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-283 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx following certification of an EIR or adoption of an environmental document, may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects. An environmental document that relies on a greenhouse gas reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the proposed project. If there is substantial evidence that the effects of a particular project may be cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding the project’s compliance with the specified requirements in the plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, an EIR must be prepared for the project.” The Draft EIR for the Giovanni Logistics Center project has not attempted to use a qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases for such streamlining purposes. Rather, the Draft EIR includes a full section on the subject of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy (refer to Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy).

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

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

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

SANDAG (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 519, stated that planning agencies “must ensure that CEQA analysis stays in step with evolving scientific knowledge and State regulatory schemes.” In summary, the commenter incorrectly suggests the City erred by considering the proposed project’s consistency with the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, the MTC Plan Bay Area 2050, and the City ’s 2866
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-284 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx EECAP. All three of these plans, though not “qualified” under Section 15183.5, were adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

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

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

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

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

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

As discussed in Impact GHG-2 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project is analyzed for consistency with all applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As such, the EECAP is the most applicable plan adopted for this purpose as it identifies local actions that individual land use 2867
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-285 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx can implement or otherwise demonstrate consistency with. The City found it prudent also to provide a consistency analysis for not just the EECAP but also the MTC Plan Bay Area as well as the ARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. As noted in Response to NSRRG-19a, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, subdivision (b)(3), provides that “[i]n determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies[.]” The fact that those regional and Statewide plans contain many measures that are not applicable to the proposed project does not make the City’s consideration of these plans a useless exercise. Notably, Table 3.6-6 identified one measure from the 2017 Scoping Plan—the Sustainable Freight Action Plan—that did apply to the proposed project, and with which the proposed project is consistent. (Draft EIR, page 3.6-67.) On this issue, the Draft EIR explained that “[t]his measure applies to owners and operators of trucks and freight operations. While the proposed project is industrial in nature and would support truck and freight operations, neither the proposed project’s design nor nature would prevent truck fleet owners and operators from utilizing zero-emission or near-ZEVs by 2030.

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

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

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

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

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

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

Refer to Response to CLARK-3 through Response to CLARK-7. 2868
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-286 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to NSRRG-22
The organization reiterated Comments CLARK-4 through CLARK-6 about the HRA, though with references to two CEQA decisions, Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 518–522, and Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1369–1371. The organization cited the first of these cases for the proposition that “CEQA mandates discussion, supported by substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health.” The organization cited the second case for the proposition that “an EIR must analyze the impacts from human exposure to toxic substances.”
As is explained in Response to CLARK-4 through Response to CLARK-6, the analyses in the EIR meet the standards of these two court cases, in that the EIR adequately considered potential health effects of toxic air contaminants through the preparation of an HRA considering the effects of both on-site and off-site project emissions consistent with the BAAQMD’s December 2020 Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. Those responses explain why the technical critique offered by Clark & Associates failed to point out any actual flaws in the City’s analyses.

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

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

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

Ozone concentrations, for instance, depend upon various complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground- level ozone concentrations related to the NAAQS and 2869
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-287 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx CAAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the health-based standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). However, if a project within the BAAQMD exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the Air Basin.

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

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

Refer to Response to CLARK-4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to NSRRG-29
The organization reiterated Comments CASHEN-8 and CASHEN-16 about the golden eagle. 2870
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-288 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Refer to Response to CASHEN-8 and Response to CASHEN-15, as well as Master Response 1.

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

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

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

Refer to Response to CASHEN-11.

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

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

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

Refer to Response to CASHEN-14.

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

Refer to Response to CASHEN-13.

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

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

VMT is addressed in Master Response 4.

Response to NSRRG-35c
The organization asserted the City may not make required findings to approve the proposed project entitlements because the proposed project is in conflict with General Plan Natural and 2871
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-289 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Historic/Cultural Resources Policy 8.21, which requires evaluation and mitigation for impacts to sensitive natural resources. The organization cited its previous comments about the biological resources analysis.

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

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

Refer to Response to S&W-16a.

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

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

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

Foraging habitat is addressed in Master Response 1.

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

Refer to Response to CASHEN-12.

Response to NSRRG-36
The organization cited comments in its letter that the Draft EIR is wholly inadequate under CEQA and must be revised and recirculated.
2872
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-290 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As indicated in Response NSRRG-1 through Response to NSRRG-35g, none of the alleged deficiencies is supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, there is no legal basis to revise and recirculate the Draft EIR.

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

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

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

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

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

As disclosed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, as well as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the HRA modeling onsite and off-site project emissions is consistent with the BAAQMD’s December 2020 Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol, which states that “Building downwash for point sources that are within the area of influence of a building must be considered when running AERMOD. A building is considered sufficiently close to a stack to cause wake effects when the distance between the stack and the nearest part of the building is less than or equal to five times the lesser of the building 2873
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-291 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx height or the projected weight of the building (PBW) . . . ”3 Because of the frequent mobilization of equipment and vehicles across the approximately 161-acre site during both construction and operation of the proposed project, project emissions were included in the HRA modeling as area sources rather than point sources. In addition, during Phase 1 construction, no building was present on-site that would create the downwash effect described by the commenter. Because the BAAQMD recommends the consideration of building downwash in air dispersion modeling when modeling point sources and because the proposed project did not include point sources, building downwash was not considered in the HRA modeling.

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

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

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

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

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

October 2. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/healthval/contable.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2022. 2874
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-292 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to CLARK-6
The organization summarizes the requirements of MM AQ-2d and suggests the City should mandate the proposed project utilize newer model year heavy-heavy-duty (HHD) truck fleets. The organization explains it is possible to estimate emissions from on-road mobile sources in California using the ARB EMFAC model and presents their analysis for how using model year 2018 HHD trucks would reduce emissions from the proposed project truck operations.

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

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

Only operational criteria pollutant emissions were found to have a significant unavoidable impact after mitigation. As such, no additional mitigation is required for construction criteria pollutant emissions, toxic air contaminant emissions, or GHG emissions because they would be less than significant after mitigation. Table 3-2 provides an analysis of the feasibility of implementing the additional mitigation measures suggested by the commenter. As indicated in the table, the proposed mitigation measures are either (1) not necessary; (2) not feasible; (3) already included as mitigation; or (4) included as new mitigation measures.
2875
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-293 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Table 3-2: Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Additional Mitigation Measures Proposed Mitigation Measure Analysis
Include contractual language in tenant lease
agreements that requires tenants to use the
cleanest vehicle technologies available, and to
provide the necessary infrastructure to support
zero-emission vehicles and equipment on-site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not Feasible: Project end users are unknown at the time of Final EIR publication and, thus, it would be speculative to place restrictions on fleet equipment. Furthermore,
imposing onerous requirements on the potential fleet of future unknown users could put the project at a
competitive disadvantage by limiting the universe of
2876
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-294 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Proposed Mitigation Measure Analysis
potential future end users, and may be technologically
infeasible due to the performance needs of the end user.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limit the daily number of trucks allowed at the
proposed project to levels analyzed in the CEQA
document. If higher daily truck volumes are
anticipated to visit the site, the City as the Lead
Not Necessary: As explained in Master Response 4, the
traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project
utilized the best available research studies to develop conservative estimates of the number of truck trips that 2877
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-295 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Proposed Mitigation Measure Analysis
Agency should commit to reevaluating the
proposed project through CEQA prior to allowing
this land use or higher activity level.
would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed
land uses for the project. The modeling for the project appropriately reflects the proposed land uses and
anticipated traffic associated with the proposed land use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As described in the Draft EIR, the BAAQMD regulates backup emergency generators, fire pumps, and other sources of TACs through its New Source Review (Regulation 2, Rule 5) permitting process.5 The Draft EIR states the proposed project would include three backup diesel generators and three dieselfueled fire pumps, each assumed to be rated at 50 horsepower and operate for a 4-hour maintenance period one day per month, totaling an estimated 48 hours of operation per year. In addition, the project applicant would be required to submit a permit application for each generator 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. New Source Review Permitting Guidance. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/permits/permitting-manuals/nsr-permitting-guidance. Accessed May 18, 2021. 2878
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-296 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to the BAAQMD and ensure compliance with the permit requirements. The regulation and permitting of backup generators is the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. Renewable permits are issued by the BAAQMD, and compliance with permitting conditions is enforced by the air district. As such, compliance with the permit would satisfy all requirements of the BAAQMD and would not warrant a revised Draft EIR. It should be further noted that the commenter does not provide substantiating evidence to support the claim that backup (emergency) generators will be utilized on an increasing basis into the future, and this is a speculative assertion without supporting evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City acknowledges the 2016 Monk & Associates delineation contains some minor errors mentioned by the commenter. Helminthotheca echioides was misidentified as FACU at those data points. DP-40, -98, -105, and -110 were also incorrectly identified as uplands. For DP-97 Helminthotheca echioides was misidentified, which would change the hydrophytic vegetation indicator from a “no” to a “yes”; however, this data point was lacking wetland hydrology and hydric 2879
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-297 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx soils, so the conclusion that DP-97 was an upland is correct. The errors at issue, however, do not undermine the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR did not rely on the Monk & Associates 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation report. Instead, wetland impacts were calculated using the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) Approved Jurisdictional Delineation dated October 25, 2016.

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

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

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

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

Constructing Phase 1 and 2 concurrently over an 18-month period would impact 0.496-acre of wetlands for Phase 1 and 3.7 acres of wetlands for Phase 2 for a total of 4.196 acres of wetlands, which is the worst-case scenario, meaning the maximum acreage of wetland impacts would be 4.196 acres. The “worst-case scenario” assumption is not linked to the number of months it would take to complete each Phase but rather is a function of the acreage of wetland impacts. Phase 2 wetland impacts were assessed based on a full buildout with a maximum impact of 3.7 acres of wetlands. It is possible that, once Phase 2 has gone through the entitlement process, the site plan may be modified to reduce impacts to under 3.7 acres, just as Phase 1 has avoided impacts. 2880
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-298 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The project construction would occur over at least two nesting periods. If nesting does occur in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it should be assumed the nesting bird(s) are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site. Therefore, a prolonged construction period that extends beyond 18 months would not increase constructionrelated impacts. It should be noted that if construction takes 18 months to complete or longer, all mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR would apply for the entirety of the construction period, including additional nesting bird surveys if construction is paused for more than seven (7) days. Therefore, there is no basis to assume new impacts would occur if Phases 1 and 2 take two months to complete or 24 months, or if it is split to where Phase 1 is constructed first and then Phase 2 is begins the following year. Regardless, for consistency and to address the commenters concerns, MM BIO-4 is revised to include the following language:

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

The change is noted in Section 5, Errata.

See also Master Response 3.

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

Functional assessments were conducted to determine plant and animal communities supported on the project site, and these functional assessments were used in the impact analysis and subsequent mitigation requirements. The Draft EIR acknowledges the project site contains one upland plant community described as Annual Grassland, and two wetland plant communities, Seasonal Wetlands and Vernal Pools, as shown in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, Exhibit 3.3-2. Plant communities are assemblages of plant species growing in an area of similar biological environmental factors. One of the functions of wetlands are the plant communities they support. To determine whether the wetlands or uplands supported special-status plants, in support of CEQA and agency requirements, Helm Biological Consulting (HBC) conducted botanical survey assessments during spring 2021. As described in their rare plant survey, HBC identified the three plant communities. In addition to this plant communities assessment/rare plant survey conducted by HBC, the Draft EIR acknowledges that, based on a spring season site reconnaissance survey conducted on April 16 and May 24, 2021, HBG determined the site was suitable foraging habitat for State listed threatened Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle. HBG also made an assessment of the potential for the wetlands to support each animal species noted in the CNDDB as occurring within a 10-mile radius of the project site, or that is known to occur in the general vicinity based on the knowledge of HBG Biologists. Over 40 animals were included in this assessment, as is discussed in the HBG report (Draft EIR, Appendix C), and this information was used to assess impacts to wetlands and species that could be using the wetlands or uplands. Therefore, a number of “functional” assessments were conducted 2881
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-299 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx to determine CEQA impacts and recommend mitigation measures to offset these impacts to less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to S&W-8
The commenters stated that treated stormwater would be delivered to newly created wetlands on the Wetland Preserve. The commenters suggested without a pre- and post-project water budget 2882
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-300 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx analysis for the wetlands, the determination that additional wetlands would not be impacted is not supported.

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

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

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

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

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

The USACE currently does not require buffers around vernal pool preserves or mitigation sites. The stated objective of the USACE’s draft Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for Vernal Pools is to provide “guidance” to select appropriate compensatory mitigation sites, construct compensatory vernal pools and complexes, and establish a monitoring program that will adequately assess compliance with the performance standards established in the mitigation plan. Within the guidance under “Construction Technique,” a minimum 100-foot buffer around a vernal pool preserve or mitigation site is suggested. These are guidelines, not requirements. More importantly, these 2883
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-301 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx guidelines have not been finalized or incorporated into the South Pacific Division Final Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines. Specific to this project site and the Wetland Preserve, the two unimpacted vernal pools’ main source of hydrology are direct precipitation and surface water flow from a culvert near the northeastern boundary, which flows east to west toward No Name Creek. Therefore, the surface hydrology feeding the two unimpacted vernal pools and the proposed created/established vernal pool would not be impacted by the proximity of the proposed development to the vernal pools. In addition, although the bioretention basins may require periodic maintenance, the bioretention basins would also provide a minimum 100-foot buffer from the two unimpacted vernal pools.

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, mitigation measures are not required.

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

Although this analysis does not specifically reference IW-7, 8, 9, and 10, it does reference sensitive habitats and “wetlands,” which would include IW-7, 8, 9, and 10. 2884
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-302 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to S&W-11
The commenters referenced language in the Procedures that requires compensatory mitigation to be developed using a watershed profile and requires that the watershed profile include information sufficient to evaluate direct, secondary (indirect), and cumulative impacts of project. The commenters stated that the Draft EIR does not address impacts to wetland functions associated with reduced buffer widths, increased noise, lights, and traffic compared to existing conditions.

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

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

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

The commenters also stated that the Draft EIR does not address cumulative wetland impacts that incorporate current development trends in the area and continued aquatic habitat fragmentation. 2885
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-303 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx As discussed on pages 4-5 and 4-6 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would potentially contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources in the City of American Canyon and the effects of ongoing urbanization in the region. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development planned in the City of American Canyon and Napa County, would contribute to the cumulative loss of ruderal/annual grassland and wetland habitat for resident and migratory wildlife species and federal and State listed plants and animals. Compliance with the mitigation measures outlined in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, would reduce the impact of the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impacts to less than significant. Therefore, a mitigation measure specific to cumulative wetland impacts is not required.

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

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

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

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

Response to S&W-13b
2886
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-304 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx S&W suggests that the Procedures and the USACE may require mitigation ratios greater than 1:1 for impacts to vernal pools, and the information in the Draft EIR does not support the conclusion that the proposed established/created wetlands would replace all the wetland functions at the time of Phase 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 1990 Federal Mitigation Memorandum of Agreement is a federal process and an agreement, as stated by S&W, between two federal agencies. Although the requirements in this agreement will be assessed by the USACE and EPA during the Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting process, during the design process “practicable” alternatives were assessed to first avoid impacts to wetlands, then minimize impacts to wetlands, and where impacts were unavoidable, mitigation measures were proposed. The term ‘practicable’ was applied in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 230.3(q) meaning “available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” During the design process, alternative site designs proposed to avoid and minimize impacts considered several specific constraints of a practicable project site plan that were needed in order to satisfy the overall project 2887
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-305 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx purpose. These specific site design constraints included the need to: (1) provide sufficient building square footage capable of accommodating large manufacturing, and/or fulfillment and distribution tenants that require large surface and vertical area structures (i.e., high-cube warehouse buildings), (2) provide sufficient area to accommodate loading docks and circulation routes that can accommodate tractor-semitrailers and delivery vans, and parking to accommodate tractorsemitrailers, vans and personnel vehicles, (3) provide sufficient space to comply with Statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, (4) provide for water, sewer, and electric utilities sufficient for an industrial facility, or in an area where those utilities may be practicably extended to the project site, and (5) provide sufficient area to implement wetland mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources.

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

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

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

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

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

Refer to Response to S&W-6b.

Response to S&W-15c
The commenters suggested that the Draft EIR does not describe use of reference wetlands in the mitigation approach, which is needed to define the performance standards. 2888
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-306 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx The Draft EIR acknowledges in MM BIO-3d that the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Procedures. The Procedures require the use of “reference aquatic resources,” as correctly stated by S&W. Therefore, MM BIO-3d requires, by referencing the Procedures in MM BIO-3d, the use of “reference aquatic resources” to assist in developing performance standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to S&W-18a
The commenters summarized the findings of the Water Supply Assessment. No response is necessary.
2889
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-307 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to S&W-18c
The commenters summarized the findings of the Water Supply Assessment. The commenters noted that the Water Supply Assessment indicated that the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Zero Water Footprint Policy and the Draft EIR did not address this requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to CASHEN-1
The commenter provided introductory remarks. No response is necessary. 2890
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-308 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Response to CASHEN-2
The commenter disputed the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the proposed project would not have any impact on vernal pool fairy shrimp. The commenter stated that the project site provides potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat and alleged that the 2016-2017 surveys for this species that did not find presence of this species are outdated. The commenter claimed that thousands of vernal pool shrimp were detected in vernal pools located 2,700 feet northwest of the project site.

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

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

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

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

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

The Aleutian subspecies remains on the CDFW Watch List. 2891
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-309 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Note that MM BIO-4 requiring nesting surveys for all bird species during the breeding season would ensure significant impacts to all nesting bird species would not occur.

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

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

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

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

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

The blooming periods listed in Appendix A of the 2021 HBC rare plant survey report are general approximations provided by the California Native Plant Society and may vary depending on weather 2892
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-310 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx patterns. Because of blooming periods varying from year to year, and in accordance with the CDFW’s protocol, HBC conducted visits to several reference sites with known special-status plants targeted for field surveys to determine whether those special-status plants were identifiable at the times of year the botanical field surveys took place. HBC conducted botanical surveys during the spring of 2021 and survey dates were chosen based on the reference sites and when the special-status plants would likely be in bloom or otherwise visible. Because of significant early fall rainfall in 2020, lack of spring rainfall in 2021 and warm weather, the flowering periods were several months in advance of normal blooming periods. The last rainfall event that was not trace amounts, occurred on March 18, 2021. Based on the weather patterns leading up to the spring surveys for 2021 and based on the reference sites known to support the target plants, the dates HBC conducted the surveys on were reliable and sufficient to capture blooming periods or a visual image of the target species.

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

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

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

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

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

Response to CASHEN-7a
The commenter noted the MM LU-3 would incorporate measures to reduce bird attractant potential of the wetland area and, therefore, it is reasonable to assume the wildlife hazard reduction measures required under MM LU-3 would include measures to reduce the attraction of Swainson’s hawks to the Wetland Preserve. The commenter referenced the Draft EIR’s discussion of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and disputed the statement that there have been a limited number of occurrences of the species within a 10-mile radius of the project site. The commenter claimed that both the California Natural Diversity Database and eBird database have numerous records of Swainson’s hawk occurrences within 10 miles of the project site. 2893
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-311 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx With respect to the commenter’s suggestion that MM LU-3 would include measures to reduce the attraction Swainson’s hawks to the Wetland Preserve, refer to Response to CASHEN-14. The California Natural Diversity Data Base is a reliable source of scientific data and was used to determine the number of occurrences of Swainson’s hawk within a 10-mile radius of the project site.

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

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

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

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

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

Response to CASHEN-7c
The commenter disputed a statement that there is sufficient Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the project vicinity such that the development of the proposed project would not cause a significant loss of this habitat. The commenter referenced CDFW mitigation guidelines for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and claimed that the proposed project would result in an unmitigated significant impact in this regard.
2894
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-312 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation is addressed in Master Response 1 (Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat).

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

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

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

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

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

Response to CASHEN-9
The commenter claimed that the northern harrier forages and may nest at the project site. The commenter claimed that MM BIO-1c would do nothing to mitigate loss of habitat and the potential 2895
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-313 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx loss of breeding territory. The commenter claimed that the proposed Wetland Preserve would not mitigate the loss of habitat for the species because it does not contain the requisite habitat.

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

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

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

Also note that mitigation recommendations in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report do not carry the force of law, as burrowing owls are not listed under CESA, and the Staff Report was not subject to any formal rulemaking process. Moreover, the operative significance threshold for impacts to burrowing owl, an unlisted species, is whether the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on the 2896
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-314 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx species, either directly or through habitat modifications. Although the proposed project would result in the loss of burrowing owl nests or a net loss of potential burrowing owl foraging habitat, such losses would not cause a substantial adverse effect on the species. There is no need to “net out the impact of a proposed project” for that impact to be less than significant. (See, Save Panoche Valley v.

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

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

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

Based on the fact that the majority of the project site, once developed, will consist of hard surfaces (building foundations, asphalt parking lots, access roads etc.) that do not provide a growth medium for plants, the proposed developed portion of the project site could not support invasive plant species even if they were inadvertently introduced during or after construction. The managed landscaped areas within the development could provide a limited opportunity for an invasive plant; however, these areas are managed landscaped areas with planted trees and shrubs that would be managed, by techniques such as weeding, to allow for the growth of the plants, included in the landscape plan once proposed. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted for invasive plant species 2897
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-315 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx during construction or after construction on the developed portion of the project site. If an invasive plant is introduced into the Wetland Preserve, the Draft EIR set forth mitigation measures under MM BIO-3d. MM BIO-3d provides mitigation measures in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM LU-3 is patterned after a similar mitigation measure set forth in the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 EIR to minimize the avian attractant attributes of that project’s 37-acre Wetland Preserve. In the case of Napa Logistics Park, the intent was to minimize the avian attractant attributes of where standing water would occur through design practices (i.e., employing certain shapes that are not appealing to avian species). Importantly, hazing or hazardous wildlife species removal was not employed in the Napa Logistics Park. Given that Napa Logistics Park is nearly built out and the Wetland Preserve has been established for several years, there is evidence that the successful implementation of MM LU-3 and MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 can be achieved. Furthermore, a Wildlife Hazard Assessment has already been prepared, in accordance with MM LU-3, and demonstrates that the construction of the proposed project would not cause an increase above the existing level of activity of birds or other wildlife, and would not present a hazard to Napa County Airport flight operations. It is predicted that 2898
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-316 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx the overall wildlife activity on the property would remain at or below current levels. The Wildlife Hazard Memo is included in Appendix L of this Final EIR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Construction activities vary and may include low disturbance activities such as engineering surveys, high levels of disturbance such as large-scale grading, or there may be areas that may have no disturbances for long periods. The qualified Biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer to avoid 2899
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-317 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx project impacts that could result in nest abandonment, loss of young, and/or injury or mortality of burrowing owls. Implementation of MM BIO-1b would ensure project impacts to golden eagle are less than significant.

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

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

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

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

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

MM BIO-1d does not allow passive relocation of burrowing owls during the breeding season. The passive relocation effort outlined in MM BIO-1d is restricted to relocating owls during the nonbreeding season often referred to as overwintering owls. If burrowing owl are found to be present during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed project grounddisturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 Staff Report recommended avoidance protocol whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a non-disturbance buffer. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-1d would ensure project impacts to overwintering owls and breeding pairs would be reduced to less than significant.
2900
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-318 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx It should be noted that the applicant agrees that, if burrowing owl is ultimately found on the site and burrow eviction/relocation of burrowing owls during the non-nesting season is a selected strategy to move forward with the project without direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals, the applicant will coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl. Modifications to MM BIO-1d, as shown in the Errata, confirm this requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify, Draft EIR Section 3.10, Noise, page 3.10-17, disclosed construction noise levels may be as high as 90 dBA maximum noise/sound level (Lmax) (i.e., instantaneous noise level). Actual average noise levels during construction activities would be lower. Regardless, the buffers outlined in MM BIO-4 are minimum buffers and may be increased should the qualified Biologist determine a larger buffer is warranted to protect a nest. Construction activities vary and may include low disturbance 2901
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-319 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx activities such as pedestrian engineering surveys, high levels of disturbance such as large-scale grading or pile driving, or there may be areas within a large construction site, such as the project site, that may have no disturbances for long periods. MM BIO-4 establishes minimum buffer zone requirements, which means the qualified Raptor Biologist could require a 500-meter buffer for a passerine nest if it is determined, by the qualified Raptor Biologist, that a larger buffer is warranted based on the location of a nest, reaction of the bird species to the disturbance, and the activity being conducted from the occupied nest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to SM-3
The commenter claimed that the VMT analysis improperly used the Statewide model, which is too coarse for a particular project. The commenter claimed a regional travel demand model should have 2902
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-320 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx been used and said a one-way commute VMT for the two higher income categories working in American Canyon is 31.3 miles.

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

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

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

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

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

Response to SM-6
The commenter provided his curriculum vitae. No response is necessary. 2903
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Planning Commission Meeting Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 4-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec04-00 Responses to Planning Commission Meeting.docx SECTION 4: RESPONSES TO JUNE 23, 2022, PLANNING COMMISSION

MEETING COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

4.3 - June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting minutes are reproduced in the following pages are from the June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting.
2904

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Planning Commission Meeting Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 4-7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec04-00 Responses to Planning Commission Meeting.docx

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, the Green Island Business Park, as well as the Napa County Airport Industrial Area, are the two largest industrially zoned areas in Napa County. This reflects the following: (1) proximity to the SR-12/SR-29 junction; (2) compatibility with the Napa County Airport, the Napa Sanitation District Soscol Water Recycling Facility, and the Devlin Road Transfer Station; (3) the availability of freight rail 2910
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Planning Commission Meeting Comments Final EIR 4-8 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec04-00 Responses to Planning Commission Meeting.docx service; and (4) the land use restrictions set forth in Measure P, which make it extremely difficult to rezone agricultural, open space, and watershed land in unincorporated Napa County to urban use.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Comments
Transportation impacts were evaluated in Draft EIR Section 3.12, Transportation. The analysis found that all of the proposed project’s transportation impacts were less than significant and did not require mitigation.
2911
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx SECTION 5: ERRATA
The following are revisions to the Draft EIR for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project. These revisions are minor modifications and clarifications to the document, and do not change the significance of any of the environmental issue conclusions within the Draft EIR. The revisions are listed by page number. All additions to the text are underlined (underlined) and all deletions from the text are stricken (stricken).

5.1 - Changes in Draft EIR
Section 2, Project Description

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

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

Section 3.2, Air Quality

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

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

MM AIR-2f Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for each building with a separate end user, the City shall confirm that the end user has prepared a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan). The TDM Plan shall be prepared by a qualified transportation consultant and identify strategies to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips. Examples of TDM strategies may include but are not limited to:
• Ridesharing/Ride Matching
• Vanpools
• Transit subsidies
• Preferential parking for rideshare or vanpool vehicles • Employee lockers
• Secure bicycle parking
• Employee locker rooms
• Provide TDM information in employee breakroom
2912
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Errata Final EIR
5-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx MM AIR-2g As a part of future lease agreements, the project proponent shall provide all future tenants at the project site information on available California Air Resources Board (ARB) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and the Voucher Incentive Program, that support upgrading truck fleets to clean air technology equipment.

Section 3.3, Biological Resources

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

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

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

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

If no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first non-optional second survey period starting March 20, then project construction may commence. If during the third surveys (April 5–April 20) Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it shall be assumed the Swainson’s hawk commenced nesting and thus the Swainson’s hawk are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site. 2913
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-3 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx If Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting within 1,000 feet of the project site, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established to keep all construction activities a minimum of 1,000 feet from the nest site. The CDFW shall be consulted regarding the adequacy of the buffer established by the qualified Raptor Biologist. At that time the necessity for acquiring a Fish and Game Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) authorization would be determined. An ITP authorization shall be required if there were a valid concern the project activities would result in the “take” of an adult Swainson’s hawk, eggs, or nestlings.

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

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

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

Pages 3.3-27 and 3.3-28, Mitigation Measure BIO-1c
MM BIO-1c has been revised to address comments made by the CDFW. 2914
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Errata Final EIR
5-4 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx MM BIO-1c Prior to ground disturbance, a pre-construction nesting survey shall be conducted for northern harrier and short-eared owl by a qualified Raptor Biologist if construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1). The qualified Raptor Biologist shall have at least 2 years of experience surveying for and detecting nesting northern harrier and short-eared owl. To determine whether northern harrier or short-eared owl is nesting on-site, a qualified Raptor Biologist(s) shall conduct walking transects through the project site grassland habitat searching for nests and minimum 500-foot radius from the project site. Where the survey area encroaches onto private property not accessible to the public (e.g., fenced in commercial property, residential backyard, etc., the qualified Biologist shall either contact the property owner for permission to physically access the property or conduct a visual survey of adjacent areas by scanning with binoculars or a spotting scope. An active northern harrier or short-eared owl nest must be protected by implementing a minimum 500-foot radius buffer zone around the nest marked with orange construction fencing. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. Size of buffer zone could be modified increased considering the type of construction activity that may occur, physical barriers between the construction site and active nest, and the behavioral factors and extent that northern harrier or short-eared owl may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is otherwise determined to be complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Raptor Biologist.

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

MM BIO-1d Prior to any ground disturbance, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within a minimum of 150 meters of the project site. Where the survey area encroaches onto private property not accessible to the public (e.g., fenced in commercial property, residential backyard, etc.), the qualified Biologist shall either contact the property owner for permission to physically access the property or conduct a visual survey of adjacent areas by scanning with binoculars or a spotting scope. The pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 2 weeks prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 staff report survey methods and Biologist qualifications to establish the status of burrowing owl on the project site.
• If burrowing owl are found to occupy the project site during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing a no-disturbance buffer zone a minimum of 100 feet around the burrow. Buffers may be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the 2915
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-5 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx impact assessment approach described in the CDFW 2012 staff report. If a qualified Raptor Biologist determines the location of an occupied burrow/s may be impacted even with a 100-foot buffer, or the burrow(s) are in a location(s) on the project site where a buffer cannot be established without preventing the proposed project from moving forward, then a passive relocation effort may be instituted to relocate the individual(s) out of harm’s way pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with the CDFW 2012 staff report. • If burrowing owl are found to be present during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed project ground-disturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 staff report recommended avoidance protocol whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a no-disturbance buffer.
• If burrowing owls are ultimately found on the site and burrow eviction/ relocation of burrowing owls during the non-nesting season is a selected strategy to move forward with the project without direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals, the applicant shall coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl.

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

MM BIO-4 If construction occurs during the breeding season of migratory and resident birds (February 1 to August 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey in areas of suitable habitat within 15 7 days prior to the onset of construction activity. Nesting bird surveys shall cover the proposed project footprint and adjacent areas. Surveys shall be conducted within the project footprint and 50 feet from the construction limits for nesting passerines, 250 feet from the construction limits for nesting accipiters and 1,000 feet from the construction limits for nesting raptors. If the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, no further mitigation would be required. However, if construction activities are delayed by more than 7 days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. If bird nests are found, appropriate buffer zones shall be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from direct or indirect impacts related to project construction disturbance. Size of buffer zones shall be determined per recommendations of the qualified Biologist based on site conditions and species involved. At a minimum a 1,000-foot buffer shall be established for nesting Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle; 500-foot buffer for nesting tricolored blackbirds, northern harriers and other non-listed raptors; 250-foot buffer for nesting accipiters; and minimum 50-foot buffers shall be established for nesting passerines and all other non-raptor or passerine nesting birds. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. Buffer zones shall be maintained until it can be documented that either the nest has failed, or the young have fledged. 2916
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Errata Final EIR
5-6 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx Section 3.4, Cultural Resources

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

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

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

Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The Level of Significance Before Mitigation statement has been corrected. 2917
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Errata
FirstCarbon Solutions 5-7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec05-00 Errata.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact. Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

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

Section 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project

The Phase 1 Only Alternative heading has been corrected.

5.6 - Alternative 43—Phase 1 Only Alternative
2918

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2919
2920
54600001 08/2022 | 3.12-5_Future_Traffic_Vol.cdr • CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.12-5
Future Traffic Volumes
Source: W-Trans, 4/2021.
2921
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix J:

Travel Behavior Memorandum
ATTACHMENT 1.L
2922

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2923
100 Pringle Avenue | Suite 600 | Walnut Creek, CA 94596 | (925) 930-7100 | Fax (925) 933-7090 www.fehrandpeers.com
Memorandum
Date: June 16, 2022
To: Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

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

Trip Generation Data Collection
The following section describes the traffic count data source used to understand the potential trip generation of the Project.
2924
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

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

Fehr & Peers coordinated the collection of 72 hours of driveway vehicle classification count data at 39 warehousing buildings across San Joaquin County in June 2021. The data collection was performed by National Data & Surveying Services (NDS) using cameras to count and classify vehicles entering and exiting the individual building driveways. Fehr & Peers staff visited each of the 39 warehousing buildings on one day during the data collection to observe the following:
• Check traffic and weather conditions
• Confirm the placement of the cameras
• Observe activity levels at the surveyed buildings
• Count the number of truck bays
• Classify the buildings
• Observe general operations and travel behavior
Fehr & Peers used this data to develop average trip generation rates per thousand square feet (KSF) for warehousing uses in San Joaquin County. The 39 warehousing buildings, including their occupying tenant, type of warehouse, and square footage, are listed below. 2925
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

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

As shown in Table 1, the average daily trip generation per KSF of building space for all 39 buildings in San Joaquin County where driveway count data was collected in June 2021 is 0.078 medium-duty truck trips, 0.447 heavy-duty truck trips, and 0.995 auto trips. The average daily total trip generation rate of 1.52 vehicle trips per KSF is generally consistent with ITE trip generation data, being roughly ten percent lower than Code 152 from the 9th Edition and roughly nine percent higher than Code 154 from the 10th Edition. The average AM peak hour and PM peak hour total trip generation rates of 0.18 and 0.21 trips per KSF are both higher than ITE trip generation data and comprise a higher percentage of total daily trip generation. ITE does not provide trip generation rates for warehousing uses by vehicle classification for comparison. 2926
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Table 1: San Joaquin County Warehousing Trip Generation Rates per KSF Source
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total Autos
Med
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Total
All 39 Buildings 0.147 0.007 0.028 0.18 0.183 0.005 0.024 0.21 0.995 0.078 0.447 1.52 ITE Trip Generation
Manual – 9th Edition
(Code 152 – HighCube Warehouse)
- 0.14 - 0.16 - 1.68
ITE Trip Generation
Manual – 10th Edition
(Code 154 – HighCube Transload)
- 0.12 - 0.16 - 1.40
Source: Fehr & Peers.
2927
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

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

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

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

The land use zone system consisted of eight industrial warehousing sites in Napa County, which are listed below, and include similar existing warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period. These sites were selected to understand the potential average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the Project.
• Biagi Brothers - Napa County
• Valley Wine - American Canyon
• Vin Lux - American Canyon
• WineDirect - American Canyon
• Napa Corporate Center Warehouses - Napa
• American Canyon Warehouses
• Napa County Airport Warehouses
• Wineshipping - Napa County
2928
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

The land use zone system also consisted of 15 industrial warehousing sites in other parts of the Bay Area, which are listed below, and include similar existing warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period. These sites were selected to understand how the potential average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the Project compares to the existing average trip length for similar sites around the Bay Area.
• San Francisco County - Bayview Area
• San Mateo County - Brisbane Area
• San Mateo County - Prologis SFO Area
• Santa Clara County - Western Milpitas Area
• Santa Clara County - Milpitas I-680 Area
• Santa Clara County - San Jose Area
• Alameda County - Livermore Area
• Alameda County - Prologis Port of Oakland Area
• Alameda County - San Leandro Area
• Contra Costa County - Pittsburg Area
• Contra Costa County - Richmond Area
• Solano County - Benicia Area
• Solano County - Vacaville Area
• Sonoma County - Petaluma Area
• Sonoma County - Santa Rosa Area
The comparable industrial warehousing sites zone system is illustrated on Figure 1. 2929
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Figure 1: Comparable Industrial Warehousing Sites Zone System Data Product
Fehr & Peers obtained the GPS-based origin and destination to pre-set geography data product from StreetLight for heavy-duty truck trips generated by similar industrial warehousing sites around the Bay Area.
2930
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

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

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

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

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

Warehousing Average Trip Length Data
The average trip lengths of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the 23 existing industrial warehousing sites over the daily 24-hour period on an average weekday (Tuesday to Thursday) from the Fall 2021 data period are summarized in Table 2. 2931
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Table 2: Heavy-Duty Truck Average Trip Lengths
Comparable Industrial
Warehousing Site
Sample Size
(Observed Trips)
Average
Trip Length (miles)
Comparison to
“All Bay Area Sites”
Biagi Brothers - Napa
County
18 19.7 -66%
Valley Wine - American
Canyon
80 18.7 -68%
Vin Lux - American
Canyon
55 49.7 -15%
WineDirect - American
Canyon
29 30.3 -48%
Napa Corporate Center
Warehouses - Napa
37 38.7 -34%
American Canyon
Warehouses
351 46.1 -21%
Napa County Airport
Warehouses
194 28.8 -50%
Wineshipping - Napa
County
90 19.7 -66%
Napa County Warehouses 854 35.6 -39%
San Francisco County -
Bayview Area
85 41.7 -28%
San Mateo County -
Brisbane Area
957 28.1 -52%
San Mateo County -
Prologis SFO Area
15 114.4 97%
Santa Clara County -
Western Milpitas Area
10 8.8 -85%
Santa Clara County -
Milpitas I-680 Area
771 54.1 -7%
Santa Clara County - San
Jose Area
749 69.5 19%
Alameda County -
Livermore Area
629 91.3 57%
Alameda County -
Prologis Port of Oakland
Area
61 76.9 32%
Alameda County - San
Leandro Area
744 78.2 34%
Contra Costa County -
Pittsburg Area
30 48.1 -17%
2932
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

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

Source: Fehr & Peers.

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

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

Heavy-Duty Truck Distribution Patterns
The heavy-duty truck inbound and outbound origin-destination distribution patterns generated by the 23 existing industrial warehousing sites from the Fall 2021 data period is presented on Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively.
2933
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Figure 3: Heavy-Duty Truck Inbound Distribution Pattern Figure 4: Heavy-Duty Truck Outbound Distribution Pattern 2934
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

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

35.6 miles.
• The average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the eight existing Napa County industrial warehousing sites is roughly 39 percent lower than the average trip length for all 23 Bay Area warehousing sites combined.
2935
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix K:

Fire Fiscal Impact Analysis
ATTACHMENT 1.M
2936

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2937

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

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

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

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

Project Land Uses
The Project entitlement includes the ability to construct up to 5 buildings containing up to approximately 2.4 million building square feet. Table A-2 in Appendix A
summarizes the Project’s land use plan at buildout.
2938
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
2 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
Overview of Results
As shown in Table 1, the Project (at buildout) is estimated to generate approximately $198,000 in annual revenues to the Fire District as compared to approximately $306,000 in new Fire District expenditures for an annual estimated deficit of $108,000. Separately, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately $2.5 million in one-time Fire Mitigation Fee revenues for new Fire District capital equipment and facilities.

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

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

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

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

General Fund Revenue- and Expenditure-Estimating Assumptions The primary focus of this Analysis considers only discretionary revenues that will be generated by the Project. Discretionary revenues to the Fire District include the Fire District’s share of the ad-valorem property tax plus payment of the Fire Services Fee. Separately, this report also quantifies the total estimated fire mitigation fees payable by the Project.
2939
DRAFT
Table 1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudySummary of Annual Surplus/Deficits (2022$)Item Annual Fiscal Impact Annual Revenues $198,000Annual Expenditures $306,000Net Annual Surplus/(Deficit) ($108,000) One Time Fee Revenues
Fire Mitigation Fee $2,523,000Total One Time Revenues $2,523,000 sum
Source: EPS.

Estimated
Revenues/Expenditures
(Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
3 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2940
DRAFT
Table 2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Revenues and Expenditures (2022$)Item Annual Revenues Property Taxes $186,000Fire Service Fee $12,000Total Annual Revenue $198,000 Annual Expenditures
General Operations Fund
Personnel $240,000Supplies and Services $48,000Subtotal General Operations Fund $288,000 Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Facilities $10,000Equipment $8,000Subtotal Capital Fund $18,000 Total Annual Expenditures $306,000
Net Surplus/(Deficit) ($108,000)One Time Fee Revenues
Fire Mitigation Fee $2,523,000Total One Time Revenues $2,523,000 Source: EPS.

Estimated Revenues/
Expenditures (Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
4 Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2941
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 5
Development Assumptions
Listed below are brief summaries of land use and other development-related assumptions:
 Land Use: The Project is entitled to accommodate non-residential development as described above.
 Employee Estimates: Using an assumed 1,000 building square foot per employee, EPS estimated the total number of employees that may work within the Project. In estimating certain annual revenues and expenditures (service demands) related to the Project, EPS developed a “persons-served” population estimate to approximate the impacts of an employee in the Project relative to a resident. EPS uses a factor of 0.5 for every employee to derive the Project’s persons-served population. Table A-3 in Appendix A shows the estimated persons served anticipated to be generated by the Project.  Project Assessed Value: The estimated assessed valuation of the Project was provided by Project Applicant based on comparable projects. Estimated buildout assessed values for the Project are calculated in Table D-1 in Appendix D.

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

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

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

Fire Service Fee
Table B-3 shows the Project’s estimated annual Fire Services Fee revenues of approximately $11,800 based on the Project’s building characteristics and equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) calculations (See Table B-4) applicable for the Fire Services Fee.
2942
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
6 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS)
One-Time Fire Mitigation Fee Revenue
Using the Fire District’s fee schedule, Table B-5 calculates the estimated Project’s Fire Mitigation Fee payments of approximately $2.5 million.

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

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

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

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

Fleet, Facilities and Equipment Capital Fund
In addition to the General Operations Fund, this Analysis also considers the Fleet, Facilities and Equipment Capital Fund. This fund was included in the Analysis to be comprehensive noting that in the past the Fire District has elected to use a portion of its discretionary revenue to make periodic contributions to fleet, facilities, and equipment (i.e., capital items). With a project of this size and scale that will pay approximately $2.5 million in Fire Mitigation Fees to the Fire District, there may be discussions between the Applicant and Fire District whether the need to include this component in the Analysis is warranted or duplicative. As noted elsewhere in this Analysis, the Fire Mitigation Fee already includes a $0.50 per building square foot fee addition accounting for the size (height) of proposed buildings.
2943
Memorandum: American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics Center Fire Services Fiscal Analysis May 6, 2022
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) 7
Technical Appendices
The technical calculations used in this Analysis are shown in Appendices A through D (Tables A-1 through D-3):
 Appendix A indicates the proposed land uses and general assumptions used in this Analysis.
 Appendix B identifies the projected revenues that will be generated by the Project for the Fire Districts funds.
 Appendix C details the estimated expenditures for the Fire District to provide services to the Project.
 Appendix D shows the projected assessed value of the Project, which serves as the basis for calculating property tax revenues.
2944
APPENDICES:

Appendix A: General Assumption Tables
Appendix B: Revenue Estimating Tables
Appendix C: Expenditure Estimating Tables
Appendix D: Supporting Tables for Revenue and
Expenditure Estimating Tables
2945
APPENDIX A:

General Assumption Tables
Table A-1 General Assumptions ..................................................... A-1 Table A-2 Project Land Uses and Estimated Persons Served ............... A-2 2946
DRAFT
Table A-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyGeneral AssumptionsItem AssumptionGeneral Assumptions Fiscal Year FY 2021-22
General Demographic Characteristics
American Canyon Fire Department
Service Population [1] 19,454District Persons Served 19,454 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; EPS.
[1] Service population provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District. As a conservative assumption, no visitor estimates are included in service population estimates.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
A-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2947
DRAFT
Table A-2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyProject Land Uses and Estimated Persons ServedLand Use CategoryLogistics Center Land Uses [1] Building A 600,243 1,000 600
Building B 469,512 1,000 470Building C 715,489 1,000 715Building D 292,480 1,000 292Building E 322,240 1,000 322Total Logistics Center 2,399,964 2,399 Total Persons Served [2] 1,200
Source: Buzz Oates; Colliers International; EPS
Total
Project
Employees
[1] Land uses included are based on the preliminary Project site plan dated November 12, 2020.

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

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
A-2
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2948
APPENDIX B:

Revenue-Estimating Tables
Table B-1 Estimated Annual Fire Department Revenues .................... B-1 Table B-2 Estimated Annual Property Tax Revenues ......................... B-2 Table B-3 Estimated Annul Fire Service Fee Revenues ....................... B-3 Table B-4 Estimated Annual Fire Service Fee EDU Estimates .............. B-4 Table B-5 Estimated One-Time Fire Mitigation Fee Revenues ............. B-5 2949
DRAFT
Table B-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Fire Department Revenues (2022$) Case Study
Revenue Category Reference
Annual Revenues
Property Taxes Table B-2 $185,715
Fire Service Fee Table B-3 $11,774Total Annual Revenues $197,489 One Time Fee Revenues
Fire Mitigation Fee Table B-5 $2,522,842
Total One Time Revenues $2,522,842
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; EPS.

Estimated
Annual Revenue
(Rounded)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2950
DRAFT
Table B-2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Property Tax Revenues (2022$) Assumption/
Item Source Formula
Assessed Value of Project Table D-1 a $383,994,240
Property Tax Revenue (1% of Assessed Value) 1.0000% b = a * 1.00% $3,839,942 Estimated Property Tax Allocation [1]
American Canyon Fire Protection District Allocation 4.8364% c = b * 4.84% $185,715 Other Agencies/ERAF 95.1636% d = b * 95.16% $3,654,227
Total Fire District Property Tax e = c $185,715
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Napa County Auditor-Controller; EPS.

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

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-2
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2951
DRAFT
Table B-3American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Fire Service Fee Revenues (2022$) Item
Fire Service Fee per EDU (FY 2013-14) $86.38Fire Service Fee per EDU (FY 2021-22) [2] $106.31Logistics Center Land Uses Building A 25.00 $2,658Building B 22.25 $2,365Building C 27.50 $2,924Building D 17.50 $1,860Building E 18.50 $1,967Total Logistics Center 110.75 $11,774 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Buzz Oates; EPS.[1] Refer to Table B-4 for details.

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

Rate per
EDU
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-3
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2952
DRAFT
Table B-4American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual Fire Service Fee EDU Estimates (2022$) Item
Assumption
Ordinary
Construction Table A-2 Low Hazard No Exposure Yes [2] [3] Logistics Center Land Uses
Building A 1.50 600,243 0.80 1.00 0.75 12,551 25.00Building B 1.50 469,512 0.80 1.00 0.75 11,100 22.25Building C 1.50 715,489 0.80 1.00 0.75 13,703 27.50Building D 1.50 292,480 0.80 1.00 0.75 8,761 17.50Building E 1.50 322,240 0.80 1.00 0.75 9,196 18.50Total Logistics Center 2,399,964 55,312 110.75 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Buzz Oates; EPS.[3] Per the American Canyon Fire District Ordinance 2013-01, 500 GPM equates to one EDU. Rounded to the nearest 0.25 EDUs Fire
Protection
System Factor
Required Fire
Flow (GPM)
Building
EDUs
[2] Required Fire Flow (GPM) is estimated based on the formula provided by the American Canyon Fire District Ordinance 2013-01.

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

Exposure
Factor
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-4
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2953
DRAFT
Table B-5American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated One-Time Fire Mitigation Fee Revenues (2022$) Assumption/
Item Source
Fire Mitigation Fee per Square Foot [1] $1.0512Logistics Center Land Uses Table A-2 Building A 600,243 $630,975Building B 469,512 $493,551Building C 715,489 $752,122Building D 292,480 $307,455Building E 322,240 $338,739Total Logistics Center 2,399,964 $2,522,842 Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District; Buzz Oates; EPS.

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

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
B-5
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2954
APPENDIX C:

Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table C-1 Expenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on
American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Budget .............. C-1 Table C-2 Estimated Annual General Fund Expenditures .................... C-2 Table C-3 Estimated Capital Expenditure Multiplier ........................... C-3 2955
DRAFT
Table C-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyExpenditure-Estimating Procedures Based on American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Budget (2022$) FY 2021-22 Population
Estimating Budgeted or Persons FY 2021-22 Adjustment Net FY 2021-22 Item Procedure Expenditures [1] Served Avg. Cost Factor [1] Avg. Cost General Operations Fund
Personnel Persons Served $5,556,688 19,454 $285.63 70% $199.94Supplies and Services Persons Served $779,707 19,454 $40.08 100% $40.08 Capital Outlay [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA
Transfers Out [2] $173,891 19,454 NA 100% NA Debt Service [2] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Subtotal General Operations Fund $6,510,286 $240.02
Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Heavy Rescue [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Type 6 Engine [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Facilities Case Study $2,000 19,454 NA 100% $8.27 Equipment Case Study $91,000 19,454 NA 100% $6.55
Command Vehicle [3] $85,000 19,454 NA 100% NA
Type 1 Engine [3] - 19,454 NA 100% NA Subtotal Capital Fund $178,000 $14.83Total Expenditures $6,688,286 Source: American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Final Budget; EPS.[2] Expenditure category not anticipated to be impacted by Project development. [3] Specific for capital expenditures required due to Project development are not known at this time. As such, en estimate of facilities and equipment spending are estimates using a per persons served methodology based on the long term average cost for each category. Refer to Table C-3 for details.[1] An adjustment factor may be used to reflect the fact that new persons served may not increase certain expenditures at a 1:1 ratio. This analysis assumes an adjustment factor for personnel expenditures as costs pertaining to certain positions, such as the Fire Chief and Assistant Chief are fixed and would not grow with additional development within the District.

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
C-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2956
DRAFT
Table C-2American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Annual General Fund Expenditures (2022$)Expenditure Category General Operations Fund
Personnel $239,831Supplies and Services $48,075Subtotal General Operations Fund $287,906 Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Facilities $9,924Equipment $7,860Subtotal Capital Fund $17,784 Total Annual General Fund Expenditures $305,690
Source: American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Final Budget; Buzz Oates EPS.

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

Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
C-2
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2957
DRAFT
Table C-3American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyEstimated Capital Expenditure Multiplier (2022$)Expenditure Category FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Average Fleet, Facilities, and Equipment Capital Fund
Facilities $26,447 $128,303 $71,080 $576,901 $2,000 $160,946 19,454 $8.27 Equipment $89,480 $101,476 $92,684 $262,757 $91,000 $127,479 19,454 $6.55 Total $288,426 $14.83
Source: American Canyon Fire District FY 2021-22 Final Budget; EPS.

Annual Expenditures
Persons Served
Cost per
Persons Served
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
C-3
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2958
APPENDIX D:

Supporting Table for Revenue- and
Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table D-1 Project Assessed Valuation ............................................. D-1 2959
DRAFT
Table D-1American Canyon Giovannoni Logistics CenterFire Department Fiscal Impact StudyProject Assessed Valuation (2022$)ItemLogistics Center Land Uses per Unit Building A $160 $96,038,880Building B $160 $75,121,920Building C $160 $114,478,240Building D $160 $46,796,800Building E $160 $51,558,400Total Assessed Value $383,994,240 Source: Buzz Oates; EPS
Rounded
Value per
Sq. Ft.

Total Assessed
Value (2022$)
Prepared by EPS 4/27/2022
D-1
Z:\Shared\Projects\SAC\222000\222024 American Canyon Fire Services Analysis\Model\222024 Fire Study m1 04.20.22 2960
2961
2962
2963
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix L:

Wildlife Hazard Assessment
ATTACHMENT 1.N
2964

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2965
To:

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

Giovannoni Logistics Center
From:

AECOM Technical Services
Date:

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

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

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

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

Land uses which may produce hazards to aircraft in flight shall not be permitted within any airport' s planning area. Specific characteristics to be avoided include: (1) glare or distracting lights which could be mistaken for airport lights; (2) sources of dust, steam, or smoke which may impair pilot visibility; (3) sources of electrical interference with aircraft communications or navigation; and (4) any use which may attract large flocks of birds, especially landfills and certain agricultural uses. 2966
The Draft EIR for the Giovannoni Logistics Center includes Mitigation Measure LU-3, which is intended to ensure compliance with ALUCP Policy 3.3.5. That mitigation measure reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A map depicting the location of the proposed development site is included as Figure 1, and the site plan, wetland impacts, and proposed wetland mitigation areas are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. Representative site photographs are provided in Attachment A.
2967
2022 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Table 1. Plant and wildlife species observed during the September 22, 2022 reconnaissance survey.

Scientific Name Common Name
Amphibians and Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis Western fence lizard
Birds
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Cathartes aura Turkey vulture
Haemorhous mexicanus House finch
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk
Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow (12 individuals)
Mammals
Lepus californicus Black-tailed jackrabbit
Canis latrans Coyote
Plants
Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusa-head grass
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle
Poa sp. Annual grasses
Avena barbata California wild oat
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly oxtongue
Hemizonia congesta Hayfield tarweed
Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitfoot grass
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Nigella arvensis Wild fennel
2968
Discussion
The buildings associated with the project development site are not expected to result in a significant attraction of birds or other wildlife to the property. Some vegetation will be removed and replaced with buildings, resulting in the reduction of existing non-native grassland habitat within the development site. Anticipated changes to the existing wildlife habitat associated with the proposed construction activities include grading, excavation, permanent development, storm water controls, lighting, irrigation, noise, and increased human presence.

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

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

In summary, the construction and development associated with the Giovannoni Logistics Center would not cause an increase above the existing level of activity of birds or other wildlife. Therefore, the project land uses would not present a hazard to Napa County Airport flight operations. It is predicted that the overall wildlife activity on the property would remain at or below current levels, based on our understanding of the planned development and our best professional assessment of the existing habitat. 2969
Figure 1. Project Location
2970
Figure 2. Project Site Plan
2971
Figure 3. Impacted and Unimpacted Wetlands
2972
Figure 4. Proposed Mitigation Wetlands
Figure
2973
2022 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Attachment A. Site Photographs
Photograph 1: Western portion of the property, facing west (Potential Future Phase 2 Area).

Photograph 2: Proposed Wetland Preserve area in the foreground, facing south. 2974
2022 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Photograph 3: Stormwater management channel located within the proposed Wetland Preserve Area. 2975
NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
FINAL
Environmental Impact Report–Volume 2
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
City of American Canyon, Napa County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2021010104
Prepared for:

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

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Grant Gruber, Project Manager
Date: February 7, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1.Exhibit C2 Giovannoni
FEIR Volume 2
2976

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2977
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1 Section 2: Master Responses....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - List of Master Responses................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 - Master Responses .......................................................................................................... 2-1 Section 3: Responses to Written Comments................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 - List of Authors ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2 - Responses to Comments................................................................................................ 3-2 Section 4: Errata.......................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 - Changes in Response to Specific Comments..................................................................4-1 List of Appendices
Appendix M: Utility Alignment Documents
Appendix N: Buzz Oates Letter
Appendix O: Rare Plant Survey Report 2022
Appendix P: Public Notices
Appendix Q: Final Water Supply Assessment and Addendum
List of Tables
Table 3-1: State Route 29 Truck Trip Summary (2020) ....................................................................3-280 List of Exhibits
Exhibit A: Important Bird Areas......................................................................................................... 2-29 Exhibit B: 2015 Sewer Master Plan.................................................................................................... 2-31 Exhibit C: Wetland Preserve Connectivity .........................................................................................2-33 Exhibit D: Suitable Foraging Habitat................................................................................................3-289 2978

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2979
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
On October 31, 2022, the City of American Canyon (City) released a document described as the (proposed) Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project). In issuing this document, City staff intended that, upon certification by the American Canyon City Council, the document would become the official Final EIR for the proposed project.

On November 17, 2022, the American Canyon Planning Commission considered the project entitlements and recommended approval of all items (including certification of the Final EIR) to the American Canyon City Council. Following the Planning Commission meeting; however, the City was made aware of public noticing issues associated with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), which was released for public review on May 20, 2022. In particular, a representative of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) claimed that CBD had submitted to City staff a request for notice of the availability of the Draft EIR at the time it was released for public review but had not received any such notice prior to, or at the time of, the May 20, 2022, release of the document. Out of an abundance of caution, the City agreed to delay action by the City Council on the project and EIR until such time as CBD had been given a full 45-day period in which to comment on the Draft EIR, consistent with the statutory time periods for such comments set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21091, subdivision (a). Because no other person or entity claimed a similar lack of adequate notice on the Draft EIR, the City did not grant any other persons or entities a similar 45-day period in which to provide official comments on the Draft EIR. Even so, prior to and during the period in which potential action on the proposed project by the City Council was delayed in order to accommodate CBD, several government agencies and private organizations submitted to the City new or additional comments on the proposed project, mainly focusing on the original (proposed) Final EIR issued on October 31, 2022. Those comments are addressed herein, although such written responses are not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of American Canyon (Lead Agency) has evaluated the comments received on the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the comments submitted by CBD on January 13, 2023. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR includes all of the following: a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR; responses to the first set of comments received regarding the Draft EIR; responses to comments on the Draft EIR submitted by CBD on January 13, 2023; responses to certain additional correspondence on the Final EIR received by the City in November and December 2022; errata, or revisions to the Draft EIR; and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for use by the City of American Canyon during its review. The document issued on October 31, 2022, and characterized as the Final EIR in fact, in turn out, was only a portion of the eventual Final EIR, which now includes this Volume 2 of the Final EIR (February 3, 2023).

This new volume of the Final EIR is organized into four sections:
• Section 1–Introduction. Provides an introduction to the Final EIR Volume 2. 2980
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Introduction Final EIR–Volume 2
1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx • Section 2–Master Responses. Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a particular topic. Where noted, the Master Responses contained in Final EIR Volume 2 supersede those in Final EIR Volume 1.
• Section 3–Responses to Written Comments. Provides a list of the individuals, agencies, and organizations that commented during the second Draft EIR review period. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft EIR and responses to all significant environmental issues in those letters are also included in this section.
• Section 4–Errata. Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR, which have been incorporated. Where noted, the refinements and clarifications contained in Final EIR Volume 2 supersede those in Final EIR Volume 1. • Appendices. Includes appendices that are cited as supporting evidence in Sections 2 and 3, as well as an updated Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project (dated December 6, 2023) (Appendix Q.1) and a related technical memorandum prepared by Balance Hydrologics (dated February 7, 2023) (Appendix Q.2), concluding that the conclusions of the updated WSA are unchanged notwithstanding (i) the American Canyon City Council’s adoption on September 6, 2022 (via Resolution 2022-84) of an amendment to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and (ii) the City’s release on January 18, 2023, of its Final 2020 UWMP.

The Final EIR includes the following contents:
• Draft EIR (provided under separate cover)
• Draft EIR Appendices (provided under separate cover)
• Final EIR Volume 1 (provided under separate cover)
• Final EIR Volume 1 Appendices (provided under separate cover) • Final EIR Volume 2 (contained herein)
• Final EIR Volume 2 Appendices (contained herein)
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) 2981
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx SECTION 2: MASTER RESPONSES
Master responses address similar comments made by multiple public agencies or organizations through written comments submitted to the City of American Canyon. Master responses are provided in the order in which they are referenced in the responses in Section 3. Where noted, Master Responses in this Final EIR Volume 2 supersede those contained Final EIR Volume 1

2.1 - List of Master Responses
• Master Response A—Swainson’s Hawk and Other Raptors
• Master Response B—Utility Lines and Access Road
• Master Response C—Wetlands
• Master Response D—Vehicle Miles Traveled

2.2 - Master Responses
Master Response A—Swainson’s Hawk and Other Raptors
Note to Reader: Master Response A supersedes Master Response 1 in Final EIR Volume 1.

Summary of Relevant Comments
Letters from Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Development (Napa/Solano Residents), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk (Friends), Raptors are the Solution (RATS), Napa Solano Audubon Society (NSAC), and the Center For Biological Diversity (CBD) all express similar general concerns about the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and contend that mitigation is required for the loss of this habitat, which the commenters argue constitutes a significant environmental effect.

In letters dated December 2, 2022, and January 9, 2022, respectively, both CDFW and Friends express general concern about the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat resulting from the project and argue that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the City to impose mitigation for the loss of this habitat. The CDFW letter specifically argues that the Draft EIR should have concluded that the loss of Swainson’s hawk is cumulatively considerable, and that the City should have imposed mitigation for habitat loss at a ratio of 1:1.

In support of this suggestion, CDFW cites an April 2016 document entitled, Five Year Status Review for Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) (Five Year Review). Based on that document, CDFW states that “there is no indication the species has reoccupied its historical range and the distribution of Swainson’s hawk remains largely unchanged and restricted. Additionally, the review cites the primary threat to Swainson’s hawk continues to be habitat loss, especially the loss of suitable foraging habitat.” The CDFW letter does acknowledge a more recent study (Furnas et al. 2022) that “indicates that Swainson’s hawk populations have been increasing,” but notes that the same study “also cautioned using this data to inform conservation planning, stating this apparent stability remains largely unclear” and expressed “concerns regarding impacts to Swainson’s hawk from urban 2982
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx development, reduction in grasslands, and orchard and vineyard cultivation, all of which are prominent impacts in Napa County, where the project is proposed.” The Friends letter largely argues that the City is bound by the opinions and recommendations of the CDFW, expressed in its letter dated December 2, 2022. The Friends letter suggests that, as a legal matter, any net loss of habitat should be considered significant. The Friends letter also references the Five Year Review prepared by the CDFW. In addition, the Napa/Solano Residents and CBD letters provided comments about loss of foraging habitat for the golden eagle and northern harrier.

Response
The Draft EIR and Final EIR Volume 1 made the following key findings regarding the Swainson’s hawk:
• The Swainson’s hawk is classified as a California Threatened Species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); it is not a federally listed species. Thus, CDFW is the only State or federal resource agency with legal jurisdiction over the species. This jurisdiction arises under CESA (California Fish and Game Code [FGC] § 2050 et seq.), which prohibits the “take” of the species except as authorized through, among other mechanisms, the issuance of incidental take permits under Fish and Game Code Section 2081. • Most of the information about the status of the Swainson’s hawk originated from CDFW and often has been sporadic. For example, CESA requires 5-year reviews about the status of listed species. This obligation is not always satisfied on a timely basis, however. As explained in the opening paragraph of its 2016 5-Year Review, CDFW’s last review for the Swainson’s hawk was published in 1993. This substantial lapse of time (over 22 years) between the two reports suggests that the 2016 5-Year Review may have been overly reliant on outdated information. • Swainson’s hawk were observed foraging over the project site during reconnaissance surveys conducted by Helm Biological Consulting (HBC) in April and May of 2021. However, no Swainson’s hawk have been observed nesting on the project site. Nor are there any documented nests in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest known Swainson’s Hawk nest site recorded in the California Natural Diversity Base (CNDB) is approximately 1.2 miles north of the project site, though one of the commenters (Scott Cashen, in a letter attached to the Napa/Solano Residents letter) states that a nest was observed at a location 0.8 mile from the project site in May of 2021. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk but does not provide suitable nesting habitat because there are no trees. According to the CDFW’s Life History Account for the Swainson’s Hawk, this species can forage in riparian habitat, sparsely vegetated flat lands, open desert, grassland, or cropland containing scattered large trees or small groves. In the project vicinity, all of these habitat types exist with the exception of open desert. The proposed project would provide an approximately 45-acre on-site Wetland Preserve, which would also be suitable for Swainson’s hawk foraging. When this on-site preserve is combined with the nearby 37-acre Napa Logistics Wetland Preserve, the 308-acre American Canyon California red-legged frog preserve, the 620-acre Newell Open Space preserve, and the 1,039-acre Lynch Canyon Open Space Preserve, there are more than 2,000 acres of permanently preserved acreage suitable for Swainson’s hawk foraging in southern Napa County. HBG also conducted an analysis in the Final EIR and found that there is an additional approximately 339 acres of potential foraging 2983
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-3 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx habitat within privately-owned farmland within just 0.5 mile of the project site. Furthermore, as shown in Exhibit A (a graphic showing Important Bird Areas), the eastern portion of the approximately 78,000-acre San Pablo Bay Wetlands Important Bird Area designated by National Audubon Society is located just to the west of the project site. In addition, the larger area in which the project site is located contains many additional areas suitable as Swainson’s hawk foraging areas and many other privately-owned and vacant parcels between the project site and the City of Napa containing several known nesting territories. Thus, the overall area includes abundant foraging habitat and nesting habitat.

It is not accurate, as some commenters have suggested, that the on-site Wetlands Preserve will have little or no value as foraging habitat. As pointed out in the Draft EIR, suitable foraging areas for Swainson’s hawk include grasslands, pastures, alfalfa and other hay crops, and certain grain and row croplands. While Swainson’s hawk will generally avoid permanentlyinundated emergent wetlands as foraging areas, many extensive foraging habitats for Swainson’s hawk throughout the Central Valley are in vernal pool landscapes that offer a mix of both upland grasslands and seasonal wetlands. Thus, not only do Swainson’s hawk commonly forage in vernal pool landscapes, but they currently forage over the site of the proposed project, which is a combination of grasslands and seasonal wetlands. The value of the Wetland Preserve (with upland grasslands along with both pre-existing and created seasonal wetlands) as a raptor foraging habitat would be nearly equivalent to that of the project site. In addition, it should be pointed out that the wetlands that currently exist on the project site and that either exist or are to be created within the Wetland Preserve are seasonal wetlands that are or will be filled with water during the winter months (given sufficient rainfall), dry out in the spring, and remain dry throughout the summer. Swainson’s hawk seldom winters in California and would only be expected to occur in the project area during the spring and summer months when seasonal wetlands are dry and would provide optimal conditions for foraging.
• As chronicled in a May 2022 article (“Rapid Growth of the Swainson’s Hawk Population in California Since 2005”) authored by multiple CDFW Biologists, the Swainson’s hawk has made a remarkable recovery in California during the past 40 years, going from an estimated 375 breeding pairs in the early 1980s to close to 19,000 breeding pairs in 2018.

This last point was supported by the post-2016 study mentioned in the CDFW letter, namely, Rapid growth of the Swainson's Hawk population in California since 2005, published in 2022 by three CDFW Biologists (Brett Furnas, Erin Nicole Tennant, and David H. Wright) and their colleague Biologist Carrie Battistone. The City considers the 2022 article to be more authoritative than the 2016 5-Year Review because the 2022 article is both more recent and more comprehensive. Based, in part, on the fact that three of the four authors of the 2022 article are CDFW Biologists, the City finds their conclusions to be credible and persuasive. The authors of the 2022 article summarized their conclusions as follows in the Abstract portion of the document:

By 1979 Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) had declined to as low as 375 breeding pairs throughout their summer range in California. Shortly thereafter the species was listed as threatened in the state. To evaluate the hawk’s population trend since then, 2984
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx we analyzed data from 1,038 locations surveyed throughout California in either 2005, 2006, 2016, or 2018. We estimated a total statewide population of 18,810 breeding pairs (95% CI: 11,353–37,228) in 2018, and found that alfalfa (Medicago sativa, lucerne) cultivation, agricultural crop diversity, and the occurrence of nonagricultural trees for nesting were positively associated with hawk density. We also concluded that California’s Swainson’s Hawk summering population grew rapidly between 2005 and 2018 at a rate of 13.9% per year (95% CI: 7.8–19.2%). Despite strong evidence that the species has rebounded overall in California, Swainson’s Hawks remain largely extirpated from Southern California where they were historically common. Further, we note that the increase in Swainson’s Hawks has been coincident with expanded orchard and vineyard cultivation which is not considered suitable for nesting. Therefore, we recommend more frequent, improved surveys to monitor the stability of the species’ potential recovery and to better understand the causes. Our results are consistent with increasing raptor populations in North America and Europe that contrast with overall global declines especially in the tropics. (Italics added.)
As this quotation reveals, although the 2022 article does express the caveat that more frequent and better surveys are needed to monitor the population, the overall conclusion of the report is that the Swainson’s hawk population is rebounding from the very low levels that existed in 1983, when the species was listed as threatened under CESA, even though the species has not reoccupied its former habitat in many parts of the State.

The Central Valley is the current primary habitat of the species, where populations are doing far better than before despite the land use changes occurring since 1979. At one point, the study states that “hawk populations have increased . . . dramatically in the Central Valley.” The 2022 article notes that, although “[h]abitat loss from urban encroachment (e.g., residential, industrial) and certain forms of agriculture were probable causes of the species’ decline in some areas of California,” other possible or likely factors for very low numbers in late 1970s and early 1980s were (i) the lingering effects of the pesticide DDT, which adversely affected egg shells of many bird species, (ii) insecticide poisoning in Argentina, and (iii) “agricultural intensification” outside of California “on both summer and winter grounds (e.g., Colorado and Argentina), including removal of nesting and roosting trees and destruction of riparian habitats[.]” Because the 2022 article identifies several factors, the article does not appear to support the contention in the December 2, 2022, CDFW letter that “the primary threat to Swainson’s hawk continues to be habitat loss, especially the loss of suitable foraging habitat.”
The authors of the 2022 article explain that the rebounding numbers in California are consistent with similar trends for osprey and bald eagles in parts of North America after the banning of DDT:

We found strong evidence of rapid population growth of Swainson’s Hawks in California between 2005 and 2018. Our results (e.g., 95% CI: 8–19% per year) are comparable to rapid growth rates documented for Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in Chesapeake Bay (8.1%, 95% CI: 4.1–12.2, 1973–1995, Watts and Paxton 2007) and 2985
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx for Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Chesapeake Bay (9.6%, 95% CI: 8.9–10.3, 1977–2001, Watts et al. 2008) and in Central California (14.2%, 95% CI: 12.5–15.9, 1993–2012, Sorenson et al. 2017) after the banning of DDT. Our estimated growth rate, however, was larger than an independent estimation of the rate of annual increase (6.6%, 95% CI: 4.9–8.4) from the Northern American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) in California for the same timespan (https://www.mbrpwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/trend/tf19.shtml, Link and Sauer 2002). Comparison of the BBS results among regions shows that the population growth in California has been much faster than throughout the species entire breeding range in North America (1.2% per year, 95% CI: 0.9–1.5). This difference is consistent with recovery from a historical decline that was more severe in California than elsewhere (White 1994; Sarasola et al. 2008).

The authors identified a number of factors that could help to explain the species’ improved fortunes in California in recent years:

It is not certain why Swainson’s Hawks have rebounded in California and whether the species will increase further. Progress with riparian restoration efforts in the Central Valley may be one reason, as these riparian restorations have been associated with increased populations of other avian species (Dybala et al. 2018; Pandolfino and Handel 2018). Our finding that abundance was correlated with agricultural crop diversity and alfalfa cultivation may indicate that Swainson’s Hawks have successfully adjusted to the use of managed landscapes which might have an artificially elevated carrying capacity. The diversity and spatiotemporal patterning of California agriculture may provide Swainson’s Hawk greater access to rodent prey in areas of lower vegetation cover (Bechard 1982). Irrigated alfalfa fields are an important foraging resource to Swainson’s Hawks, because this crop supports high small mammal and insect abundances which become easy prey during periodic harvests (Smallwood 1995). Although the total area of alfalfa cultivation in California has remained relatively constant since 1980, crop yields have increased over the same time period in response to the growing needs of the state’s dairy industry (Putnam et al. 2007).

Winter range conditions may be equally important to the conservation and sustained recovery of Swainson’s Hawks in California. The population summering in California that uses the Central Valley is genetically distinct from hawks summering throughout other parts of North America (Hull et al. 2008). This may partially be the result of different migratory pathways (Airola et al. 2019). The California population appears to display a lot of variation in where it winters (Sarasola et al. 2008), including more northerly locations in Western Mexico and Central America where they may have benefited from conversion of less suitable natural areas (e.g., woodland and desert) to agriculture that provides improved habitat conditions (Airola et al. 2019). A shorter migratory pathway may also afford demographic advantages including increased survival during transit and a longer, more-flexible reproductive phenology (Heath et al. 2012; Klaassen et al. 2014). 2986
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx In contrast to the historical population decline in parts of western North America, several studies suggest that the Swainson’s Hawk population in California may now be rebounding in some places. Gifford et al. (2012) showed an increase in population size for portions of the Central Valley, where most of the Swainson’s Hawks occur, during 2003–2009. The Butte Valley population in northeastern California has increased 4-fold over the past 40 years (Kane et al. 2020).

The authors give credit to conservations actions and the banning of DDT in areas outside of California and the United States:
[T]here is also increasing evidence that species in North America and Europe have rebounded in response to conservation actions including habitat restoration and the banning of DDT (Deinet et al. 2013; Rosenberg et al. 2019). This suggests that conservation efforts in other regions of the world have a similar potential to reverse the global decline of raptors.

Despite the environmental good news laid out in the 2022 article, the City agrees with CDFW’s statement in its December 2, 2022, letter that the study does include some caveats and cautions, which the City takes seriously:

Despite an overall increasing summer range population of the Swainson’s Hawks in California, we recommend caution with respect to conservation planning for the species in the state. The stability of the recovery remains unclear. For example, increasing population trends of the species in other areas of North America have switched direction over time in some places (Kirk and Hyslop 1998; Hoffman and Smith 2003). In California, orchard cultivation has expanded by >100% since 2000 (Chen et al. 2019), and these tree crops are low-quality foraging and nesting habitat for breeding Swainson’s Hawks (Swolgaard et al. 2008; Battistone et al. 2019). It is unclear why hawk populations have increased so dramatically in the Central Valley where most of the orchard expansion has also occurred. We also remain concerned about urban and energy development, diminishing grasslands, pesticide poisoning, water availability, and climate change (CDFW 2016). For example, as climate changes, farmers may shift crops which could alter habitat conditions for hawks.

Additionally, recent solar energy and nut orchard installations in the Antelope Valley of the west Mojave Desert may limit further potential expansion of Southern California breeding territories via removal of nest trees and foraging habitat. For these reasons, we recommend expanded, more frequent monitoring (e.g., every 5 years) of Swainson’s Hawks throughout California.

These qualifications suggest the need to avoid overconfidence about the recent upward trends in hawk populations in California. Even so, after carefully reviewing the 2016 5-Year Review, the 2022 article, and the empirical information gathered in support of the Draft EIR, the City stands by its conclusions that project-specific impacts on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat are less than significant and that cumulative effects are less than cumulatively considerable. In standing by these conclusions, the City notes for the benefit of its sister agency that the City’s assessments under 2987
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx CEQA appropriately differ from CDFW’s ongoing Statewide assessments under CESA. Notably, CDFW has not argued that the loss of foraging habitat constitutes a “take” under CESA that requires the applicant to obtain a CESA incidental take permit under Fish and Game Code Section 2081.

While CEQA and CESA both generally require that public agencies mitigate the harmful environmental effects of proposed projects, the requirements and standards under the two statutes differ in important respects. CEQA requires agencies to assess the significance of impacts against the backdrop of existing environmental conditions, regardless of what those are. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15125, subd. (a)). Indeed, courts have found that, even where a project may perpetuate (but not make worse) negative existing conditions for listed species, CEQA creates no duty to improve those existing conditions. (See, e.g., North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water District (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 871-874 [court upholds water district’s reliance on a CEQA exemption for the approval of a short-term water contract requiring exports from degraded Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta]; see also World Business Academy v. California State Lands Commission (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 476, 501-510 [court finds a State agency’s reliance on a CEQA exemption proper for an action extending in time the operation of a nuclear power plant; the perpetuation of existing dangers associated with nuclear power do not represent adverse change in environment]).

Thus, the pertinent baseline condition for purposes of the City’s assessment of impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is the fact that, as the 2022 article makes very clear, the current key habitat for the species is located in the Central Valley, where hawk populations are on the increase. The fact that the species formerly occupied much larger parts of California than it does today is relevant under CESA but is not necessarily relevant under CEQA.

While CEQA essentially embodies a “do no significant harm” philosophy, taking the existing environment as it currently exists, CESA allows CDFW, when planning and permitting under that statute, to account for the degraded status of existing environmental conditions insofar as they are currently adversely affecting a listed species on an ongoing basis. Notably, Fish and Game Code Section 2052 states generally that “it is the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance any endangered species or any threatened species and its habitat[.]” (Italics added.) All three of these highlighted verbs conserve, restore, and enhance suggest that, in some instances at least, improvements over existing conditions may be needed to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of a species under CESA, as required by CESA.

Fish and Game Code Section 2055 applies a duty to conserve to State agencies by proclaiming that “it is the policy of this State that all State agencies, boards, and commissions shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species[.]” To “conserve” in this context means to use “all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary” (FGC § 2061). Under CESA, then, “conservation” may sometimes mean more than just a duty to prevent existing conditions from getting worse. Improvements over existing conditions may sometimes be necessary. Such improvements are never required under CEQA.

In light of these respective differences in approaches required under CEQA and CESA, it is possible for a lead agency such as the City of American Canyon, in assessing impacts on listed species under 2988
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx CEQA in light of existing conditions, to find an absence of any significant impacts triggering mitigation obligations under CEQA, and to have CDFW, in assessing known population trends and known threats to the same species, to find a need for continuing efforts to conserve, restore, and enhance existing conditions for that species. Here, CDFW appropriately looks forward to a day when Swainson’s hawk will reoccupy all of their historic habitat in California.

Under CEQA, the relevant question is whether the proposed project will “substantially reduce the number or restrict the range” of the Swainson’s hawk (in light of existing conditions). (See CEQA Guidelines § 15065, subd. (a)(1) [mandatory findings of significance]). Notwithstanding the recent input from CDFW and Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, the City answers this question in the negative.

Given the remaining Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the vicinity of the project site, as well as the fact that the primary current “range” of the hawk is the Central Valley, the loss of current foraging habitat on the project site cannot reasonably be said to “restrict the range” of the species, much less to a substantial degree. Nor will the project substantially reduce the number of Swainson’s hawk individuals, particularly when the modest loss of habitat acreage is viewed against the backdrop of the rebounding numbers in the State, as described in the 2022 article. The City does not believe that development of the project site will cause the deaths of any individual hawks that would have lived but for the proposed project. Individual hawks have the ability to fly over substantial distances in search of food, and ample food sources will exist in the project vicinity even with the proposed project in place. Indeed, the on-site Wetland Preserve will provide food sources to the extent that prey species could occupy the preserve, even if wetland habitat is not ideal foraging habitat.

The Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk letter misstates the law in contending that “CEQA requires a mandatory finding of significance if a project’s impacts to threatened or endangered species are likely to occur.” This formulation could be understood to incorrectly suggest that any level of adverse impact, no matter how limited, requires a mandatory finding of significance. As noted above, the actual language of the relevant mandatory finding asks whether a project would “substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species[.]” (Italics added.) For the reasons just mentioned, the City does not find that the proposed project will have any such substantial effect. This does not mean, of course, that the City does not fully support CDFW’s efforts under CESA to manage the species so that, as its current condition continues to improve, the Swainson’s hawk will ultimately reoccupy most or all of its historic range.

Additional information about impacts to Swainson’s hawk can be found in individual responses to comments included in Section 3, Response to Written Comments, of this Volume 2 of the Final EIR.

Other Raptors
Golden Eagle
CDFW’s Life History Account indicates that the golden eagle feeds on small mammals, reptiles, and birds, as well as carrion. The Life History Account also indicates that the golden eagle forages in open terrain, including grasslands, deserts, savannas, and early successional stages of forests. Like the Swainson’s hawk, the golden eagle is a hardy species that can survive on a range of prey in a variety of very different habitats throughout California; it does not only occur in southern Napa County. 2989
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-9 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx A single golden eagle was observed foraging over the project site during reconnaissance surveys conducted by HBC in April of 2021. However, no golden eagles have been observed nesting on the project site. Nor are there any documented nests in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Data from the CNDB revealed four golden eagle nest sites within 10 miles of the project site. The closest was an extirpated nest site from 3.2 miles north of the project site with an additional nest site within the Newell Open Space approximately 4.5 miles east of the project site. The project site provides suitable foraging habitat for golden eagle but does not provide suitable nesting habitat because there are no trees.

As explained above with respect to the Swainson’s hawk, the proposed project would provide an approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve adjacent to the 37-acre Napa Logistics Wetland Preserve, both of which would provide suitable foraging habitat for golden eagle. The more than 2,000 acres of permanently preserved acreage suitable as foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk would also be available as a foraging area for golden eagle, along with an additional 339 acres of vacant undeveloped land not proposed for development within 0.5 mile of the project site, the easternmost portions of the San Pablo Bay Wetlands Important Bird Area designated by National Audubon just west of the project site, and many other privately-owned and vacant parcels within the region.

Accordingly, for the same reasons the proposed project would not result in a significant indirect or cumulative loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, the proposed project also would not result in a significant indirect or cumulative loss of golden eagle nesting or foraging habitat.

Northern Harrier
CDFW’s Life History Account indicates that the northern harrier feeds on voles, small mammals, birds, frogs, small reptiles, crustaceans, and insects. The Life History Account also indicates that the northern harrier forages and nests in grassland, wetlands, grain fields, and sagebrush flats. Like the Swainson’s hawk, the northern harrier is a hardy species that can survive on a range of prey in a variety of very different habitats throughout California; it does not only occur in southern Napa County.

All areas vacant parcels, both publicly and privately-owned within the region discussed above as being available as foraging areas for Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle are available as foraging habitat for northern harrier. Accordingly, for the same reasons the proposed project would not result in an indirect or cumulative loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, it would also not result in a significant indirect or cumulative loss of northern harrier foraging habitat.

Master Response B—Utility Lines and Access Road
Summary of Relevant Comments
Napa/Solano Residents and CBD referenced “a new road and dirt berm” within the western portion of the site that was not disclosed in the Draft EIR or Final EIR [Volume I]. It was alleged that this new “road” has the potential for negative impacts on wildlife and wetlands, specifically vehicle strikes and the reduction in acreage for the Wetland Preserve.
2990
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Response
Note to Reader: Monk & Associates, a biological consulting firm involved with both the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project and Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, provided substantial input with this response.

The unpaved access road allows for access to the Napa Logistics Park sewer and recycled water pipelines that cross the Giovannoni site. This utility alignment was disclosed and evaluated in the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Final EIR, which the City certified in 2015. Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project Draft EIR Exhibit 2-9a depicts the conceptual alignment that was evaluated and is provided in Appendix M.1. Additionally, the approved Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which lists specific mitigation measures relevant to impacts associated with doing work in the utility alignment, is also provided in Appendix M.2.

Prior to the implementation of the approved off-site utility improvements for the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project, all conditions of approval in the MMRP for the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project associated with the off-site utility improvements were complied with; and documentation of compliance was submitted to the City. This included the following:
1) Acquisition of appropriate resource agency permits for the bore and jack under No Name Creek.
2) Protocol special-status plant surveys conducted over the entire Giovannoni property in 2016 by Monk & Associates and focused surveys over the proposed utility work area conducted again in 2019 by Monk & Associates with results submitted to the City in 2019. 3) Pre-construction surveys of the proposed utility work area conducted in 2021 by Monk & Associates with results for Swainson’s hawk surveys and nesting bird surveys submitted to City prior to the start of work in 2021.
4) Installation of silt fencing around the perimeter of any waters of the United States/State along the utility work area (i.e., existing utility easement) to ensure that there were no impacts to waters of the United States/State. Note that, additionally, wattles surrounded the work area to ensure no translocation of sediment off-site.

No waters of the United States or State were filled (even de minimis fill) as part of the utility connection work.

The new road is a graveled access road that was constructed over the top of the sewer and water lines that were installed. This road remains the only way to access the utility lines for maintenance, as its southern extent on the property is bounded by railroad tracks. The “dirt berm” is not a permanent feature but a temporary stockpile that was left in place from the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 utility work for use by the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project) in coordination with the applicant. This stockpile was fully encircled by hay wattle and then hydroseeded, as were all disturbed soils associated with the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 utility work before work concluded, to ensure no movement of sediment into waters of the United States/State.

This temporary stockpile will only remain in place until it is used for the proposed project. 2991
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-11 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx The utility alignment is disclosed in the City’s 2015 Sewer Master Plan; refer to Exhibit B. A 20-foot utility easement across the Giovannoni property has existed since 1978 as recorded by Napa County (Appendix M.3). In 2019, the City of American Canyon recorded a Property Acquisition Agreement to prepare for the construction of the sewer line (Appendix M.4), which was completed in 2022. The associated Union Pacific Railroad Permit is provided in Appendix M.5. The associated CDFW Permit is provided in Appendix M.6. The City Council Resolution is provided in Appendix M.7. The Agreement is provided in Appendix M.8. The Close Out Letter summarizing the completion of the utility alignment is provided in Appendix M.9. Finally, the Resolution accepting the completed improvements is provided in Appendix M.10.

Impacts Associated With Unpaved Access Road
The unpaved access road is used for maintenance and upkeep purposes by City staff or contractors; it is not accessible to the public. This road is unpaved and is used on a less-than-daily basis. As this is a graveled access “road” intended solely to facilitate sewer line and waterline maintenance that terminates at the railroad tracks at the southern boundary of the Giovannoni property, there will be little risk of wildlife mortality due to collision or modification of wildlife behavior due to vehicular access being limited to maintenance contractors, the slow speeds necessitated by the graveled substrate, and the fact that this is essentially a dead-end road that was constructed solely for utility line maintenance. While the physical environment was altered during the construction of the sewer line and waterline installation through excavation, these environmental impacts were fully vetted under CEQA as part of the approved Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project, and the road was constructed in compliance with all conditions outlined in the MMRP for the project, including all required pre-construction surveys being conducted in 2021, prior to the start of work, as mentioned above.

The graveled access “road” was placed over this excavation area at approximately the same grade as the surrounding uplands (i.e., no berm was constructed) and only differs from its surroundings with respect to its graveled substrate and constitutes a negligible change to the physical environment post construction. There is no anticipated alteration to the chemical environment, as the gravel is inert and the vehicular access needed for maintenance of the utility lines will be exceedingly infrequent and highly regulated. Given the highly-regulated nature of access along this road, there will be no appreciable increase in use by humans or spread of exotics through future road use. Monk & Associates conducted postconstruction surveys of the area in June of 2022 and no evidence of new infestations of invasive species were observed.

Notably, this unpaved access road was not yet in existence on January 12, 2021, when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued. This Draft EIR was therefore not required to describe what at the time would be future conditions in which the road had been completed. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, subdivision (a)(1), the “environmental setting” as described in an EIR should reflect “physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published[.]” Furthermore, “[t]his environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.” Here, the Draft EIR appropriately described conditions on the project site as they existed as of January 12, 2021.
2992
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx As the Draft EIR makes clear, moreover, the proposed two-phase development associated with the proposed project would ultimately consume approximately 163 acres of the 208-site. (See, e.g., DEIR, p. ES-1.) The remaining 45 acres of the overall project site would be preserved as wetlands. (Ib.) It is clear, then, that the road in its current form represents only a temporary condition, in that most, if not all, of the area in question will ultimately be paved over as part of Phase 2 of the proposed project. Although the developer will not be able to build a structure over the sewer alignment, nothing would prevent putting the alignment within a parking lot. As long as the easement holder can gain access to the sewer line for maintenance purposes, the developer will not be prohibited from developing in some fashion the raw land on which the road currently exists.

When necessary, the easement holder can dig up the pavement for maintenance purposes and then replace the pavement.

Notably, nothing in CEQA requires that off-site infrastructure projects such as the sewer alignment and gravel road serving the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project must be analyzed twice, even if such and alignment and road run across a property, such as the Giovannoni site, that would subsequently be proposed for development and be subject to its own EIR. The commenter has cited no case or other authority supporting its contention on this point.

CEQA generally requires that EIRs for development projects such as the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project include analysis of any environmental effects associated with any off-site infrastructure that may be needed to serve such projects. (See, e.g., Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. Arcadia City Council (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 712, 726 [shopping center, parking lot, and adjacent road widening “should be regarded as a single project”]; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 732 [EIR for residential development should have included a wastewater treatment plant expansion that was a “crucial element” of development]; and Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1231 [environmental analysis for proposed home improvement center project was deficient for not addressing impacts of road realignment necessitated by the project]).

Once such off-site infrastructure projects have CEQA clearance and have obtained whatever other agency approvals are required for the commencement of construction, those projects can proceed even if some or all of the land they go through may be subject to pending development applications that trigger EIRs. As discussed above, the portions of sewer and recycled water pipelines and associated gravel access road serving the Napa Logistics Park that cross the Giovannoni site have obtained all such required agency approvals.

Impacts to Wetlands
The utility line connection from the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project to Green Island Road did not impact any waters of the United States/State. Access, excavation, and fill (i.e., backfill of soil and the addition of gravel) were all designed and field-adjusted to avoid impacts to existing wetlands, including avoiding impacts to No Name Creek by bore and jacking under this creek to connect the utilities with Napa Logistics Park in accordance with the MMRP for that project. Silt fencing was installed around the perimeter of any waters of the United States/State along the utility work area (i.e., existing utility easement) prior to work to ensure no de minimis fill entered waters of the United States/State. Note that, additionally, wattles surrounded the work area to ensure the 2993
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-13 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx avoidance of translocation of sediment off-site, and all areas of disturbed soil were hydroseeded at the completion of activities.

It is unlikely that any existing wetland or other water features have been indirectly impacted by the utility connection for the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project, as, given the level topography with depressional microrelief, the wetlands on the project site are primarily fed through vertical precipitation. Further, as mentioned above, the postconstruction grades remain substantially the same as under pre-construction conditions, since the graveled access for the utility lines are essentially the alignment that was graveled over the top for access and the “road” was not raised up.

Similarly, there is no associated “berm” to block flows or otherwise change the hydrology of the site; the temporary soil stockpile may redirect sheet flows originating from a small hillock located southwest of the unpaved access road, but this temporary stockpile area does not block sheet flows and, again, this pile will be removed, as it is not intended to be a permanent feature on the landscape. Finally, this stockpile is small and does not affect the total hydrology of the area. Note that No Name Creek is still the primary hydrologic contributor to the Wetland Preserve and that the creek’s hydrology has not been affected. Plus, there are acres of surrounding undeveloped landscape that serve as the watershed to the existing wetlands and the preserve area. In short, the hydrology of the preserve remains intact.

Though a conflict between the unpaved access road and the mitigation area is not anticipated, City staff nevertheless believes that it would be prudent to include language in the project approval documents that ensure the proposed mitigation wetlands are not constructed either on the Napa Logistics Park sewer and recycled water pipeline easement or within or immediately adjacent to the unpaved access road associated with the easement. City staff therefore recommends that the existing relevant mitigation measure be modified to include a new performance standard providing that the proposed mitigation wetlands will be constructed a minimum of 20 feet from the easement or unpaved access road associated with the easement. Language has been added to Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-2 to achieve this outcome. In response to this comment, the MM BIO-2 shall be revised as follows:

MM BIO-2 To offset the loss of the 0.496 acre of seasonal wetland impacts from Phase 1, and

2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools from Phase 2, and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, the applicant shall establish/create

0.992 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands (2:1 ratio) for Phase 1 concurrent with project construction, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and 1.13 acres of vernal pool wetlands (1:1 ratio) for Phase 2 at least 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands will be constructed a minimum of 20 feet from the Napa Logistics Park sewer and recycled water pipeline easement or unpaved access road associated with the easement. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland.
2994
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-14 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Reduction in Size of Wetlands Area
The earth disturbance associated with the graveled access road does extend into areas proposed for wetland creation, although the road itself does not. However, these areas of earth disturbance occur within an existing utility line easement that was fully analyzed for the utility connection with Green Island Road for the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project, approved by the City. Additionally, per the applicant, the wetland mitigation plan for the proposed project is conceptual only at this stage; it has not yet been fully vetted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The conceptual locations of proposed created wetlands may be shifted to avoid impacting the new utility lines as necessary while maintaining the same created wetland acreage to meet a 1:1 mitigation to impacts ratio as outlined in the Draft EIR. In practice, it is not unusual during wetland creation for a certain amount of “field-fit” during construction to occur, as current site conditions are taken into account during the wetland creation work. Further, prior earth disturbance, especially if restricted to the upper soil horizons, is not necessarily a barrier to wetland creation as wetland creation requires its own extensive earthwork to ensure the presence of a water restricting layer (i.e., hardpan or claypan). Monk & Associates has more than 20 years of experience in constructing mitigation wetlands and is exceedingly familiar with the process.

Specifically, Monk & Associates has successfully created more than an acre of seasonal wetlands in the Napa Logistics Wetland Preserve just north of the proposed project. Monk & Associates is confident that the presence of the gravel road associated with the sewer alignment for the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project will not frustrate the creation of the Napa Logistics Wetland Preserve as described in the Draft EIR for the proposed project and consistent with the governing mitigation measures (MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3a, MM BIO-3b, and MM BIO-3c).

Importantly, the on-site wetlands mitigation strategy, despite the detailed performance standards found in these CEQA mitigation measures, still remains somewhat conceptual at present, as noted earlier. The details will be worked out as part of the regulatory processes conducted by the USACE under the federal Clean Water Act and by the RWQCB under the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Those two regulatory agencies will ensure that the wetlands mitigation strategy, as ultimately permitted, will meet the strict requirements of those statutes and associated regulations and other guidance. Under CEQA case law, compliance with regulatory requirements “is a common and reasonable mitigation measure.” (Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906; see also Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1060 [“mitigation measures requiring adherence to regulatory requirements or other performance criteria are permitted”]). Independent of those federal and State requirements, the mitigation will also have to satisfy the performance standards developed by the City in the above-referenced mitigation measures.

Regarding the claims that the proposed Wetlands Preserve has been reduced by 1.5 acres as a result of the access road, this is an overestimation in the reduced acreage of the preserve. Most of the graveled access “road” that is located within the area proposed for the Giovannoni Logistics Center wetland is a temporary access road used to construct the new utility lines as part of the approved Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project. The earth disturbance generated by the graveled access road was superficial only except where the utility lines were installed (which is predominantly outside the proposed preserve) and remains largely in contour with the surrounding landscape. The temporary 2995
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-15 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx access road only differs from its surroundings in the surface substrate (gravel), which should not impede or modify the flow pattern on the project site. There is a temporary stockpile that remains on-site from the construction of the utility connection, but this will be used as part of the proposed project and will not remain permanently in place. This temporary stockpile does not preclude flow northwest to and through the proposed Wetland Preserve. The established drainage pattern of the site remains intact to either side of this temporary stockpile. At most, the proposed Wetland Preserve area has been reduced by the area of the gravel road (less than 0.2-acre). The presence of the underground utility lines would not preclude this area’s use as part of the Wetland Preserve as this less than 0.2-acre area is still available as upland watershed. This small area would only be unsuitable for wetland creation given that wetland creation activities in this area might damage the underground utilities.

In summary, the gravel road over the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project sewer alignment has created a temporary condition that arose after the NOP was issued and will be replaced by development contemplated by the proposed project, as analyzed in the Draft EIR. The alignment and road were the subject of impact analysis in the prior EIR for the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project and have received all permitting needed prior to earth disturbance. The placement of the road will not preclude implementation of the wetlands mitigation strategy set forth in the Draft EIR. Under the circumstances, nothing in CEQA requires that the City reissue the original Draft EIR in order to show the road in various graphics and to include some discussion of it within various impact analyses.

Master Response C—Wetlands
Summary of Relevant Comments
Both the Napa/Solano Residents and CBD letters provided comments on the wetland delineation.

Many of these comments reiterated previous comments made by S&W and Cashen, including comments identifying purported flaws in methodology, discrepancies in acreage, the lack of a functional assessment, and stormwater runoff impacts on the Wetland Preserve.

Response
2016 Monk & Associates Delineation
The City acknowledges the 2016 Monk & Associates delineation contains some minor errors mentioned by the commenter. At the start of Monk & Associates’ wetland delineation field work, the 2014 National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) was in effect and Helminthotheca echioides was listed as a Facultative Upland FACU (non-wetland) plant species. On May 12, 2016, several days into the wetland delineation field work, the 2016 NWPL was released to the public1 and the status of Helminthotheca echioides was changed to Facultative Wetland (FAC). Because of the change in this plant’s wetland indicator status, DP-40, -98, -105, and -110 were also incorrectly identified as uplands. For DP-97, Helminthotheca echioides’ status was written in accordance with the 2014 NWPL. Following the newly released 2016 NWPL, the hydrophytic vegetation indicator would change 1 While the title page of the 2016 National Wetland Plant List has an April 28, 2016 publication date, the document was not released for public use until May 12, 2016. The May 12, 2016 date was when the “2016 regional lists were organized and assembled for NWPL website publication” (M&A email communication with Dr. Paul Minkin, Director, National Wetland Plant List, USACE). 2996
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-16 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx from a “no” to a “yes”; however, this data point was lacking wetland hydrology and hydric soils, so the conclusion that DP-97 was an upland is correct.

These errors—if such a characterization is accurate—do not, however, undermine the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR did not rely on the Monk & Associates 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation report. Instead, wetland impacts were calculated using the USACE Approved Jurisdictional Delineation dated October 25, 2016.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the original Final EIR Response to Comment S&W-5c, as set forth in the (proposed) Final EIR published on October 31, 2022, incorrectly stated the Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) date as October 25, 2021. The correct AJD date is October 25, 2016; and according to USACE Project Manager, Mr. Bryan Matsumoto, because the USACE application was submitted prior to the AJD expiring, the USACE will be using the AJD dated October 25, 2016, to process the permit. The AJD therefore remains valid and sufficient for the USACE and for assessing wetland impacts in the Draft EIR.

Acreage Discrepancies
Constructing Phase 1 and 2 concurrently over an 18-month period would impact 0.496-acre of wetlands for Phase 1 and 3.7 acres of wetlands for Phase 2, for a total of 4.196 acres of wetlands, which is the worst-case scenario, meaning the maximum acreage of wetland impacts would be 4.196 acres. The “worst-case scenario” assumption is not linked to the number of months it would take to complete each Phase but rather is a function of the potential total acreage of wetland impacts.

Phase 2 wetland impacts were assessed based on a full buildout with a maximum impact of 3.7 acres of wetlands. It is possible that, once Phase 2 has gone through the entitlement process, the site plan may be modified to reduce impacts to under 3.7 acres, just as Phase 1 has avoided impacts.

Functional Assessments
Functional assessments were conducted to determine plant and animal communities supported on the project site, and these functional assessments were used in the impact analysis and subsequent mitigation requirements. The Draft EIR acknowledges the project site contains one upland plant community described as Annual Grassland, and two wetland plant communities, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools, as shown in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, Exhibit 3.3-2. Plant communities are assemblages of plant species growing in an area of similar biological environmental factors. One of the functions of wetlands are the plant communities they support. To determine whether the wetlands or uplands supported special-status plants, in support of CEQA and agency requirements, HBC conducted botanical survey assessments during spring 2021, and spring and summer 2022. As described in these rare plant surveys, HBC identified the three plant communities.

In addition to this plant communities assessment/rare plant survey conducted by HBC, the Draft EIR acknowledges that, based on a spring season site reconnaissance survey conducted on April 16 and May 24, 2021, HBC determined the site was suitable foraging habitat for State listed threatened Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle. The 2022 Rare Plant survey is included in this Final EIR as Appendix O.

The assessments did not only include rare plant surveys and evaluation for presence of wildlife species as suggested in this comment, but also included: wetland hydrology and hydric soil 2997
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-17 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx attributes; plant communities and vegetation stratum attributes within the wetlands; focused surveys to determine attributes such as whether the wetlands or uplands supported California redlegged frog, federal or State listed brachiopods or rare plants; and an assessment of over 40 animals and 37 plant species, as discussed in the HBC report (Draft EIR, Appendix C). Detailed functional assessments used to assess wetland attributes and impacts, and used to develop a wetland mitigation plan to offset these impacts included the following:
• Monk & Associates (M&A) conducted a 2016 wetland jurisdictional delineation in accordance with the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual in conjunction with the regional supplement for the Arid West Region. Within the majority of the wetlands, attributes recorded included percent cover of plant species within four different vegetation strata (trees, shrubs, herbaceous, and vine biotic structures), indicators of wetland hydrology attributes (ponded water, saturated soils, sediment deposits etc.), and hydric soil attributes. • Dry season and Wet season brachiopod surveys were conducted by LSA Associates Inc., (LSA) and M&A in 2016-2017 to determine whether the wetlands functioned as habitat for branchiopods. As part of this assessment, the Wet season survey recorded wetland hydrology attributes to include average and maximum depth of ponded water and surface area. • A habitat assessment for the federally threatened California red-legged frog was conducted by Dr. Mark Jennings in 2021. The habitat assessment was conducted in accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol for the California red-legged frog habitat assessment2 and observations were made regarding any amphibians and reptiles observed, or to be potentially inhabiting the vicinity. • Special-status plant surveys were conducted by HBC during spring of 2021, and spring and summer of 2022 to assess the potential of the wetlands to support special-status plants, using the CDFW protocols identified in “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities” dated March 20, 2018. In addition to determining whether the wetlands or uplands supported special-status plants, HBC also identified the three plant communities described as annual grassland, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pools. One of the attributes of wetlands is the support of its plant communities.
• HBC also made an assessment of the potential for the wetlands to support each animal species noted in the CNDDB as occurring within a 10-mile radius of the project site, or that is known to occur in the general vicinity based on the knowledge of HBC Biologists. Over 40 animals and 37 plant species were included in this assessment, as is discussed in the HBC report (Draft EIR, Appendix C), and this information was used to assess impacts to wetlands and species that could be using the wetlands or uplands.

As described previously, and in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, comprehensive functional assessments were conducted, which assessed attributes of the wetland sufficient to evaluate wetland impacts, and also proposed wetland mitigation ratios and performance standards sufficient to offset wetland 2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Revised guidance on site assessments and field surveys for the California redlegged frog. August 2005. Draft EIR Appendix C. 2998
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-18 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx impacts as outlined in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a number of “functional” assessments were conducted to determine CEQA impacts and recommend mitigation measures to offset these impacts to less than significant.

Performance Standards
The RWQCB State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) requires that approved mitigation plans contain performance standards that assess whether the proposed project is achieving its objectives. Performance standards, according to the Procedures, must be based on objective and verifiable attributes using a functional assessment method, such as the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). The purpose of the CRAM referenced in the Draft EIR in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, on page 3.3-34 is to satisfy this requirement. The Performance Standards listed in the Draft EIR in MM BIO-3d on page 3.3-33 are based on completed biological assessments (plant survey, wetland delineation, general habitat assessment, etc.), and they include objective and verifiable attributes based on completed assessments and structured to assess whether the proposed project is achieving its objectives. Once CRAM is completed and the RWQCB has reviewed and commented on the mitigation plan, the Performance Standards may be modified to include additional attributes and performance standards, if warranted, to satisfy the Procedures.

Hydrology and Water Budget Analysis
The main source of hydrology for the unimpacted wetlands is direct precipitation and a significant amount of water flow from a culvert near the northeastern boundary, which flows east to west toward No Name Creek. In addition, the site generally slopes from east to west across the Phase 1 and Phase 2 project sites. The Phase 2 project also has topography that slopes from south to north.

With the main sources of hydrology being direct precipitation and waterflow from a culvert near the northeastern boundary, and the topography of the site generally sloping from east to west, there is no basis to assume that proposed project development would indirectly impact the wetland hydrology of the remaining wetlands.

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

A pre- and post-project water budget analysis is not required to determine whether there will be sufficient hydrology to create additional wetlands, or if newly created wetlands will impact existing wetlands. Reasonable assumptions can be made based on topography data, soil structure data, hydrology inputs (e.g., direct precipitation, overland flow, point source flows data), and anthropogenic factors (e.g., existing roads, fence lines, proposed structures etc.) to determine the likelihood that a site could support the hydrology required to create wetlands and to guide the location of where newly created wetlands should be positioned within the landscape to maximize hydrology inputs and avoid impacting hydrology of existing wetlands. 2999
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-19 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Data used to determine whether there would be sufficient hydrology to support created wetlands included the following:
• Topography: Topographic factors have a significant effect on the ability of hydrology to support seasonal wetlands and vernal pools. If the topography is steeply sloped, water tends to flow downhill; if the topography is flat, water tends to pond in low depressional areas.

Based on the topographic survey data, the topography within the Wetland Preserve is relatively flat, sloping slightly east to west, which makes this area ideal for capturing and holding direct precipitation. Precipitation that falls directly onto created wetland depressions will collect, and the depressions will hold rainwater much more efficiently than compared to a site with steep topography.
• Soil: Soil structure has a significant effect on the ability of a created wetland to support and maintain wetland hydrology. Hydrology can be contained within a seasonal wetland when the soils have the ability to hold water at or near the surface at a frequency and for a duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of wetland vegetation. Based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) soil survey maps, the majority of the Wetland Preserve does support clay soils. Clay soils have a low permeability rate and are, therefore, ideal for creating wetlands in topographically flat areas. To ensure the USGS soil survey was accurate, and that the site could support hydrology necessary to create wetlands, HBC conducted a detailed assessment of the soil profile within and near areas proposed to create wetlands. soil pits were dug to approximately 4 feet in depth, and soil texture and color were then recorded throughout the profile for each soil pit. Results indicated that a restrictive layer composed of clay soil is found 12-30 inches below the surface.

Based on this layer of clay soil supporting many of the existing seasonal wetlands and vernal pool hydrology, an assumption was made that this soil type could also hold water generated by direct precipitation within newly created wetlands.
• Existing Hydrology Inputs: The primary source of water for the majority of wetlands is direct precipitation. In addition, several wetlands in the northeast receive input from a culvert near the northeastern boundary, which flows east to west. The seasonal wetland contained within a segment of No Name Creek along the northwestern area of the Wetland Preserve may also receive surface flow from several “ditches” that transect the site from east to west and south to north.
• Anthropogenic Factors: The design of the Wetland Mitigation Plan considered anthropogenic factors that could have an impact (adverse or beneficial impact) on the ability of created wetlands to support wetland hydrology or potentially degrade the ability of a created wetland to offset the wetland impacts. Anthropogenic factors included existing fence lines, which often create topographic high areas that block surface water flow; existing and proposed underground utilities and rights-of-way, which create maintenance issues if a wetland is created on such a utility or right-of-way; the proposed development projects; and the newly constructed Devlin Road Extension.

Based on the topographic, geologic, hydrologic, and anthropogenic factors referenced above and in the Draft EIR, the location of each proposed created wetland shown in the Draft EIR, Exhibit 3.3-4, 3000
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-20 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Wetland Mitigation Plan, was selected to maximize the natural input of direct precipitation and surface flow to support sufficient hydrology within the created wetland and to avoid impacting existing wetlands. This data alone is sufficient to reasonably determine that hydrology (water flows) will be sufficient to create the additional wetlands and to reasonably determine that the created new wetlands will not impact the remaining existing wetlands. As correctly stated in comments on the Draft EIR, additional data will be provided to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, including a water budget analysis, as part of the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If during the RWQCB review process it is determined that a created wetland may indirectly impact the hydrology of an existing wetland, the position of the created wetland would be adjusted to avoid such an impact.

Vegetated Buffers to Protect Wetlands
As addressed in the Final EIR Volume 1, in Response S&W-10a, S&W-10c and S&W-16b, and further addressed in this response, there are adequate vegetated buffers shown between the Phase 1 development and the unimpacted and proposed created wetlands within the Wetland Preserve. The Draft EIR does not explicitly state minimum or maximum buffers, but clearly shows proposed vegetated bioretention basin buffers surrounding the Wetland Preserve ranging from 25 feet to 150 feet. The vegetated bioretention basin buffers shown in the Draft EIR would be considered the “minimum” vegetated buffer widths for Phase 1.

The bioretention basins abutting the Wetland Preserve are considered to be a vegetated buffer in the Draft EIR. The vegetated bioretention basins will be vegetated and portions will be ponded during the winter. The vegetated bioretention basins will provide habitat to support terrestrial, semiaquatic, and wetland-dependent species. Terrestrial animals will be able to move unabated to and from the Wetland Preserve and the vegetated buffer, and the berm surrounding the vegetated bioretention basins will be slightly raised providing a visual and noise screen. It is true that the bioretention ponds may require periodic inspections and/or maintenance yearly, just as all wetland mitigation sites require periodic inspections and maintenance. However, these yearly inspections or maintenance activities will typically be minor in nature (e.g., person walking on the site, hand removal of sediment or debris, etc.) and therefore have no adverse effect on the ability of the bioretention basins to provide adequate buffer protection. During the permitting process with the RWQCB, the proposed vegetated buffers shown in the Draft EIR for Phase 1 may increase, but they will not be less than what is presented in the Draft EIR. With respect to Phase 2, vegetated buffers between the development and the Wetland Preserve would be similar (e.g., range from 25-150 feet), with a minimum of 25 feet from Phase 2 hardscaped development (buildings, parking lots, nonpervious unvegetated surfaces etc.).

Wildlife Corridor
Although the property is currently nearly entirely surrounded by development, as correctly stated in the Draft EIR, connectivity to adjacent wetland preserves and undeveloped parcels to the northeast and southeast will remain accessible to terrestrial and avian species. As addressed elsewhere in this Final EIR, and discussed further in this response, the Wetland Preserve is not an “island” completely cut off from wildlife being able to move on and off the property or Wetland Preserve.

The Wetland Preserve contains No Name Creek, which is hydrologically connected to the Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve approximately 60 linear feet to the north via an existing clear span 3001
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-21 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx bridge. The majority of wildlife moving to and from the Wetland Preserve to the Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve could, and likely do, move through the channel under this clear span bridge to avoid passing over Devlin Road. With respect to the newly constructed Devlin Road Extension, the culvert is smaller, connecting the east and west sides of the Wetland Preserve; however, it is large enough to allow for most terrestrial wildlife found near the project site, with the exception of deer, to move under the culvert between the east and west side of the Wetland Preserve. Along the northwestern corner, the Wetland Preserve abuts a constructed wetland area within the Biaggi Bros. property that is separated only by a barbed wire fence. Barbed wire fences are not an obstruction to the types of terrestrial species that would be found in this general area (e.g., deer, coyotes, raccoons, skunks etc.). In addition, wildlife can continue to access undeveloped parcels to the northeast and southeast by crossing over existing railroad tracks. Refer to Exhibit C (Wetland Preserve Connectivity) for the locations of hydrologic connectivity and terrestrial wildlife corridors and access points.

Master Response D—Vehicle Miles Traveled
Note to Reader: Master Response D supersedes Master Response 4 in Final EIR Volume 1.

Summary of Relevant Comments
Napa/Solano Residents and CBD referenced the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis and reiterated previous comments that it inadequate.

Response
To preface this response, VMT is a relatively new area of CEQA, having only been added to the Appendix G Checklist in late 2018 and only applying to environmental documents issued on or after July 1, 2020. Similar to the early years of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions being introduced to the environmental review process, there is a range of guidance—sometimes conflicting—as to how to evaluate VMT. Likewise, many lead agencies have not adopted their own VMT thresholds or issued any guidance regarding methodology, which is the case for the City of American Canyon.

Furthermore, the Napa-Solano regional traffic model is limited in its abilities to calculate projectlevel VMT. Lastly, there is very little in the way of guidance for evaluating VMT for industrial or warehousing projects. With these factors in mind, W-Trans evaluated VMT with the best information available using the most relevant guidance.

Giovannoni VMT Analysis
Guidance contained in the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, 2018, California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (OPR Technical Advisory) was used in selecting an appropriate VMT threshold of significance for the proposed project. While this publication provides no specific direction on the threshold that should be applied to warehouserelated land uses, the publication does indicate that office-related land uses should use a metric based on automobile commute VMT per employee, with a significance threshold tied to the regional average VMT per employee. Basing the proposed warehouse project’s VMT analysis on a commute VMT per employee performance metric was deemed appropriate since the employee automobile commute characteristics of a warehouse project are similar to those produced by an office project.

The term “regional” refers to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary that the site is located within; for American Canyon, this is the nine-county Bay Area overseen by the 3002
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-22 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). This approach to defining “regional” is consistent with direction provided by OPR in an online document entitled, “SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions.” That document defines “regional” as “the full geography within the jurisdictional borders of a Metropolitan Planning Organization or a regional transportation planning agency.” Accordingly, the proposed project’s VMT significance threshold was based on an automobile commute VMT per employee performance metric that that was compared to the nine-county Bay Area regional average.

With respect to the use of a significance threshold for commute VMT per employee that is equal to the regional average, rather than 15 percent below the regional average as suggested in the OPR Technical Advisory for office uses, thresholds adopted by other jurisdictions, including Sacramento County and San José, were reviewed as noted in the project’s Draft EIR. As discussed in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines, County of Sacramento, 2020, “placing industrial land uses in less urban areas characterized by having higher VMT per employee allows land in efficient VMT areas to be more effectively utilized as high-density residential and commercial or office/business professional uses. This threshold is consistent with achieving an overall reduction in regional VMT, as it recognizes that industrial uses, which are relatively lower total VMT generating uses, are most appropriate in areas that have a lower potential to reduce VMT because it results in more available land within areas with a high potential to achieve VMT reductions available for more dense development.” Note that Sacramento County applies the same significance threshold for both industrial and warehousing uses. San José applied similar logic in developing its VMT thresholds for industrial and warehousing uses, which are also equal to the regional average VMT per employee.

It is also noted that during “office hours” webinars conducted by OPR in summer 2020, OPR staff acknowledged that industrial/warehousing projects are different from traditional “office” developments, and OPR offered the opinion that jurisdictions looking to establish significance thresholds for such uses may benefit from reviewing the thresholds set by San José. The proposed project’s applied VMT significance threshold was developed using the evidence provided by these sources, including the overall premise that locating industrial and warehouse projects in less VMTefficient areas can play an important role in reducing the community’s overall VMT, helping to achieve established GHG reduction targets.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is worth noting that, although the Draft EIR used a threshold of commute VMT per employee that is equal to the regional average rather than 15 percent below the regional average as suggested in the OPR Technical Advisory for office uses, the VMT for the proposed project is actually substantially more than 15 percent below regional average. As shown in Draft EIR on page 3.12-18, Table 3.12-9, Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary, the regional average VMT per employee is 23.0 miles, while the proposed project’s VMT per employee is 16.24 miles, which is roughly 29 percent below the regional average. Thus, the Draft EIR would have reached the same conclusion with respect to the VMT-related impacts of the proposed project—namely, that they were less than significant—even if the City had used the OPR-recommended threshold of 15 percent below the regional average for office projects.

The California Statewide Travel De”and ’odel (CSTDM) was determined to be the best available source of traffic analysis zone (TAZ)-level VMT data when the proposed project’s NOP was released 3003
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-23 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx (January 2021). While a model including the Napa-Solano region exists, it was deemed inappropriate for use in the proposed project’s VMT analysis because it truncates vehicle trip lengths at the county line, thereby resulting in an incomplete calculation of a project’s potential trip lengths.

Since the Napa-Solano travel demand model does not account for full trip lengths and is not capable of calculating a regional commute VMT per employee metric tied to the nine-county Bay Area used to establish the VMT significance threshold, it was necessary to research other appropriate sources for this value. The City of Vallejo Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines were deemed to be an appropriate source, not only because of Vallejo’s proximity to the proposed project, but because Vallejo faces the same constraints as American Canyon and Napa County in establishing VMT metrics and averages using the Napa-Solano model.

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Trips from Logistics Operations As explained above, the VMT analysis in the Draft EIR focused on employee trips and not on truck trips associated with the anticipated functioning of the proposed project’s logistics operations. This focus on employee trips in cars and light-duty trucks rather than incoming and outgoing trips by medium- or heavy-duty trips associated with logistics operations is consistent with direction provided by OPR and with the legislation (Senate Bill [SB] 743 of 2013) that authorized OPR and the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) to promulgate what became CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.

As the Draft EIR explained on page 3.12-17, the OPR Technical Advisory defines “automobile,” as the term is used in Section 15064. 3, as referring to “on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks.” (Technical Advisory, page 4.) Thus, OPR understands the requirement to address transportation VMT as not reaching heavy-duty trucks. The focus on automobiles and not on heavyduty trucks is consistent with the policy focus behind the elimination of automobile delay as a factor in assessing the significance of transportation-related impacts, as set forth in SB 743. Public Resources Code Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the OPR and CNRA to develop alternative significance criteria that would “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Accounting for heavy-duty trucks engaged in interstate commerce would not contribute to these policy goals, as local and State governments have little or no control over interstate commerce involving trucking.

The focus on automobile travel, rather than truck travel, is also evident from the direction that the Legislature gave to OPR and CNRA regarding the identification of the possible metrics that the two agencies might choose to embrace during the formulation of an eventual CEQA Guidelines provision (ultimately Section 15064.3) replacing “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion,” as a basis for assessing the significance of transportation-related impacts. The potential metrics included “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21099(b)(1), italics added.)
Furthermore, as the Draft EIR explained in its discussion of environmental effects associated with GHG emissions, “[e]missions associated with heavy-duty trucks involved in goods movements are generally controlled on the technology side and through fleet turnover of older trucks and engines 3004
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-24 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx to newer and cleaner trucks and engines. The following State strategies reduce GHG emissions from medium and heavy-duty trucks:
• California Air Resources Board (ARB) Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs by transitioning to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks.

ARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero-emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.
• ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation requires diesel-fueled trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses were required to meet particulate matter (PM) filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks had a compliance date of January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. • ARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions and the establishment of emissions standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling.

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

Trucks and truck fleet owners and operators accessing the proposed project would be subject to the above trucking and freight regulations. Thus, these strategies would contribute to controlling heavyduty truck GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, and the proposed project would not conflict with or inhibit these Statewide strategies.” (Draft EIR, page 3.6-57, footnotes omitted.) In sum, not only do local governments have little or no control over interstate trucking operations, but GHG emissions (and thus VMT as a source of such emissions) resulting from medium- and heavyduty truck trips are being addressed separately from GHG emissions (and thus VMT as a source of such emissions) from cars and light trucks. For these reasons, the transportation VMT analysis contained in the Draft EIR met applicable legal standards despite not accounting for medium- and heavy-duty truck trips that, if the proposed project is approved, will result from project operations as a logistics facility.

Even so, however, a post Draft EIR technical study performed by a leading transportation consultant has found that the significance conclusions in the VMT analysis would not have changed if the analysis were expanded to account for medium- and heavy-duty trucks engaged in logistic operations. The conclusion would still be that VMT-related impacts are less than significant.

Appendix J to the Final EIR Volume 1 is a June 16, 2022, technical memorandum prepared for Joe Livaich of Buzz Oates Construction by Kevin Johnson and David Robinson of Fehr & Peers, a leading transportation consultant, on the subject of “American Canyon Industrial Warehouse Travel Behavior Data.” According to its authors, “[a] primary objective of the analysis in this memorandum is to address whether VMT from such heavy-duty truck trips would be more or less than 15 percent 3005
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-25 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx below the regional average for the Bay Area.” The authors conservatively chose to look at this particular metric because, as noted earlier, the OPR Technical Advisory proposed a significance threshold of 15 percent below the regional average for office projects (although, for reasons discussed above, that threshold was not used in the Draft EIR). The threshold of 15 percent below the regional average was thus the most conservative threshold recommended by OPR, and more conservative than the one used in the Draft EIR.

The Fehr & Peers technical memorandum “describes the travel behavior data collected for the proposed 208-acre high-cube industrial warehouse project (the proposed project) in American Canyon, CA. Fehr & Peers understands the uniqueness of warehousing and logistics facilities that make them extremely difficult to study with traditional data collection methods. Fehr & Peers combined traffic count data previously collected in San Joaquin County for similar warehousing uses with new mobile device origin-destination data from StreetLight for similar industrial warehouse sites around the Bay Area to provide Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. with detailed trip generation, vehicle origin-destination pattern, and average trip length data.” (Fehr & Peers, page 1.) “This data collection effort was undertaken by Fehr & Peers in June 2021 to better understand the travel behavior of existing warehousing buildings across San Joaquin County, as a review of local and regional planning studies revealed a lack of data and understanding of the travel characteristics of these types of facilities. Specifically, there was a lack of local or national trip generation data for warehousing uses, a lack of understanding of the travel patterns and demographics of warehouse users, and a lack of inclusion of these facilities in regional travel forecasting models.” (Fehr & Peers, page 2.)
“Fehr & Peers coordinated the collection of 72 hours of driveway vehicle classification count data at 39 warehousing buildings across San Joaquin County in June 2021. The data collection was performed by National Data and Surveying Services (NDS) using cameras to count and classify vehicles entering and exiting the individual building driveways. Fehr & Peers staff visited each of the 39 warehousing buildings on one day during the data collection to observe the following:
• Check traffic and weather conditions
• Confirm the placement of the cameras
• Observe activity levels at the surveyed buildings
• Count the number of truck bays
• Classify the buildings
• Observe general operations and travel behavior
Fehr & Peers used this data to develop average trip generation rates per thousand square feet (KSF) for warehousing uses in San Joaquin County.” (Fehr & Peers, page 2.) Fehr & Peers obtained StreetLight’s GPS-based commercial vehicle data product for 23 existing industrial warehousing sites around the Bay Area, including eight sites in Napa County, of which four were located within the City of American Canyon. Fehr & Peers relied on StreetLight’s “O-D to Preset Geography” product to analyze travel patterns to and from the land use zone system at the census block group level, which has over 23,000 zones within California. 3006
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR–Volume 2
2-26 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx A land use zone system was developed for the 23 existing industrial warehousing sites, each of which included a separate zone for each of the existing buildings or groupings of buildings. The analysis tracked all heavy-duty truck trips starting or ending at one of these zones. The start of trips coming to the zones and end of trips leaving the zones were tagged to the national census block group system, allowing for aggregation to any desired geography such as the city or county level.

The land use zone system consisted of eight industrial warehousing sites in Napa County, which are listed below, and include similar existing warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period. These sites were selected to understand the potential average trip length of heavyduty truck trips generated by the proposed project.

The “key findings” of the Fehr & Peers study, summarized on page 12, were as follows:
• The average daily trip generation per KSF of warehousing building space is 0.078 medium-duty truck trips, 0.447 heavy-duty truck trips, 0.995 auto trips, and 1.52 total vehicle trips. • The average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the eight existing Napa County industrial warehousing sites in full operation during the data collection period is 35.6 miles. • The average trip length of heavy-duty truck trips generated by the eight existing Napa County industrial warehousing sites is roughly 39 percent lower than the average trip length for all 23 Bay Area warehousing sites combined.

In short, if the Draft EIR had taken account of medium- and heavy-duty truck trips from logistics operations, as Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) suggested was necessary, the analysis would still have concluded that the proposed project would have less than significant VMTrelated impacts.

This conclusion is also relevant to the analysis of GHG emissions for the proposed project, which employed a significance threshold very similar to one adopted relatively recently by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), by which one factor indicating a less than significant operational GHG impact was VMT 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee in the Bay Area Region. (Draft EIR, pages 3.6-45 and 3.6-56.) As the preceding discussion indicates, the VMT per employee for the proposed project is roughly 30 percent below the regional average. If medium- and heavy-duty truck traffic from project operations is added to the discussion, the VMT from such traffic is roughly 39 percent below the regional average. Additionally, the trip lengths included in the GHG impact analysis modeling software, CalEEMod, were extended from the default trip length to a length of 32.8 miles. This trip length conservatively represents the distance between the project site and the Port of Oakland. Where many of the truck trips associated with the proposed project would be expected to occur more locally, this trip length potentially over-estimates the transportationrelated GHG emissions associated with the proposed project and helps to ensure that the GHG emissions estimate included in the GHG impact analysis is conservative. Thus, the Fehr & Peers study reinforces and fortifies the Draft EIR’s conclusion that operational GHG impacts are less than significant (Draft EIR, page 3.6-59), just as it reinforces and fortifies the Draft EIR’s conclusion that VMT-related impacts are less than significant.
3007
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-27 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx In summary, in the Draft EIR the City articulated the rationale for omitting truck trips, relying on language from the OPR Advisory, Public Resources Code Section 21099, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. In the Draft EIR, the City also discussed that the State has multiple policies and regulations in place to reduce GHG emissions from truck trips, which have already reduced emissions from trucks and will continue to achieve emissions into the future (Draft EIR, pp. 3.6-56– 3.6-58, 3.12-6–

3.12-7, and 3.12-16–3.12-17.) Even so, the City included in the October 31, 2022 (proposed) Final EIR an updated analysis showing that the truck traffic expected to occur due to operations of the proposed project would also be 15 percent below the regional average. This information amplified and clarified the prior analysis and did not reveal any new or worsened expected impacts of the proposed project, and thus did not trigger recirculation of the EIR. The updated information in this modified (and superseding) Master Response on VMT (Master Response D) similarly does not trigger recirculation. The new information does not, as CBD contends, represent any kind of concession that the Draft EIR’s approach to VMT was legally insufficient or problematic. Rather, the new information in the October 31, 2022, and February 3, 2023, Final EIR documents shows that, even if the City were to accept CBD’s theory that CEQA required VMT analysis to consider truck trips, the VMT-related impacts of the proposed project would still be less than significant.

This last conclusion is based on information reflecting the expert judgment of Fehr & Peers about how best to ascertain regional average truck trips. Fehr & Peers used locally collected empirical data, as opposed to national data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual. The study utilized existing data and is project-specific, as opposed to the ITE manual. The VMT study developed a truck trip generation rate for the proposed project, which was then compared to the regional average. As included in the GHG emissions impact section for the proposed project, a conservative truck trip length of 36 miles was included in the CalEEMod modeling for the proposed project, consistent with the findings of the VMT study. This Master Response (D) further details the substantial evidence that supports the City’s reliance on the new VMT study as part of its overall evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed project.

OPR issued a 2018 Technical Advisory recommendation that, for certain uses (employee trips), being 15 percent below the regional average translates into a less than significant VMT impact. 3 Like Fehr
& Peers, OPR is an expert. Furthermore, the BAAQMD 2022 GHG significance thresholds include a recommendation that, if a proposed project has a VMT that is 15 percent below the regional average, then, if the proposed project meets other specific project design thresholds such as prohibiting natural gas infrastructure, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact for GHG emissions impacts. Thus, the Fehr & Peers study reinforces, and provides substantial evidence supporting, the City’s conclusion that the proposed project’s GHG emissions are less than significant.
3 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

December.
3008

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3009
54600001• 01/2023| A_importa nt_bird_a rea s.mxd
ExhibitA
Importa ntBirdArea s
Source:BingMa ps Roa d.County ofNa pa .Importa ntBirdArea s ofCa lifornia .AudubonCa lifornia .

CITYOFAMERICANCANYON

GIOVANNONILOGISTICSCENTERPROJECT

ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTREPORT

3.5 1.75 0 3.5
Miles
Legend
Project Site
Important Bird Area 78,008.18 acres
Sonoma County
Marin County
Napa County
Solano County
Contra Costa County
3010

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3011
54600001 • 01/2023 | B_2015_sewer_master_plan.cdr CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit B
2015 Sewer Master Plan
Source: GHD, City of American Canyon Sewer Master Plan. 3012

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3013
Exhibit C
Wetland Preserve Connectivity

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT
54600001 • 02/2023 | C_Wetland_Preserve_Connectivity.cdr 3014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3015
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2 Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

3.1 - List of Authors
As explained in Section 1, Introduction, of this volume (Volume 2) of this Final EIR, the City, on October 31, 2022, released a document described as the (proposed) Final EIR for the proposed project. In issuing that document, City staff intended that, upon certification by the American Canyon City Council, the document would become the official Final EIR for the proposed project. This plan changed, however, when the City provided the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) with an extra 45 days in which to provide the City with comments on the Draft EIR. This dispensation delayed the date on which the City Council would be in a position to certify an expanded Final EIR, which took account of CBD’s comments and responses to those comments.

In preparing the current new volume (Volume 2) of the Final EIR to include responses to comments from CBD, the City has also chosen to respond to certain additional correspondence it has received subsequent to the end of the original public review period on the Draft EIR. The City has done so on a voluntary basis, in the interest of ensuring the authors of such correspondence that the City has considered the concerns they have expressed in that correspondence, which was mainly on the (proposed) Final EIR as issued on October 31, 2022.

A list of all of public agencies and organizations that authored this above-described correspondence is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a code. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed-referenced with responses.

Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. As explained above, the City was only required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to respond to comments from CBD, as these were comments on the Draft EIR, and CBD had not participated in the earlier public review period for that document. The City has responded to the correspondence from other entities on a voluntary basis, as those entities either participated in the earlier public review period or had the opportunity to do so but did not do so due to having received actual or constructive notice of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review.

Author Author Code
State Agencies
California Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................................................... CDFW Private Organizations
Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Development (November 17, 2022).....................AB-NOV. 171 Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Development (December 6, 2022)........................... AB-DEC. 6 Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk ................................................................................................. FRIENDS Raptors Are The Solution.................................................................................................................. RATS 1 “AB” is short for Adams Broadwell, the law firm that transmitted comments on behalf of Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Development
3016
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR–Volume 2
3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/4 - Final EIR - Vol II/54600001 Sec03-00 Responses to Written Comments.docx Napa Solano Audubon Society .........................................................................................................NSAS Center For Biological Diversity........................................................................................................... CBD

3.2 - Responses to Comments

3.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of American Canyon, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received from the CBD on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2021010104) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center project, and has prepared the following responses to the comments received from that organization. The City has also chosen to voluntarily respond to additional correspondence received from other entities, as explained in Sections 1, Introduction, and

3.1, List of Authors, above. The response to these comments are part of (Volume 2 of) the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

3.2.2 - Comment Letters and Responses
The comment letters reproduced in the following pages follow the same organization as used in the List of Authors.
3017
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
December 2, 2022
Brent Cooper
Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
[email protected]
Subject: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2021010104, City of American Canyon, Napa County Dear Mr. Cooper:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) previously submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), prepared by the City of American Canyon (City) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 On November 4, 2022, the City, as Lead Agency, notified CDFW the Final EIR (FEIR) was available, including responses to comments CDFW submitted on the DEIR. CDFW has determined the City’s responses in the FEIR are inadequate to address impacts to Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and is submitting this letter to address outstanding concerns.

In 2016, CDFW released a Status Review for Swainson’s hawk in California and recommended the species retain its status as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (CDFW 2016). The review states there is no indication the species has reoccupied its historical range and the distribution of Swainson’s hawk remains largely unchanged and restricted. Additionally, the review cites the primary threat to Swainson’s hawk continues to be habitat loss, especially the loss of suitable foraging habitat. One recent study done by CDFW scientists indicated Swainson’s hawk populations have been increasing, but also cautioned using this data to inform conservation planning, stating this apparent stability remains largely unclear (Furnas et al. 2022). The study cites concerns regarding impacts to Swainson’s hawk from urban development, reduction in grasslands, and orchard and vineyard cultivation, all of which are prominent impacts in Napa County, where the Project is proposed.

Master Response 1 in the FEIR states that there is “more than sufficient foraging habitat in the area” for Swainson’s hawk, referencing approximately 2,000 acres of preserved foraging habitat within the Project vicinity, and therefore there is “no potential for

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 4EC2BA7F-50B7-4CF9-89E2-961CFBF49BE0 3018
Brent Cooper, Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
December 2, 2022