Agenda packet — American Canyon City Council, March 21, 2023 (part 11 of 21)

2397
Date of Count:

Number of Collisions: 2
Number of Injuries: 0
Number of Fatalities: 0
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 5600
Start Date:

End Date:

Number of Years: 5
Intersection Type: Tee
Control Type: Stop & Yield Controls
Area: Rural
2x
5,600 x x 5
Study Intersection 0.20 c/mve
Statewide Average* 0.16 c/mve
Notes
c/mve = collisions per million vehicles entering intersection * 2016 Collision Data on California State Highways, Caltrans ADT = average daily total vehicles entering intersection

1.8%
Thursday, February 21, 2019

0.0% 0.0%
Intersection Collision Rate Worksheet
Intersection #
Fatality Rate
365
Collision Rate
4: Green Island Road & Paoli Loop Road
Collision Rate = 1,000,000
Number of Collisions x 1 Million
ADT x Days per Year x Number of Years
Injury Rate
September 30, 2020
Giovannoni Logistics Center TIS
October 1, 2015
Collision Rate =

39.5%
ns
7/22/2021

Page 2 of 2 ends

2398
B Traffic Impact Study for the Giovannoni Logistics Center July 2021
Appendix B
Traffic Count Data
2399
2400
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT
Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total

LT TH RT UT
232 2 845 0
7:15 AM 0 2 3 5 0
9 7 420 125 2 4
RT
7:00 AM 0 7 2 7 0 21 4 3

LT TH RT UT LT TH
0 7:30 AM 0 1 8 1 0 18 4 7
27 6 0 2 13 393 192 2 5 271 5 926
22 2 14 4 20 357
241 6 894 0
7:45 AM 0 7 10 6 0
6 19 399 179 1 4
262 2 807 3,462
8:15 AM 0 12 6 12 0
2 13 370 118 2 0
3,500
8:00 AM 0 7 8 3 0 17 2 1
142 1 1 247 2 835
3,290
8:30 AM 0 8 6 10 0 15 7 0
16 7 0 3 13 328 114 3 1 234 5 754
14 4 1 3 15 300
250 8 761 3,157
8:45 AM 0 7 8 18 0
8 11 349 78 5 6
1,953 36 6,496 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 17 23 19
37 111 2,916 1,026 19 22
2,996
Count Total 0 51 51 62 0 150 36 26
78 3 1 216 6 674
3,500 0
HV 0 11 16 8 0 10 7
0 88 16 24 21 59 1,569 638 6 14 991 15
- 11% 44% 8% 5% 29%
2 53 4 238 0
HV% - 65% 70% 42%
2 1 17 85 22 0
East West North South
7:00 AM 8 8 37 18 71
Total EB WB NB SB Total
7% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)

EB WB NB SB
5% 3% 0% 14% 5% 27%
0 0
7:30 AM 7 2 29 12 50 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:15 AM 5 6 30 14 55 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 11 6 31 15 63
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 7:45 AM 15 3 29 15 62 0 0 1
1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0
8:30 AM 11 7 29 25 72 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:15 AM 12 6 36 20 74 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:45 AM 14 8 36 25 83 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Peak Hour 35 19 125 59 238 0
Count Total 83 46 257 144 530 0 0 2 0 2 0
0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0
to
to
Date: 05-29-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM
SB 5.8% 0.91
TOTAL 6.8% 0.94
WB 14.8% 0.84
NB 5.5% 0.95
Peak Hour: 7:00 AM 8:00 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 59.3% 0.64
0 0
0 0
00 01
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
SR-29
S Kelly Rd
S Kelly Rd
SR-29
S Kelly Rd SR-29
TEV: 3,500
PHF: 0.94
15 991
14 1,026
1,616
6 24
16 88
128
675
0 638
1,569
59 1,119
2,287
21 19
23 17
59 90
0 2401
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Two-Hour Count Summaries - RToR
Count Total - - 17 - - 42 - - 7 - - 146 212
Peak Total - - 15 - - 14 - - 1 - - 83 113
Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH
Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
2 2 0 4 29 4 0 1 17 0 71 0

LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 4 2 2 0 4

RT UT LT TH RT UT
0 7:30 AM 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 0
7:15 AM 0 1 3 1 0 3 3 0 0 3 20 7 0 0 13 1 55
2 1 0 0 3 20
10 2 50 0
7:45 AM 0 6 4 5 0
1 7 16 5 0 0
15 0 63 230
8:15 AM 0 3 4 5 0
0 4 20 7 0 0
238
8:00 AM 0 4 5 2 0 4 2 0
6 0 1 13 1 62
249
8:30 AM 0 3 4 4 0 2 5 0
3 3 0 1 6 23 6 0 1 17 2 74
6 2 0 0 5 28
21 3 72 271
8:45 AM 0 1 6 7 0
1 4 15 9 0 1
126 13 530 0
Peak Hour 0 11 16 8 0
3 36 171 47 1 4
292
Count Total 0 22 35 26 0 25 19 2
3 1 0 20 4 83
0 Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
10 7 2 1 17 85 22 0 2 53 4 238

RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 2
0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 1
0 2
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
2 0
Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 1 1 0 0 0
- 17 24 0
7:15 AM - - 0 - -
- 6 - - 0 -

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM - - 1 -
33 0
7:45 AM - - 9 - - 2 -
- - 0 - - 27
29 35 0
7:30 AM - - 5 - - 1
5 - - 1 - -
1 - - 13 16 105
113
8:00 AM - - 1 - - 1 - -
- 0 - - 10 21
22 31 101
8:30 AM - - 0 - - 7
8:15 AM - - 0 - - 8 - - 1 - -
99 Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
- 2 - - 13 28
24 92
8:45 AM - - 1 - - 12 -
- - 2 - - 15

RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH
0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - -
- -
Peak Total - - - - - -
Count Total - - - - - - - - - - -
2402
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT
Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total

LT TH RT UT
399 1 795 0
4:15 PM 0 9 6 18 0
1 1 284 35 11 3
RT
4:00 PM 0 18 6 14 0 19 0 3

LT TH RT UT LT TH
0 4:30 PM 0 7 5 16 0 23 0 1
23 0 1 0 4 262 15 5 2 437 1 783
30 1 0 0 1 242
474 2 836 0
4:45 PM 0 11 1 9 0
0 4 276 25 1 2
444 0 766 3,162
5:15 PM 0 3 8 5 0
2 2 262 12 2 2
3,191
5:00 PM 0 9 1 8 0 22 0 0
14 2 1 463 2 777
3,171
5:30 PM 0 6 2 6 0 33 1 0
21 0 0 1 2 262 15 3 1 471 0 792
16 0 1 0 6 220
504 0 828 3,163
5:45 PM 0 3 0 3 0
1 1 243 20 7 4
3,651 6 6,301 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 45 18 57
5 21 2,051 150 31 17
3,110
Count Total 0 66 29 79 0 187 2 6
14 0 2 459 0 724
3,191 0
HV 0 2 2 7 0 9 1
0 95 1 5 1 10 1,064 89 19 8 1,773 6
- 9% 100% 0% 0% 40%
2 57 1 130 0
HV% - 4% 11% 12%
0 0 4 38 6 1
East West North South
4:00 PM 3 2 18 15 38
Total EB WB NB SB Total
4% 0
Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg)

EB WB NB SB
4% 7% 5% 25% 3% 17%
0 0
4:30 PM 2 2 10 16 30 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0
4:15 PM 3 3 15 12 33 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 2 3 4 13 22
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:45 PM 3 3 5 18 29 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:30 PM 0 2 9 2 13 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0
5:15 PM 1 0 7 20 28 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 3 0 0 0 0
0 5:45 PM 0 1 6 8 15 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Peak Hour 11 10 48 61 130 0
Count Total 14 16 74 104 208 0 0 3 2 5 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
to
to
Date: 05-29-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM
SB 3.4% 0.94
TOTAL 4.1% 0.95
WB 9.9% 0.81
NB 4.1% 0.91
Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 9.2% 0.79
0 0
0 0
00 01
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
SR-29
S Kelly Rd
S Kelly Rd
SR-29
S Kelly Rd SR-29
TEV: 3,191
PHF: 0.95
6 1,773
8 1,806
1,133
19 5
1 95
101
115
0 89
1,064
10 1,926
1,164
1 57
18 45
120
17 0
2403
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Two-Hour Count Summaries - RToR
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Initial Queue
Count Total - - 4 - - 44 - - 0 - - 26 74
Peak Total - - 4 - - 33 - - 0 - - 16 53
Westbound Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH
Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 0 0 0 16 2 0 0 14 1 38 0

LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 1 1 1 0 2

RT UT LT TH RT UT
0 4:30 PM 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0
4:15 PM 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 11 2 1 0 11 0 33
2 1 0 0 0 5
15 0 30 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 3 0
0 2 6 2 0 1
12 0 22 114
5:15 PM 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 2 1 0 1
130
5:00 PM 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0
0 0 1 17 0 29
109
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 20 0 28
1 0 0 0 3 3
2 0 13 92
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8 1 0 0
99 1 208 0
Peak Hour 0 2 2 7 0
0 8 56 10 1 3
78 Count Total 0 4 2 8 0 15 1 0
0 0 0 8 0 15
0 Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
9 1 0 0 4 38 6 1 2 57 1 130

RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH
1 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 1
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 1 3 4
1 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 5 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
1 0
Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 1 0 0 0 0
- 9 23 0
4:15 PM - - 1 - -
- 11 - - 0 -

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM - - 3 -
8 0
4:45 PM - - 0 - - 4 -
- - 0 - - 1
3 15 0
4:30 PM - - 0 - - 7
11 - - 0 - -
0 - - 0 2 32
53 5:00 PM - - 0 - - 2 - -
- 0 - - 3 7
5 9 26
5:30 PM - - 0 - - 4
5:15 PM - - 0 - - 4 - - 0 - -
21 Interval
Start
S Kelly Rd S Kelly Rd SR-29 SR-29
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
- 0 - - 3 4
6 24
5:45 PM - - 0 - - 1 -
- - 0 - - 2

RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH
0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 3 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 7 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
- - - - - - 0
- 10
Peak Total - 0 - - - -
Count Total - 10 - - - - - - - - -
2404
Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Devlin Rd -- S Kelly Rd QC JOB #: 15107125
CITY/STATE: Napa, CA DATE: Tue, Nov 5 2019
73 102
0 2 71
0 0 100 126
44 0.92 0
45 1 26 139
2 1 25
31 28
Peak-Hour: 8:00 AM -- 9:00 AM
Peak 15-Min: 8:45 AM -- 9:00 AM

78.1 67.6
0 50 78.9
0 0 69 59.5

84.1 0

82.2 0 23.1 72.7
0 0 32

22.6 28.6
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A

N/A N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A N/A
N/A
R* = RTOR
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Devlin Rd
(Northbound)
Devlin Rd
(Southbound)
S Kelly Rd
(Eastbound)
S Kelly Rd
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* 6:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 18 0 0 46
6:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 15 0 8 0 0 47
6:30 AM 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 15 0 19 0 0 48
6:45 AM 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 18 0 0 39 180 7:00 AM 0 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 0 29 163 7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 6 0 20 0 0 49 165 7:30 AM 0 0 3 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 22 0 0 59 176 7:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 12 0 17 0 0 45 182 8:00 AM 0 0 1 1 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 9 0 34 0 0 66 219 8:15 AM 0 0 5 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 8 0 19 0 0 59 229 8:30 AM 0 0 10 0 0 17 2 0 1 0 0 14 1 0 0 4 0 24 0 0 73 243 8:45 AM 0 1 9 1 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 5 0 23 0 0 74 272 Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* All Vehicles 0 4 36 4 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 0 20 0 92 0 0 296 Heavy Trucks 0 0 12 72 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 48 176
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:

Report generated on 1/19/2021 7:43 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Page 1 of 1 ends

Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume LOCATION: Devlin Rd -- S Kelly Rd QC JOB #: 15107126
CITY/STATE: Napa, CA DATE: Tue, Nov 5 2019
68 11
0 0 68
1 1 10 15
13 0.74 1
14 0 4 90
0 0 9
4 9
Peak-Hour: 4:00 PM -- 5:00 PM
Peak 15-Min: 4:00 PM -- 4:15 PM

14.7 45.5
0 0 14.7
100 100 40 40

7.7 100

14.3 0 25 13.3
0 0 11.1
25 11.1
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
N/A

N/A N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A N/A
N/A
R* = RTOR
15-Min Count
Period
Beginning At
Devlin Rd
(Northbound)
Devlin Rd
(Southbound)
S Kelly Rd
(Eastbound)
S Kelly Rd
(Westbound) Total Hourly
Totals Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* 4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 36
4:15 PM 0 0 2 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 26
4:30 PM 0 0 4 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 26
4:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 18 106 5:00 PM 0 1 10 0 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 30 100 5:15 PM 0 0 3 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 26 100 5:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 19 93
5:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 80
6:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 54
6:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 31
6:30 PM 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 18
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 16
Peak 15-Min
Flowrates
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Total Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* Left Thru Right U R* All Vehicles 0 0 8 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 4 24 0 0 144 Heavy Trucks 0 0 0 12 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 8 32
Buses
Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scooters
Comments:

Report generated on 1/19/2021 7:43 AM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212

Page 1 of 1 ends

www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
WB 21.7% 0.88
NB 9.6% 0.75
Peak Hour: 7:45 AM 8:45 AM
HV %: PHF
EB 49.1% 0.79
Date: 02-21-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 7:00 AM 9:00 AM

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Green Island Rd Green Island Rd Paoli Loop Rd 0
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB - -
TOTAL 23.9% 0.90
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 24 17 0 9 38

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
0 6 38 0 0 25
0 0 0 121 0
7:15 AM 0 0 13 18
0 0 31 0 2 0
0 0 0 112 0
7:45 AM 0 0 11 10
0 0 45 0 0 0
102 0
7:30 AM 0 0 10 13 0 9 35
0 2 0 0 0 0
140 475
8:00 AM 0 0 13 12 0 8 49
0 12 52 0 0 53 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 9 49 0 0 29
0 0 0 117 471
8:15 AM 0 0 15 21
0 0 35 0 0 0
0 0 0 123 506
8:45 AM 0 0 9 12
0 0 40 0 4 0
126 495
8:30 AM 0 0 16 16 0 4 43
0 3 0 0 0 0
0 10 33 0 0 26 0 4 0 0 0 0 94 460
Count Total 0 0 111 119 0 67 337 0 0 0 935 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 55
0 0 284 0 17 0
42 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0
0 506 0
HV 0 0 18 38 0 7
59 0 33 193 0 0 157 0 9 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - - 33% 64% - 21% 22% - - 10% - 0% - - - - 24%
0 0
7:15 AM 13 10 3 0 26 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
7:00 AM 10 5 1 0 16 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
7:45 AM 8 9 0 0 17
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 7:30 AM 13 11 4 0 28 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:15 AM 17 12 7 0 36 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:00 AM 13 17 6 0 36 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:45 AM 12 10 3 0 25
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 8:30 AM 18 11 3 0 32 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hr 56 49 16 0 121 0 0
Count Total 104 85 27 0 216 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
N
Paoli Loop Rd
Green Island Rd
Green Island Rd
Paoli Loop Rd
Green Island Rd
TEV: 506
PHF: 0.9
193
33 226
64 0
9 157
92 166
0 59
55 114
350
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 2407 www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Green Island Rd Green Island Rd Paoli Loop Rd 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 16 0
7:15 AM 0 0 2 11
0 0 0 0 1 0
TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 2 8 0 0 5

UT LT TH RT UT LT
26 0
7:30 AM 0 0 5 8 0 1 10
0 1 9 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 2 7 0 0 0
0 0 0 28 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 8
0 0 4 0 0 0
0 0 0 36 107
8:15 AM 0 0 5 12
0 0 6 0 0 0
17 87
8:00 AM 0 0 5 8 0 1 16
0 0 0 0 0 0
36 117
8:30 AM 0 0 8 10 0 1 10
0 3 9 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4 6 0 0 2
0 0 0 32 121
8:45 AM 0 0 5 7
0 0 3 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 25 129
0 0 0 216 0
Peak Hour 0 0 18 38
Count Total 0 0 32 72 0 13 72 0 0 23 0 4 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
121 0
Interval
Start
Green Island Rd Green Island Rd Paoli Loop Rd 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 7 42 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0
0 0
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 2408 www.idaxdata.com
to
to
Two-Hour Count Summaries
Note: Two-hour count summary volumes include heavy vehicles but exclude bicycles in overall count.

Total
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
WB 22.6% 0.81
NB 20.4% 0.76
Peak Hour: 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
HV %: PHF
EB 4.5% 0.77
Date: 02-21-2019
Peak Hour Count Period: 4:00 PM 6:00 PM

UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Green Island Rd Green Island Rd Paoli Loop Rd 0
15-min
Total

UT LT TH RT
SB - -
TOTAL 10.2% 0.81
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 49 43 1 10 11

UT LT TH RT UT LT
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
0 7 12 0 0 11
0 0 0 140 0
4:15 PM 0 0 55 39
0 0 20 0 6 0
0 0 0 173 0
4:45 PM 0 0 35 31
0 0 16 0 18 0
131 0
4:30 PM 0 0 80 42 0 11 6
0 7 0 0 0 0
117 561
5:00 PM 0 0 46 31 0 8 6
0 13 13 0 0 17 0 8 0 0 0 0
0 4 9 0 0 6
0 0 0 111 532
5:15 PM 0 0 17 14
0 0 14 0 6 0
0 0 0 91 375
5:45 PM 0 0 32 11
0 0 10 0 6 0
56 457
5:30 PM 0 0 38 23 0 8 6
0 6 0 0 0 0
0 4 10 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 66 324
Count Total 0 0 352 234 1 65 73 0 0 0 885 0
Peak
Hour
All 0 0 219
0 0 102 0 58 0
15 0 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 57 0
0 561 0
HV 0 0 6 11 0 4
155 1 41 42 0 0 64 0 39 0 0 0
0 Interval
Start
Heavy Vehicle Totals Bicycles Pedestrians (Crossing Leg) EB WB NB SB Total
HV% - - 3% 7% 0% 10% 36% - - 31% - 3% - - - - 10%
0 0
4:15 PM 4 8 2 0 14 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
West North South
4:00 PM 5 5 8 0 18 0
EB WB NB SB Total East
4:45 PM 2 5 6 0 13
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 4:30 PM 6 1 5 0 12 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:15 PM 1 3 3 0 7 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:00 PM 5 4 2 0 11 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 4 4 1 0 9
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:30 PM 5 4 2 0 11 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
Peak Hr 17 19 21 0 57 0 0
Count Total 32 34 29 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
Paoli Loop Rd
Green Island Rd
Green Island Rd
Paoli Loop Rd
Green Island Rd
TEV: 561
PHF: 0.81
42 41 84
259
1 64
39 196
103
0 155
219 374
106
0 Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 2409 www.idaxdata.com
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Heavy Vehicles
Two-Hour Count Summaries - Bikes
Note: U-Turn volumes for bikes are included in Left-Turn, if any.

Northbound Southbound

UT LT TH RT UT LT TH RT
Interval
Start
Green Island Rd Green Island Rd Paoli Loop Rd 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound Westbound
0 0 0 18 0
4:15 PM 0 0 2 2
0 0 8 0 0 0
TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 2 3 0 0 5

UT LT TH RT UT LT
14 0
4:30 PM 0 0 2 4 0 1 0
0 3 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 5 0 0 6
0 0 0 12 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 2
0 0 4 0 1 0
0 0 0 11 50
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
13 57
5:00 PM 0 0 3 2 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 0
7 43
5:30 PM 0 0 2 3 0 1 3
0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4 0 0 1
0 0 0 11 42
5:45 PM 0 0 1 3
0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 9 38
0 0 0 95 0
Peak Hour 0 0 6 11
Count Total 0 0 13 19 0 5 29 0 0 28 0 1 0
Westbound Northbound Southbound

LT TH RT LT TH RT LT
57 0
Interval
Start
Green Island Rd Green Island Rd Paoli Loop Rd 0
15-min
Total
Rolling
One Hour Eastbound
0 4 15 0 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

TH RT LT TH RT
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Manager: (415) 310-6469 [email protected] 2410 Day: City: American Canyon
Date: Project #: CA21_080110_001n
Time # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 Total 00:00 AM 0000000000000 0
01:00 0000000010000 102:00 0000000000000 003:00 0000000000000 004:00 0200000010000 305:00 0100010000000 206:00 0310220020000 10 07:00 0131100040000 1008:00 0481700010000 2109:00 0 3 15 1 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3010:00 0770400150000 2411:00 0870200030000 2012:00 PM 1 53 11 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6913:00 0 9 14 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2514:00 0 15 12 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3215:00 0 15 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2016:00 1960200020000 2017:00 0 19 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2918:00 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1219:00 0300000010000 4 20:00 0610000010000 821:00 0 34 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 22:00 0000100000000 1
23:00 0100000000000 1
2 204 103 3 33 4 2 31 382
1% 53% 27% 1% 9% 1% 1% 8% 100%
0 29 41 324 3 0 120 0 0 0 0121
8% 11% 1% 6% 1% 0% 5% 32%
11:00 09:00 07:00 09:00 06:00 10:00 10:00 09:00 815 1 8 2 1 5 30
2 175 62 0 9 1 0 111 0 0 0 0261
1% 46% 16% 2% 0% 0% 3% 68%
12:00 12:00 13:00 13:00 14:00 14:00 12:00 12:00
1 53 14 2 1 1 4 69
Directional Factor % #REF! 69 Directional Peak Hr for Day 12:00 Peak Hr % 18 06 AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
31 8% 94 25% 49 13% 208 54%
1 Motorcycles 4 Buses 7 > =4‐Axle Single Units 10 >=6‐Axle Single Trailers 13 >=7‐Axle Multi‐Trailers2 Passenger Cars 5 2‐Axle, 6‐Tire Single Units 8 <=4‐Axle Single Trailers 11 <=5‐Axle Multi‐Trailers3 2‐Axle, 4‐Tire Single Units 6 3‐Axle Single Units 9 5‐Axle Single Trailers 12 6‐Axle Multi‐Trailers % PM
% AM
% of Totals
AM Peak Hour
AM Volumes
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Tuesday
Delvin Rd Bet. Kelly Rd & Middleton Wy
PM Volumes
Totals
PM Peak Hour

CLASSIFICATION
Directional Peak Periods
All Classes
Classification Definitions
North Bound
6/22/2021
VolumeVolume
2411
Day: City: American Canyon
Date: Project #: CA21_080110_001s
Time # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 Total 00:00 AM 0000000000000 0
01:00 0000000010000 102:00 0000000010000 103:00 1 37 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 41 04:00 0800000000000 8
05:00 0 17 12 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 35
06:00 0 15 11 0 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3407:00 0 12 10 0 11 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3508:00 0881600010000 2409:00 0 13 5 0 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 2710:00 0850100040000 1811:00 0 9 10 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2512:00 PM 0 42 15 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6013:00 0340510010000 1414:00 0121200000000 6 15:00 0750200020000 16
16:00 1440300010000 1317:00 0631100010000 1218:00 0200100010000 4 19:00 0320000000000 520:00 0400000010000 521:00 0100100000000 222:00 0000000000000 023:00 0100000000000 1 2 201 98 3 48 4 1 30 387
1% 52% 25% 1% 12% 1% 0% 8% 100%
1 127 63 132 3 0 121 0 0 0 0249
0% 33% 16% 0% 8% 1% 0% 5% 64%
03:00 05:00 08:00 07:00 06:00 09:00 09:00 03:00 37 12 111 2 1 4 41
1 74 35 216 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0138
0% 19% 9% 1% 4% 0% 2% 36%
16:00 12:00 12:00 14:00 13:00 13:00 12:00 12:00
1 42 15 1 5 1 2 60
Directional Factor % #REF! 60 Directional Peak Hr for Day 12:00 Peak Hr % 15 50 AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
59 15% 74 19% 25 6% 229 59%
1 Motorcycles 4 Buses 7 > =4‐Axle Single Units 10 >=6‐Axle Single Trailers 13 >=7‐Axle Multi‐Trailers2 Passenger Cars 5 2‐Axle, 6‐Tire Single Units 8 <=4‐Axle Single Trailers 11 <=5‐Axle Multi‐Trailers3 2‐Axle, 4‐Tire Single Units 6 3‐Axle Single Units 9 5‐Axle Single Trailers 12 6‐Axle Multi‐Trailers All Classes
Classification Definitions
Tuesday
Volume
PM Volumes
% PM
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Directional Peak Periods
Totals
% of Totals
AM Volumes
% AM
AM Peak Hour
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services

CLASSIFICATION
Delvin Rd Bet. Kelly Rd & Middleton Wy
6/22/2021
South Bound
2412
Day: City: American Canyon
Date: Project #: CA21_080110_001n
Time # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 Total 00:00 AM 0010000000000 1
01:00 0000000000000 002:00 0000000000000 003:00 0100000000000 104:00 0000000000000 005:00 0101000010000 306:00 0100100000000 207:00 0110100030000 608:00 0871640020000 28 09:00 0 1 13 3 13 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 3610:00 0290100000000 1211:00 0 11 8 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2612:00 PM 1 60 10 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 7713:00 0 13 11 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3014:00 0 17 15 0 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4015:00 0 16 3 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2416:00 1 10 6 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2117:00 0 13 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1918:00 0310000000000 4 19:00 0200000000000 220:00 0600000010000 721:00 0 48 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 22:00 0100000010000 2
23:00 0110000010000 3
2 216 100 8 31 14 1 28 1 401
0% 54% 25% 2% 8% 3% 0% 7% 0% 100%
0 26 39 523 7 0 014 0 1 0 0115
6% 10% 1% 6% 2% 3% 0% 29%
11:00 09:00 09:00 09:00 08:00 09:00 09:00 09:00
11 13 3 13 4 5 1 36
2 190 61 3 8 7 1 014 0 0 0 0286
0% 47% 15% 1% 2% 2% 0% 3% 71%
12:00 12:00 14:00 12:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 13:00 12:00
1 60 15 1 3 2 1 3 77
Directional Factor % #REF! 77 Directional Peak Hr for Day 12:00 Peak Hr % 19 20 AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
34 8% 107 27% 40 10% 220 55%
1 Motorcycles 4 Buses 7 > =4‐Axle Single Units 10 >=6‐Axle Single Trailers 13 >=7‐Axle Multi‐Trailers2 Passenger Cars 5 2‐Axle, 6‐Tire Single Units 8 <=4‐Axle Single Trailers 11 <=5‐Axle Multi‐Trailers3 2‐Axle, 4‐Tire Single Units 6 3‐Axle Single Units 9 5‐Axle Single Trailers 12 6‐Axle Multi‐Trailers Directional Peak Periods
All Classes
Classification Definitions
AM Peak Hour
Volume
PM Volumes
% PM
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Totals
% of Totals
AM Volumes
% AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services

CLASSIFICATION
Delvin Rd Bet. Kelly Rd & Middleton Wy
Wednesday6/23/2021
North Bound
2413
Day: City: American Canyon
Date: Project #: CA21_080110_001s
Time # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 Total 00:00 AM 0010000000000 1
01:00 0000000000000 002:00 0000000000000 003:00 1 43 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 04:00 0410000000000 5
05:00 0 17 10 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 31
06:00 0 14 7 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2707:00 1 12 18 0 8 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 4708:00 0 10 2 3 12 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 3509:00 0830522030000 2310:00 0870522020000 2611:00 0 12 8 0 1 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2812:00 PM 0 48 10 1 2 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 6913:00 0480141030000 2114:00 0510121030000 1315:00 1532222000000 1716:00 0611100100000 1017:00 0541000000000 1018:00 0110000000000 2 19:00 0000000020000 220:00 0320000000000 521:00 0600100110000 922:00 0100000000000 123:00 0110000020000 4 3 213 90 9 46 22 16 2 31 432
1% 49% 21% 2% 11% 5% 4% 0% 7% 100%
2 128 59 438 11 10 017 0 0 0 0269
0% 30% 14% 1% 9% 3% 2% 4% 62%
07:00 03:00 07:00 08:00 08:00 11:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 1 43 18 312 3 2 4 47
1 85 31 5 811 6 214 0 0 0 0163
0% 20% 7% 1% 2% 3% 1% 0% 3% 38%
15:00 12:00 12:00 15:00 12:00 13:00 12:00 16:00 12:00 12:00 1 48 10224213 69
Directional Factor % #REF! 69 Directional Peak Hr for Day 12:00 Peak Hr % 15 97 AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
82 19% 90 21% 20 5% 240 56%
1 Motorcycles 4 Buses 7 > =4‐Axle Single Units 10 >=6‐Axle Single Trailers 13 >=7‐Axle Multi‐Trailers2 Passenger Cars 5 2‐Axle, 6‐Tire Single Units 8 <=4‐Axle Single Trailers 11 <=5‐Axle Multi‐Trailers3 2‐Axle, 4‐Tire Single Units 6 3‐Axle Single Units 9 5‐Axle Single Trailers 12 6‐Axle Multi‐Trailers Directional Peak Periods
All Classes
Classification Definitions
AM Peak Hour
Volume
PM Volumes
% PM
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Totals
% of Totals
AM Volumes
% AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services

CLASSIFICATION
Delvin Rd Bet. Kelly Rd & Middleton Wy
Wednesday6/23/2021
South Bound
2414
Day: City: American Canyon
Date: Project #: CA21_080110_001n
Time # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 Total 00:00 AM 0000000000000 0
01:00 0000000000000 002:00 0000000000000 003:00 0000000000000 004:00 0000000000000 005:00 0200000020000 406:00 0321100000000 707:00 0120000000200 508:00 0 14 9 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 29 09:00 0 5 14 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2810:00 0281300020200 1811:00 0 14 7 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2612:00 PM 0 67 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 7813:00 0 5 12 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 2514:00 0 23 15 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4315:00 0 10 6 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1916:00 1960200010000 1917:00 0930000030000 1518:00 0950000010000 1519:00 0320000010000 6 20:00 0610000010000 821:00 0 47 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 22:00 0010000000000 1
23:00 0000000000000 0
1 229 108 5 28 2 22 7 402
0% 57% 27% 1% 7% 0% 5% 2% 100%
0 41 42 318 0 0 0 9 0 4 0 0117
10% 10% 1% 4% 2% 1% 29%
08:00 09:00 06:00 09:00 11:00 07:00 08:00
14 14 1 8 4 2 29
1 188 66 210 2 0 013 0 3 0 0285
0% 47% 16% 0% 2% 0% 3% 1% 71%
16:00 12:00 14:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 13:00 13:00 12:00
1 67 15 1 4 2 3 2 78
Directional Factor % #REF! 78 Directional Peak Hr for Day 12:00 Peak Hr % 19 40 AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
34 8% 103 26% 34 8% 231 57%
1 Motorcycles 4 Buses 7 > =4‐Axle Single Units 10 >=6‐Axle Single Trailers 13 >=7‐Axle Multi‐Trailers2 Passenger Cars 5 2‐Axle, 6‐Tire Single Units 8 <=4‐Axle Single Trailers 11 <=5‐Axle Multi‐Trailers3 2‐Axle, 4‐Tire Single Units 6 3‐Axle Single Units 9 5‐Axle Single Trailers 12 6‐Axle Multi‐Trailers Directional Peak Periods
All Classes
Classification Definitions
AM Peak Hour
Volume
PM Volumes
% PM
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Totals
% of Totals
AM Volumes
% AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services

CLASSIFICATION
Delvin Rd Bet. Kelly Rd & Middleton Wy
Thursday6/24/2021
North Bound
2415
Day: City: American Canyon
Date: Project #: CA21_080110_001s
Time # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 Total 00:00 AM 0000000000000 0
01:00 0000000000000 002:00 0000000000000 003:00 0 45 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 04:00 1800000000000 9
05:00 0 16 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
06:00 0 15 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2507:00 0 13 15 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 4008:00 0 17 12 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3609:00 1940600030000 2310:00 1640200010200 1611:00 0 11 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1912:00 PM 0 53 7 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6713:00 0 1 11 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2014:00 0 7 12 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2415:00 0441100010000 1116:00 0410100020000 8 17:00 0340100030000 11
18:00 0321010000000 7
19:00 0421000000000 720:00 0400000000000 421:00 0310000000000 422:00 0000000010000 123:00 0000000000000 0 3 226 100 5 45 2 21 7 409
1% 55% 24% 1% 11% 0% 5% 2% 100%
3 140 56 132 0 0 0 8 0 5 0 0245
1% 34% 14% 0% 8% 2% 1% 60%
04:00 03:00 07:00 07:00 07:00 09:00 07:00 03:00
1 45 15 1 8 3 2 48
0 86 44 413 2 0 013 0 2 0 0164
21% 11% 1% 3% 0% 3% 0% 40%
12:00 14:00 12:00 14:00 13:00 12:00 13:00 12:00
53 12 1 4 1 3 2 67
Directional Factor % #REF! 67 Directional Peak Hr for Day 12:00 Peak Hr % 16 38 AM 7‐9 NOON 12‐2 PM 4‐6 Off Peak Volumes Volume % Volume % Volume % Volume %
76 19% 87 21% 19 5% 227 56%
1 Motorcycles 4 Buses 7 > =4‐Axle Single Units 10 >=6‐Axle Single Trailers 13 >=7‐Axle Multi‐Trailers2 Passenger Cars 5 2‐Axle, 6‐Tire Single Units 8 <=4‐Axle Single Trailers 11 <=5‐Axle Multi‐Trailers3 2‐Axle, 4‐Tire Single Units 6 3‐Axle Single Units 9 5‐Axle Single Trailers 12 6‐Axle Multi‐Trailers Directional Peak Periods
All Classes
Classification Definitions
AM Peak Hour
Volume
PM Volumes
% PM
PM Peak Hour
Volume
Totals
% of Totals
AM Volumes
% AM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services

CLASSIFICATION
Delvin Rd Bet. Kelly Rd & Middleton Wy
Thursday6/24/2021
South Bound
2416
Truck Proportion Comparison
Daily AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr
Total Number of Vehicles 3,360 192 240
Number of Trucks 528 48 24
Percent Trucks 15.7% 25.0% 10.0%
Avg Number of Vehicles 804.3 372.0 432.3
Avg of Trucks 159.7 59.7 11.3
Percent Trucks 19.9% 16.0% 2.6%
Vehicle Volumes/Percentages
Project Trip Generation
June 22‐24, 2021 Comparison
Counts on Devlin Road
Description Category
2417
2418
C Traffic Impact Study for the Giovannoni Logistics Center July 2021
Appendix C
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix I:

Utilities and Service Systems Supporting Information
2461

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2462
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
I.1 - Water Supply Assessment
2463

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2464
DRAFT Water Supply Assessment for the
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
September 2021
Prepared for:

Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

Prepared by:
2465

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i
September 21, 2021
A REPORT PREPARED FOR:

Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 900
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 379-88-74
[email protected]
by
DRAFT

Denise Tu, E.I.T.

Fluvial Geomorphologist/Engineer
DRAFT

Scott Brown, P.G.

Principal Hydrologist/Geologist
© 2021 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Project Assignment: 220230
800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2800 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] 2466

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
< This page intentionally left blank >
2467

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 Regulatory Background 2

1.2 Project Location 3

1.3 Existing Conditions 5

1.4 Proposed Project 5
2 WATER SUPPLY 8

2.1 State Water Project 8

2.1.1 Table A Allocation 8

2.1.2 Article 21 8

2.2 Water from the City of Vallejo 9

2.2.1 Vallejo Permit Water (Raw) 9

2.2.2 Vallejo Treated Water (Potable) 10

2.2.3 Vallejo Emergency Water (Raw) 10

2.3 Groundwater 10

2.4 Other Sources of Potable Supply 11

2.4.1 Dry-Year Water Bank 11

2.4.2 Turn-back Water Pool Program 11

2.4.3 Napa Treated Water 11

2.4.4 Dry Year Transfer Program 11

2.4.5 Yuba Accord 12

2.5 Recycled Water 12

2.5.1 American Canyon Recycled Water 12

2.5.2 Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water 13
3 WATER DEMAND 14

3.1 Project Demand 14

3.1.1 Potable Water 14

3.1.2 Recycled Water 16

3.2 Project Demand Comparison to UWMP 16

3.2.1 Potable Water 17

3.2.2 Recycled Water 18

3.3 System-wide Demand 18

3.3.1 Recent Actual System Demand 18
2468

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT iv Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

3.3.2 Projected System Demand 20
4 SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON 22

4.1 Potable Water 22

4.1.1 Normal Year 23

4.1.2 Single Dry Year 23

4.1.3 Multiple Dry Years 24

4.2 Potable Water Deficiency Resolution 27

4.2.1 SWP Carryover Water 27

4.2.2 Advanced Table A Program 28

4.2.3 Drought-year Demand Reductions 31

4.2.4 Open Market Purchases 32

4.3 Recycled Water 32

4.4 Summary 33
5 ZERO WATER FOOTPRINT POLICY 35

5.1 Project ZWF Compliance 35

5.2 City-wide Compliance 35
6 LIMITATIONS 36
7 REFERENCES 37
2469

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. v

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Current Sources of water supply for American Canyon 9 Table 2 Estimated water demand for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, American Canyon, California 16
Table 3 Estimated water demand compared to assumptions within the 2015 American Canyon UWMP 17
Table 4 Recent potable and recycled water usage for American Canyon 19 Table 5 Projected potable, recycled, and total water demand for American Canyon through 2040, as presented in the 2015 UWMP 21
Table 6 Supply reliability for various American Canyon water sources 22 Table 7 Projected water supply for American Canyon for various year types 25 Table 8 Comparison of potable and recycled water supply and demand under various year-type scenarios. 26
Table 9 Recent SWP carryover water supply for the City of American Canyon 28 Table 10 Potable water deficiency resolution for dry- and multi-dry-year scenarios. 30 Table 11 Projected drought-year demand savings 32
Table 12 Summary of potential recycled water demand, by sector 33

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Project Location 4
Figure 1-2 Proposed Project 6
Figure 1-3 Existing and Planned Recycled Water System for the City of American Canyon, California 7
Figure 3-1 Potable and Recycled Water Demand vs. Actual Water Use 20

APPENDICES
Appendix A Potable water demand estimates by CBG Engineers Appendix B Suisun Logistics Center Potable Water Demand Estimates by RAK Engineers 2470

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Giovannoni Logistics Center (“Project”) in the City of American Canyon in Napa County, California, is a proposed light industrial project. The Project is bounded by the Napa Logistics Park and Devlin Road to the north, Green Island Road and warehouses to the south, Green Island Road Business Park to the west, and Union Pacific Railroad/Napa Branch Line to the east. The Project is broken up into two construction phases. Phase 1 is the eastern portion of the project including two warehouses with roughly 1.1 million square feet of warehouse space. Phase 2 is the western portion of the project with conceptually up to 1.3 million square feet of similar uses.

This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) presents the proposed potable and recycled water use for the Project, and assesses the potential impact to citywide supply and demand projections through the year 2040 for the City of American Canyon. The Project would be served by water provided by the City of American Canyon. Phase 1 is estimated to use up to 10.8 acre-feet per year (afy) of potable water to serve the two warehouses at the site, and up to 37.1 afy of recycled water, predominantly for landscape irrigation. Phase 2 is estimated to use up to 13.1 afy of potable water for warehouses and up to 45.0 afy of recycled water for landscape irrigation.

The Project will use less potable water over the long-term than was assumed in the demand analysis in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the project site (133.3 afy less). In addition, compliance with the City’s Zero Water Footprint policy would offset the Project’s potable demand through off-site implementation of project-funded water conservation measures of up to 23.9 afy. The citywide supply/demand analysis in this WSA anticipates sufficient supply in all normal years, but shortfalls in water supply during dry-year scenarios in 2035 and 2040, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 UWMP.

State Water Project carryover water is anticipated to be available in amounts great enough to accommodate these deficiencies. In addition, the City may choose to make use of other options available, including Advanced Table A Water, drought demand restrictions, or water purchases on the open market. As such, adequate supply is projected to be available under all planning scenarios.

The City produces recycled water to meet demand and, along with recycled water supplied by the Napa Sanitation District, has sufficient long-term supply capacity to meet projected demand both at the project site and throughout the City’s service area. 2471

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 2 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
1 INTRODUCTION
This report analyzes the projected water supply and demand for the Giovannoni Logistics Center (Project) in the City of American Canyon in Napa County, California.

The Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is intended to support environmental planning documentation for the Project, which includes approximately 2.4 million square feet of warehouse space.

1.1 Regulatory Background
Section 10910 of the California Water Code (as revised by Senate Bill 610, or SB610) requires: “The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, “…[to] identify a water system…that may supply water for the project,” and to prepare a WSA to address the increased water use over existing conditions. The WSA is intended to:

1. Identify the water system or systems that would (or may) supply water to the project;

2. Compare project water demands with those projections included in the mostrecently adopted Urban Water Management Plan or Plans for those service providers; and

3. Assess whether the public water system’s total projected water availability for the entire system(s) during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year period will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system’s existing and planned future uses (including agricultural and manufacturing uses).

Within this assessment, California Water Code Section 10910(4)(d) requires a discussion of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the public water system(s). Also, Section 10910 (2)(f) requires that “If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment: (1) a review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project (2) a description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied.”
2472

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 3
The proposed Project is a logistics warehouse complex on approximately 208 acres with

2.4 million square feet of warehouse space. Section 10912(a) of the California Water Code outlines the types of projects requiring a Water Supply Assessment, including:
 “A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.” As such, the Project requires a WSA. See Section 3.1 for a discussion of estimated water demand for the Project.

Water supply for the proposed project would be served by the City of American Canyon (“City”). Water sources available to the City are discussed in Section 2. The City prepared a 2015 Urban Water Management (UWMP) (Kennedy Jenks, 2016) that projected water supply and demand within the service district through 2040. While the Project was not explicitly named in the 2015 UWMP, the UWMP did generally account for projected increases in demand associated with expected development in the city limits of American Canyon, including the parcel for the Project. Section 3.2 discusses the differences in potable and recycled water demand of the proposed project area compared to the assumed demand. Section 4 compares the system-wide supply and demand for the City to assess whether there is sufficient supply to support existing water uses, the Project, and other planned future uses through 2040.

1.2 Project Location
The Project is located in the northern portion of the City of American Canyon in Napa County, California. The proposed development is bounded by the Napa Logistics Park and Devlin Road to the north, Green Island Road and warehouses to the south, Green Island Road Business Park to the west, and Union Pacific Railroad/Napa Branch Line to the east. The Project is broken up into two construction phases. Phase 1 is the eastern portion of the project including two warehouses, roughly 1.1 million square feet of warehouse floor space. Phase 2 is the western portion of the project with conceptually up to 1.3 million square feet of warehouse space.
2473

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 4 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Figure 1-1 Project Location
2474

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 5

1.3 Existing Conditions
The project site is currently undeveloped parcels composed generally of mix grasses and several seasonal wetlands. Most of the seasonal wetlands on the proposed project site are located on the northern edges of the parcel and will be left as a wetland/mitigation preserve outside the development footprint of the project.

1.4 Proposed Project
The proposed project entails developing 208-acres for light industrial uses constructed in two phases. Phase 1 is the 94.7-acre area east of Devlin Road extension, including two warehouses, totaling roughly 1.1 million square feet, associated impervious surfaces, stormwater facilities, and wetland preservation areas. Phase 2 is the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road, and would conceptually include up to 1.3 million square feet of warehouse space and associated infrastructure. In total the Project would develop 161 acres, leaving 47 acres as open space, including the northern portion of the project site adjacent to No Name Creek. Figure 1-2 shows the proposed project layout, as described in the Project’s Stormwater Control Plan (Balance, 2021)1.

Potable water supply for the Project will be served by the City of American Canyon, and landscape irrigation will be supplied by recycled water, also from the City, via water infrastructure installed within Devlin Road extension. Laterals would extend from Devlin Road water lines to project warehouses (Figure 1-3).

1 Note that only Phase I is shown in the figure. Phase II is being evaluated at a programmatic level, and thus specific site plans for this portion of the site have not yet been completed. It is expected that the site would include warehouses, similar to Phase I, with up to 1.3 million square feet of floor space.
2475

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 6 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Figure 1-2 Proposed Project
2476

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 7
Figure 1-3 Existing and Planned Recycled Water System for the City of American Canyon, California. As reported in the City of American Canyon Recycled Water Master Plan, 2016.

Devlin Road Extension
Project Site
2477
8 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 2 WATER SUPPLY
American Canyon obtains its water supply from a variety of sources, all of which (except for recycled water) are imported from outside of the City. All of the City’s imported water comes through the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) system. The following sections summarize the various sources of water for American Canyon (see also Table 1). These descriptions were summarized from American Canyon 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP; Kennedy Jenks, 2016).

2.1 State Water Project
A significant portion of the City’s supply is obtained through various indirect contracts for water from the State Water Project (SWP). The Napa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is the State Water Contractor with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and the City receives its water through subcontracts with the District.

2.1.1 TABLE A ALLOCATION
In January 1967, the American Canyon County Water Agency 2 entered into an agreement with the District for water supply from the North Bay Aqueduct. In 2010, the agreement allowed for the delivery of up to 5,200 acre-feet of water per year

3. This
contract runs through 2035 with provisions for extension. The actual amount of SWP water available to the City under the “Table A” allocation process (the method used by DWR to allocate water in the SWP system) varies from year to year due to hydrologic conditions, water demands of other contractors, SWP facility capacity, and environmental/regulatory requirements. Deliveries have varied between 5% (in 2014) and 100% (last occurring in 2017) of the contracted amount.

2.1.2 ARTICLE 21
Article 21 is a long-term water supply contract with DWR. This contract varies each year depending on excess water in the Delta, excess water not allocated for other purposes 2 A predecessor agency to the City of American Canyon, which wasn’t incorporated until 1992. 3 500 AF of this water was obtained through a purchase of water, by the Napa Sanitation District, from Kern County Water Agency in 2000.
2478

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 9
or water deliveries, and the capacity within the City’s own system to store the Article 21 purchased water.

Table 1 Current Sources of water supply for American Canyon

2.2 Water from the City of Vallejo
In 1996, the City entered into an agreement with the City of Vallejo to allow the purchase of additional water supply. Vallejo receives its water from a variety of sources, including SWP water and an appropriative water right. Under the Vallejo Agreement, a specific source is identified for Permit Water supply (see Section 2.2.1, below), but not for Treated or Emergency Water (Sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3).

2.2.1 VALLEJO PERMIT WATER (RAW)
Vallejo holds an appropriative right for Sacramento Bay-Delta water from the State Water Resources Control Board that pre-dates the construction of the SWP. The City has an agreement with Vallejo for delivery of up to 500 acre-feet of water under this permit. This source of water is more reliable than the City’s Table A supply, but the Vallejo Agreement still allows for reductions. Addendum 2 to the 1996 Vallejo Agreement states that “In the event the State Water Resources Control Board, or any other agency, restricts Vallejo’s Source
Contracted
Volume/Capacity (afy)
State Water Project ('Table A' allotment)1 5,200
Vallejo Permit (Raw) Water2 500
Vallejo Treated Water
(2011-2015) 2,074
(2016-2021) 2,640
(2021-onward) 3,206
Vallejo Emergency (Raw) Water 3 500
Groundwater 4 0
American Canyon Recycled Water 5 1,271
Napa Sanitation District Recycled Water 591
Notes:
1 Includes allottment for American Canyon and additional supply from Kern County Water Agency. 2 Non-Table A water.
3 Available only in dry years.
5 As reported in 2015 UWMP . Maximum capacity of City's recycled water treatment system by 2035 4 No groundwater is used for City-wide supply
2479

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 10 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
diversion of water [under the appropriative pre-SWP contract] for any reason whatsoever, American Canyon’s diversions will be reduced in the same proportion”. As such, the City may not receive its full allotment during dry years4.

2.2.2 VALLEJO TREATED WATER (POTABLE)
In 1996, the City entered into an agreement with Vallejo to purchase up to 629 acre-feet of potable treated water supply. This agreement included the option for additional (cumulative) purchases in 5-year increments through 2021. Ultimately, this results in a total of 3,206 acre-feet of treated water available for purchase each year by the City from Vallejo for 2021-2040.

A specific source for Treated Water is not identified in the Vallejo Agreement; thus, the ultimate source of this water is a blend of all of Vallejo’s water sources. Under certain conditions, the maximum delivery of this supply may be “reduced in the same proportions as any reduction to Vallejo customers inside the Vallejo City limits”5.

2.2.3 VALLEJO EMERGENCY WATER (RAW)
When the City’s Table A water allotment is curtailed, the City has the option to purchase up to 500 acre-feet of emergency raw water supply from Vallejo, under an agreement amended in 1996. The 2015 UWMP assumes that this water would be available under a dry-year and multiple-dry-year scenarios, but not during a normal year.

2.3 Groundwater
The City of American Canyon does not currently rely on groundwater as a source of water, though the 2015 UWMP states that the City remains open to the possibility and will consider potential supply opportunities as they present themselves. The Project will not be using groundwater sources and therefore detailed information on groundwater outlined in Section 10910(f) of the California Water Code is not required for this Water Supply Assessment.

4 Vallejo Permit Water delivery was curtailed in both 2014 and 2015, for example. However, the City received its full allotment before the curtailment took effect. 5 Vallejo Water Service Agreement, May 1, 1996 (Appendix E.4 in the 2005 American Canyon UWMP).
2480

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 11

2.4 Other Sources of Potable Supply

2.4.1 DRY-YEAR WATER BANK
In 2009, the City (along with other SWP contractors) entered into an agreement with DWR to obtain emergency supplies if rice farmers in the Sacramento Valley are willing to make their supplies available. The year-to-year availability of this supply is not known, and thus supplies are not factored into long-term planning in the 2015 UWMP.

2.4.2 TURN-BACK WATER POOL PROGRAM
DWR has a program for interested SWP contractors called the Turn-back Water Pool Program. SWP contractors may choose to sell Table A water or purchase turn-back pool water that is available through the program. Water from this pool program was not included in the reliability assessment in the 2015 UWMP because the program operates on an as-available basis and long-term availability is not reliable. The amount of pool water available to the City is not a significant amount. For example, during 2010 the City purchased 17 acre-feet, and in 2012 it purchased 64 acre-feet. However, between 2015- 2020 the City did not purchase any water from the Turn-back Pool Program.

2.4.3 NAPA TREATED WATER
The City has an agreement with the City of Napa for the purchase of treated (potable) water under emergency conditions, or when the NBA system is offline for maintenance or other reasons. This water source is not a water supply and is not included in the reliability assessment in the 2015 UWMP since it is only available during emergencies.

Napa treated water, however, does provide operational flexibility (such as providing water to customers even when the City’s water treatment plant is off-line for an extended period of time). During 2010, the City purchased 306 acre-feet of treated water when the plant was off-line for maintenance-related issues. Under this informal arrangement, the Napa treated water purchase counts against the City’s SWP Table A allotment and is not an additional supply (and is not included in Table 1).

2.4.4 DRY YEAR TRANSFER PROGRAM
During dry years, varying amounts of additional water may be made available to SWP contractors through DWR’s Dry Year Transfer Program, which allows for transfers through a combination of crop idling, groundwater substitution and changes in reservoir operation. For example, in 2015 the City of American Canyon purchased 92 af of additional supply (for that year) through this program. While this option is available to the 2481

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 12 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

City on a per-year authorization, the long-term reliability of this supply is not known and included only as potential supplementary supply for the analysis in this WSA.

2.4.5 YUBA ACCORD
In 2008, DWR adapted the Lower Yuba River Accord, an agreement to settle issues related to in-stream flows in the Yuba River and fisheries habitat. As part of that agreement, DWR is able to purchase water from the Yuba River Water Agency to, in part, offer to participating SWP contractors as a transfer during dry years. The Napa County FCWCD has authorized the execution of Yuba Accord Dry-year Water Purchase Agreement, and the City has the option to purchase water through this agreement in dry years, though at a cost that is considerably higher than under normal conditions. In 2015, the City authorized the purchase of 124 af through this program in response to cover projected water supply shortfalls during the drought. While this option is available to the City in drought conditions, the availability and reliability of such water past 2020 is unknown6, and therefore has not been included as long-term reliable supply for the analysis in this WSA.

2.5 Recycled Water

2.5.1 AMERICAN CANYON RECYCLED WATER
In 2010, the City completed the first phase of its Recycled Water Distribution System Project, which included a one-million-gallon reservoir, distribution piping, and associated improvements at the City’s water treatment plant. Initially, 13 users were connected to the system and 73 acre-feet of water was delivered in 2010. Ultimately, the Recycled Water Master Plan in 2016 projected over 1,200 acre-feet of water demand at build-out in 2035 for landscaping and agricultural irrigation. However, utilization of this supply is dependent on connection of additional users and completion of additional distribution pipe segments. Currently, the City produces recycled water to meet demand on an asneeded basis.

The City is currently taking steps to increase capacity of their system to meet this demand in the future. The analysis in this WSA uses 1,271afy as the full system capacity by 2035, as reported in the 2015 UWMP.

6 The original term of the NCFCWCD agreement was through the end of 2015, but an amendment in 2014 authorized an extension until the end of 2020.
2482

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 13

2.5.2 NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER
In addition to the City’s recycled water supply, Napa Sanitation District (NSD) has an existing recycled water supply pipe that extends to northern portions of the Airport Industrial Area (north of Fagan Creek). In 2015, NSD provided 210 acre-feet of recycled water to the City’s users. The 2015 UWMP projected that NSD will provide up to 391 acrefeet of recycled water in 2020, up to 491 acre-feet in 2025, and 591 acre-feet in 2030 and onwards.
2483

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 14 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
3 WATER DEMAND
The following section summarizes the anticipated potable- and recycled-water demand for the proposed Project, and compares the anticipated demand of the Project to demand assumptions in the 2015 UWMP for those parcels. Section 3.3 discusses systemwide demand for the City.

3.1 Project Demand
As described in Section 1.4, the proposed Project contains two warehouse buildings for Phase I, and additional warehouse buildings as part of Phase II. In addition, the Project will include associated landscaping areas that will require seasonal irrigation. The wetland preservation area is not expected to require supplemental water after the establishment of mitigation wetlands.

3.1.1 POTABLE WATER
Potable water demand for the Project was estimated by CBG Engineers (see Appendix A) based on demand factors contained in the 2016 City of American Canyon Potable Water Master plan, and is summarized in Table 2. These estimates were calculated using an average day demand of 0.015 gpd/sf which is the average water use across all the industrial sector and believed to be an overly high estimate of water use for this project7.

Therefore, revised potable water use projections for the Project were calculated using averages from other similar commercial warehouse projects with more in-depth water demand estimates and/or metered water usage, as further discussed below.

The Napa Airport Corporate Center (NACC) is an industrial warehouse development just North of the Project in the City of American Canyon. Multiple industrial warehouse buildings are planned in this development (buildings B, D, E, G, and H). Details of the water demand estimates are reported in the NACC Water Supply Assessment report (Balance Hydrologics, 2015), with an estimated average day demand of 0.006 gpd/sf8 .

Similarly, Suisun Logistics Center is a planned industrial warehouse project in Fairfield, California also owned and operated by Buzz Oates. That project used water meter data from similar Buzz Oates developments in Fairfield to project anticipated potable water

7 Warehouse space typically uses less water than most other industrial uses that often include industrial process water in addition to the water needed to supply employees (sinks, bathrooms, etc.).
8 Building A of the NACC project is considered mix-used and was left out of the average day demand calculation for the industrial warehouse water demand estimates. 2484

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 15
demand. Using actual water use from four industrial developments, Suisun Logistics Center average day demand is estimated at 0.01 gpd/sf (Appendix B). In order to provide a more realistic estimate of potable water demand for the Giovannoni Project, we averaged various demand rates described above (CBG, NACC, and Suisun Logistics Center), resulting in an average day demand of 0.009 gpd/sf. This revised average day demand was used to calculate a revised potable water use for the Project and is summarized in Table 2. We estimate the total potable water demand of the project at build-out to be 23.9 afy (15.9 afy less than the usage originally estimated by CBG Engineers).

For the purposes of this WSA, all indoor water demand is assumed to be from potable water. The applicant has not indicated that recycled water would be used for nonpotable indoor uses, though that would remain an option to further reduce potable water demand at the site, should the applicant choose9. Table 2 shows the estimated potable water demand for each building of the Project.

9 The applicant is required to offset potable demand through implementation of the City’s Zero Water Footprint policy (see Chapter 5). Use of recycled water for non-potable indoor uses would reduce the amount of the offset needed. However, because the applicant has not indicated this option, this WSA assumes all indoor water use will be from potable supply in order to provide a conservatively high estimate of potable water use.
2485

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 16 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Table 2 Estimated water demand for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, American Canyon, California

3.1.2 RECYCLED WATER
The Project is proposing to use recycled water for all irrigation needs. Estimated recycled water use within the project is summarized in Table 2. The current project plans do not have estimates for the area of irrigated landscaping. We approximated Project irrigation water demand by applying the average ratio of 0.604 between irrigated area and building footprint from the neighboring NACC project (Balance Hydrologics, 2015), with a demand factor of 2.5 acre-feet/acre (from Table 3.13 in the 2010 UWMP). These irrigation demand estimates may be high if the Project plans to landscape with xeric or native plant species that have lower-than-typical irrigation needs.

The recycled water usage estimates in Table 2 are intended to be used for environmental planning documentation. Actual use per building may vary based on final site plans, but total use is expected to be consistent with (or less than) these assumptions. As stated above, all non-potable indoor water use is anticipated to be served by potable supply, though the option remains open to serve with recycled water, should the applicant choose.

3.2 Project Demand Comparison to UWMP
The following sections compare the current estimates of water demand for the Project to those assumed for that parcel in the 2015 UWMP.

Project feature
Building
floor area
Potable
water use1
Revised
potable water
Recycled water
use3
Total water
use
(sq. ft.) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy)
Building A - Phase 1 601,383 10.1 6.1 20.8 30.9
Building B - Phase 1 468,521 7.9 4.7 16.2 24.1
Phase 2 1,300,000 21.8 13.1 45.0 66.9
Total 2,369,904 39.8 23.9 82.1 121.9
Notes:
2 Revised potable water use estimates based on average day demand of 0.009 gpd/sf. This is an average generated from three commerical water demand estimates.
1 cbg project estimate based on average day demand of 0.015 gpd/sf from American Canyon Potable Water Master Plan. See Appendix A for details.
3 Recycled water will be used for all landscape irrigation. Recycled water should be available to the project. Recycled demand estimated using demand factors from Table 3.13 in the 2010 UWMP. 2486

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 17

3.2.1 POTABLE WATER
In order to project future system-wide water demand for the 2015 UWMP, the standard demand factors from the 2010 UWMP were used along with a variety of growth-rate estimates for various land-use sectors. For the commercial/industrial sector, the City analyzed the acreage of vacant land zoned for those uses, and applied a water use factor of 675 gallons/day/acre (gpd/ac) to each parcel. The project’s demand has been incorporated into long-term projections under an assumption of a build-out use of 675 gpd/ac (0.76 afy per acre).

Table 3 compares the estimated project demand with the assumptions for the parcel included in the 2015 UWMP. Due to relatively low water-use of warehouse space compared to industrial-sector averages, the incorporation of recycled water for irrigation purposes, and the designation of a portion of the site for wetland preservation that will not require supplemental water supply, the Project is expected to use 133.3 afy less water than expected under the 2015 UWMP growth scenario. Implementation of the City’s Zero Water Footprint Policy (see Chapter 5) would result in an additional 23.9-acre-foot reduction in potable water demand relative to the UWMP system-wide demand analysis.

Table 3 Estimated water demand compared to assumptions within the 2015 American Canyon UWMP
UWMP1 Project2 Difference ZWF offset3 UWMP4 Project5
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy)
Phase 1 71.6 10.8 -60.9 -10.8 … 37.1
Phase 2 85.6 13.1 -72.5 -13.1 … 45.0
Total 157.2 23.9 -133.3 -23.9 82.1
Notes:
4 UWMP did not project irrigation demand on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Because Project irrigation will be supplied by recycled water, comparison against projections in the UWMP is not necessary.

Recycled Water
5 Irrigated landcape; from Table 2.
2 From Table 2.
3 Required project compliance with the City's Zero Water Footprint policy. The Project will offset potable water use through implentation of various items from the City's "toolbox". 1 Commerical demand factors, 2010 UWMP, Table 3.13.

Potable Water
2487

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 18 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

3.2.2 RECYCLED WATER
The American Canyon UWMP assumes irrigation use to be 2.5 acre-feet of water per acre of landscaping, but (unlike for potable demand) did not project recycled water demand associated with particular parcels anticipated for development. Because recycled water use offsets demand for potable (or raw imported) water and it is in the City’s best interest to maximize use of recycled water, the Project’s recycled water demand is assessed relative to the recycled-water demand goals outlined in the UWMP.

The 2016 Recycled Water Master Plan showed a delivery of 248 acre-feet for an existing 21 users between August 2013 and July 2014. In 2019, 282 acre-feet10 of recycled water was delivered to customers which is still below the projected 391 acre-feet of recycled water in 2020. This Project would add an estimated 82.1afy of recycled water demand (see Table 3, above).

3.3 System-wide Demand

3.3.1 RECENT ACTUAL SYSTEM DEMAND
The 2015 UWMP provides a comprehensive assessment of anticipated future water demand that included projections for both potable11 and recycled water for 2015-2040.

However, actual water usage between 2015 and 2020 differed from what was projected in the UWMP, suggesting that demand patterns for 2015-2040 may be different as well.

Table 4 shows the actual water usage within the City’s distribution area since the 2015 UWMP was completed, as well as the interpolated yearly demand based on the projections in the UWMP. Figure 3-1 highlights these recent trends. Since 2015, potable water demand has been much lower than that anticipated in the UWMP.

10 From the Napa Valley Wine Insider Digest, August 2021. Napa County recycled water was used at record levels amid the recent drought. Balance did not have access to reliable annual data since the 2015 UWMP was released.
11 Raw water used for agricultural irrigation is included as part of potable demand in the UWMP. 2488

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 19
Table 4 Recent potable and recycled water usage for American Canyon 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy)
Total potable water use1 2,968 2,572 2,558 2,667 2,418 2,665 Total projected potable water demand
(2015 UWMP)2 2,976 3,062 3,148 3,233 3,319 3,405
Total City recycled water use3 180 na na na 282 na
Total projected recycled water demand
(2015 UWMP) 385 509 634 758 883 1,007
Total water usage (actual) 3,148 2,572 2,558 2,667 2,700 2,665 Total projected water demand (2015
UWMP) 3,361 3,571 3,781 3,992 4,202 4,412
Notes:
1 Actual water usage from Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District SWP delivery accounting tables (provided by the City) plus agricultural raw water. Agricultural raw water use estimated to remain at 2015 level (56 AFY) through 2020, then be reduced to zero thereafter.
2 Linear interpolation of 2015 usage and UWMP projected potable water demand for 2020. 3 Actual recycled water usage, 2015 value obtained from the 2015 UWMP, 2019 value obtained from Napa Valley Wine Insider Digest, all other values not readily available.
2489

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 20 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Figure 3-1 Potable and Recycled Water Demand vs. Actual Water Use

3.3.2 PROJECTED SYSTEM DEMAND
Projected Demand (2015 UWMP)
The 2015 UWMP projected future demand on a parcel-by-parcel basis relative to expected growth under the City’s general plan. The analysis assumed that recycled water would be available to meet a portion of the total demand, with the remainder supplied by potable water. Table 5 shows the water demand as presented in the 2015 UWMP.
2490

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 21
Table 5 Projected potable, recycled, and total water demand for American Canyon through 2040, as presented in the 2015 UWMP
Unbilled Water Losses
The UWMP assumed that unbilled water losses12 would be 7.5 percent for each year between 2020-2040. This is consistent with standards adopted by the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), which provides that systems that experience greater than 10-percent losses annually undergo a water audit. In 2015, water delivery and water-use records indicate that system losses were 22 percent. The City is currently undertaking an aggressive response to the situation by replacing leaky services and water mains to reduce system loss. The City assumed it would reduce system losses to 7.5 percent of the total potable and raw water deliveries by 2020. In 2015, the City replaced more than 120 segments of residential services lines as part of its program to reduce distribution system losses.

12 Referred to as “Unaccounted-for System Losses” in the UWMP, and “system losses” elsewhere in this WSA.
2015 5 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy)
Projected potable water demand
(UWMP) 1 2345 3,150 3,350 3,606 3,862 4,131
Projected potable system losses (UWMP) 2 631 255 272 292 313 335 Recycled water demand (UWMP) 3 385 1,007 1,146 1,351 1,862 1,862 Total water demand (UWMP)4 3,361 4,412 4,768 5,249 6,037 6,328 Notes:
5 Actual values for 2015 presented in 2015 American Canyon UWMP, Tables 4-2. All other values are projected values. 1 From 2015 American Canyon UWMP, Tables 4-3, excluding system losses. 2 From 2015 American Canyon UWMP, Tables 4-3, system losses only 3 From 2015 American Canyon UWMP, Tables 4-10
4 Sum of potable demand, system losses, and recycled water demand, consistent with Table 4-10 in the 2015 2491

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 22 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
4 SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON
This section compares future City-wide water demand, to anticipated available supply under ‘normal year,’ ‘single dry year,’ and ‘multiple dry year’ scenarios. The scenarios presented herein have been summarized from the 2015 UWMP analysis for City-wide system planning.

The following analysis addresses potable and recycled water separately, as recycled water supply is considered reliable (and available at 100 percent of capacity) under all year-types. Reliability of potable water varies by year type as a percentage of contracted amount, as shown in Table 6 and further described below.

Table 6 Supply reliability for various American Canyon water sources. Assumed percent of contracted amount for various year-type scenarios.

4.1 Potable Water
Table 7 summarizes available potable water supply under ‘normal year’, ‘single dry year’, and ‘multiple dry year’ scenarios. As outlined in Section 2, the City’s potable water supply relies exclusively on imported water, both from the SWP and through the City of Vallejo.

A percentage of the full contracted amount is assumed for each source type under each scenario (Table 6, above). These percentages are based on guidance by DWR, analysis in the City’s UWMP and the Vallejo UWMP. Resulting supply volumes for each source 2021-2040
Source
Contracted or Available VolumeNormal YearSingle Dry YearDry year 1Dry year 2Dry year 3 SWP (Table A allotment) 5,200 62% 5% 22% 22% 22%
Vallejo Permit Water 1 500 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Vallejo Treated Water 1 Varies 2 100% 80% 80% 80% 80%
Vallejo Emergency Water 1 500 0% 100% 100% 100% 80%
Groundwater 3 n/a -- -- -- -- --
American Canyon Recycled Water n/a4 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Notes:
1 Percentages from 2015 UWMP, Table 7-4, 7-5, 7-6
2 Contracted amount is 2,074 in 2015, 2,640 in 2020, and 3,206 2021-onward. 3 Groundwater is not a source for City-wide supply.
4 Recycled water is produced to meet demand; ultimately, maximum production capacity of City's recycled water system is expected to be 1,000 afy.

Year Type
2492

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 23
under the various scenarios through 2040 are shown in Table 7. The supply and demand for potable water for each of the year-types is discussed below13.

4.1.1 NORMAL YEAR
In a ‘normal year’, the City’s 2015 UWMP assumes ‘Table A’ SWP deliveries would be 62 percent of the total contracted amount. Treated water from Vallejo water and raw Vallejo Permit water are assumed to be 100 percent available in normal years, consistent with the 2015 UWMP.

The UWMP concluded that future supply is available to meet anticipated demand in normal years through build-out in 2035, as does the analysis in this WSA (Table 8). Excess supply in normal years ranges from a low of 2,653 in 2040 to a high of 3,497 afy in 2025.

4.1.2 SINGLE DRY YEAR
Under the “single-dry-year” scenario, the 2015 UWMP assumed SWP Table A deliveries to be curtailed to 5 percent of the contracted amount (see Table 7 and Table 8).

As discussed in Section 2.2, all water from Vallejo is considered a more reliable source than the City’s SWP supply. The 2015 UWMP assumes that raw Vallejo Permit Water is available at 100 percent and Treated Vallejo Water are available at 80 percent of the contracted amount during single dry years. In addition, the full allotment of raw Vallejo Emergency Water (500 acre-feet) would be available under dry-year conditions. The analysis herein uses these same assumptions.

The 2015 UWMP shows that single-dry-year supply is not significantly currently constrained and the City will be able to reliably meet potable demand until the year 203014. Singledry-year deficiencies are anticipated starting in 2035 (Table 8). The City has several options available to resolve dry-year supply deficiencies, as described in Section 4.2.

13 The analysis does not include adjustments for reduced demand of the Project relative to the assumptions in the UWMP for that parcel. As discussed in 3.2, the Project is expected to use 133.3 afy less than anticipated for those parcels in the UWMP, and will fund ZWF demand offsets of approximately 23.9 afy. Other recently completed projects or projects currently in the planning process may also affect projected demand, but have not been included in this analysis. 14 Slight deficiencies are shown for dry-year supply in 2020 and 2030, but only by less than 2% of the total supply.
2493

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 24 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

4.1.3 MULTIPLE DRY YEARS
The multiple-dry-year scenario, as described in the UWMP, consists of three consecutive years of reduced water deliveries, though none are reduced to the same degree as the single-dry-year scenario 15 . The UWMP assumed that SWP Table A water would be reduced to 22 percent of the contracted amount for each of three years (see Table 7 and Table 8).

Raw Permit water are assumed to be available at 100 percent, and Treated water from Vallejo are assumed to be available at 80 percent of the contracted amount for years 1, 2, and 3 of the multi-year drought following the assumptions in the 2015 UWMP. Vallejo Emergency water is assumed to be available at the full contracted amount (500 acrefeet) for each of the three years of a multi-year drought, consistent with the 2015 UWMP.

The 2015 UWMP projects that water supply will exceed demand during a three-year drought through the full 2040 planning period (Table 8).

15 The reference period used for the multi-dry-year scenario in the UWMP is the drought from 1990- 1992. From a planning perspective, the UWMP assumed that a three-year drought is unlikely to include the “single dry-year” scenario.
2494

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 25 2021-2040 2015 Source
Contracted or
Available
Volume
Actual
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
SWP (Table A allotment) 5,200 1,953 3,224 260 1,144 1,144 1,144 3,224 260 1,144 1,144 1,144 3,224 260 1,144 1,144 1,144 3,224 260 1,144 1,144 1,144 3,224 260 1,144 1,144 1,144SWP (Article 21) Varies 72 189 0 124 124 124 189 0 124 124 124 189 0 124 124 124 189 0 124 124 124 189 0 124 124 124Vallejo Permit Water 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Vallejo Treated Water
Varies 102 2,640 2,112 2,112 2,112 2,112 3,206 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 3,206 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 3,206 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 3,206 2,565 2,565 2,565 2,565 Vallejo Emergency Water
500 387 0 500 500 500 400 0 500 500 500 400 0 500 500 500 400 0 500 500 500 400 0 500 500 500 400 Total Potable 6,200 3,014 6,553 3,372 4,380 4,380 4,280 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 American Canyon Recycled Water
n/a2 180 616 616 616 616 616 655 655 655 655 655 760 760 760 760 760 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271 1,271 NSD Recycled Water Varies3 210 391 391 391 391 391 491 491 491 491 491 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 591 Total
Recycled
- 390 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 Total Supply - 3,404 7,560 4,379 5,387 5,387 5,287 8,265 4,971 5,979 5,979 5,879 8,470 5,176 6,184 6,184 6,084 8,981 5,687 6,695 6,695 6,595 8,981 5,687 6,695 6,695 6,595 Notes:1 Contracted amount is 2,074 in 2015, 2,640 in 2020, and 3,206 2021-onward.2 Recycled water is produced to meet demand; ultimately, maximum production capacity of City's recycled water system is expected to be 1,000 afy.3 Projected deliveries from NSD to the northern Airport Industrial Area. Does not include demand for the Montalcino Resort, as that amount will not affect City-wide demand. 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Table 7 Projected water supply for American Canyon for various year types 2495

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 26 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. See Table 15 for resolution of potable supply-demand deficiencies. 2015 Source Acutal
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) Total potable supply1
3,014 6,553 3,372 4,380 4,380 4,280 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 7,119 3,825 4,833 4,833 4,733 Potable demand2 2,345 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,405 3,622 3,622 3,622 3,622 3,622 3,898 3,898 3,898 3,898 3,898 4,175 4,175 4,175 4,175 4,175 4,466 4,466 4,466 4,466 4,466 Potable
supply
minus
demand
669 3,148 -33 975 975 875 3,497 203 1,211 1,211 1,111 3,221 -73 935 935 835 2,944 -350 658 658 558 2,653 -641 367 367 267 Recycled water supply3
390 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 Recycled water demand4
385 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,007 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,146 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,351 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 1,862 Recycled
supply
minus
demand
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Notes:1 From Table 7.2 Projected potable normal-year demand, from Table 5 .3 From Table 74 From Table 5 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Table 8 Comparison of potable and recycled water supply and demand under various year-type scenarios. 2496

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 27

4.2 Potable Water Deficiency Resolution
The above analysis compares potable water supply and normal-year demand, and projects supply shortages in several of the ‘dry-year’ and ‘multi-dry-year’ planning scenarios. This section describes a series of options available to the City to eliminate those shortfalls in order to provide reliable supply. Estimated SWP carryover water (see Section

4.2.1) would be sufficient to eliminate dry-year supply shortfalls, and could also be used in combination with drought demand reductions to further improve supply reliability.

4.2.1 SWP CARRYOVER WATER
If the City does not use its entire allotment of Table A water in a given year, the remaining water will carry-over to the following year, assuming there is adequate storage in SWP reservoirs to contain the excess supply16. Between 2015 and 2020, the City has stored between 35 and 2,600 acre-feet of carry-over water in a given year (Table 9), which has helped to meet demand during recent dry years. Because of the variability of carryover supply and the periodic “re-set” of the accounting when reservoirs are full, it is not considered a consistent yearly supply for planning purposes, but it does allow the City extra flexibility during droughts. As such, we have incorporated carry-over water into the analysis in this WSA.

We assume that 1,156 acre-feet of carryover water, the average over the last six years (Table 9), would be available at the beginning of a dry year and the first year of a multiyear drought. Projected excess normal-year supply ranges from 2,653 to 3,497 acre-feet for 2020-2040 (see Table 8), suggesting that the 1,156 acre-feet is a reasonable and somewhat conservative estimate for planning purposes17. In the second and third year of a multi-year drought, we assume that the remaining carry-over supply (assuming there is any) would continue to carry over to subsequent years to supplement supplies.

16 In years when SWP reservoirs spill, the carry-over water is released, effectively re-setting carryover accounting to zero. Typically, however, ample storage is available in dry years. 17 By definition, a single-dry-year would follow a normal or wet year, as would the first year of a three-year drought.
2497

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 28 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Table 9 Recent SWP carryover water supply for the City of American Canyon.

Values from Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District SWP delivery accounting tables (provided by the City).

For example, in Single Dry Year scenario for 2035, 1,156 acre-feet would be available to meet the supply deficit of -350 acre-feet (from Table 8). The difference (806 af) would be available if there was another drought year. Under the above assumptions, the City would be able to meet projected supply deficiencies under all dry- and multi-dry-year scenarios within the planning period (2015-2040) through the use of available carry-over water.

4.2.2 ADVANCED TABLE A PROGRAM
A recent court settlement (Area of Origin Settlement18, 2014), clarifies another potential mechanism for the Napa County FCWCD, the Solano County Water Agency, and Yuba City (along with subcontractors to those agencies, which includes American Canyon) to obtain water during dry periods. The Advanced Table A Program allows these agencies to ‘borrow’ against future SWP deliveries during times when annual deliveries are not sufficient to meet demand. The agreement requires that all Table A and Table A Carryover water be used prior to utilizing the Advanced Table A Program, but under those circumstances the City could request an advance of up to 949 af from future years’ Table A allotments.

The projections in Table 10 do not rely on the use of the Advanced Table A Program water to meet dry-year demand, as estimated Table A Carryover is enough to cover supply deficiencies for all scenarios. However, this Program provides an important tool available

18 Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2008-000016338- CU BC GDS.
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Mean
Table A deliveries (% of
total contract amount)1 25% 75% 100% 50% 85% 20% 59%
Available carryover water
(remaining from previous
year, in afy)1
876 1,087 127 2,210 35 2,600 1,156
Notes:
1 From Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District SWP delivery accounting tables (provided by the City).
2498

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 29
to the City should unforeseen circumstances result in significantly lower-than-expected carryover.
2499

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 30 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 2015 Source
Actual
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
Normal Year
Single Dry Year
Dry year 1
Dry year 2
Dry year 3
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) Potable
supply
minus
demand 1
669 3,403 222 1,230 1,230 1,130 3,769 475 1,483 1,483 1,383 3,513 219 1,227 1,227 1,127 3,257 -37 971 971 871 2,988 -306 702 702 602 Estimated
Table A
carryover
water 2
-- -- 1,156 1,156 2,386 3,616 -- 1,156 1,156 2,639 4,122 -- 1,156 1,156 2,383 3,610 -- 1,156 1,156 2,127 3,098 -- 1,156 1,156 1,858 2,560 "Advanced
Table A"
water 3
-- -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 Demand
savings
through drought
restrictions 4
-- -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Open market
water
purchases 5
-- -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adjusted supply minus demand6
669 3,403 1,378 2,386 3,616 4,746 3,769 1,631 2,639 4,122 5,505 3,513 1,375 2,383 3,610 4,737 3,257 1,119 2,127 3,098 3,969 2,988 850 1,858 2,560 3,162 Notes:1 From Table 8
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
3 When the City exhausts its supply of carryover water, the City can "borrow" against future SWP deliveries, up to 949 af. Projected water shortages can be met solely through carryover supply, so no Advanced water is projected to be needed to meet demand. 4 The City may chose to offset supply deficiency through demand reduction (drought restrictions) during dry periods. All supply deficiencies are projected to be satisfied through carryover water; restrictions are not likely to be required, but remain an option for the City, if needed; see Table 11 for projected estimated volume for drought conservation savings. 5 The City also has the option to purchase additional water on the open market. While not required to meet long-term supply deficiencies the City may chose to use this option during droughts, 6 Supply minus demand from above, plus additional supply available through carryover, "Advanced Table A", demand savings, and open market purchases.2 Table A water not used in the prior year may be used in the following year, assuming storage is available; estimated from previous six years of carryover availability (see Table 9). Assume 1,156 af available in a dry year and the first year of a multi-year drought. Remaining carryover after the first year of a drought is available in the second year, and remaining water after the second year is available in the third year of a drought.

The table shows that all dry-year deficiencies can be met through carry-over water. In addition, the City has several other options available to help meet supply shortages during droughts.

Table 10 Potable water deficiency resolution for dry- and multi-dry-year scenarios. 2500

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 31

4.2.3 DROUGHT-YEAR DEMAND REDUCTIONS
It is important to note that the demand projections in the 2015 UWMP (as well as for the analysis in this WSA) were not explicitly adjusted for voluntary or mandatory water-use reduction measures that may be implemented in response to drought conditions19. The City has a Water Shortage Contingency Plan that outlines four stages of water demand reduction measures that could be utilized when water supply is constrained due to environmental or other conditions. The City projects demand reductions of 10/20/30/50 percent corresponding to each of the tiers, beginning with voluntary actions at Tier 1, and moving to increasingly restrictive mandatory measures for Tiers 2-4.

On June 1, 2021, in response to on-going statewide drought conditions, the City declared a Stage 1 drought emergency that called for a voluntary reduction from residential and commercial customers compared to the previous year. On July 20, 2021, the City declared a Stage 2 drought emergency, enacting mandatory water-use restrictions, requiring all water customers to reduce their water use by 20%. As of the end of August, 2021, water conservation measures have resulted in an 18 percent decrease from residential customers and 13 percent decrease from commercial customers.

Because estimated carryover water was sufficient to satisfy projected shortages, the supply and demand analysis in Table 10 does not account for drought-year demand reduction. However, the City may choose to use these measures to provide additional flexibility during droughts. Assuming drought reductions of 13 percent, similar to what was achieved in 2014, the City could be expected to reduce demand in future years ranging between 305 af in 2015 and 537 af in 2040 (Table 11). While these volumes would not solely eliminate projected dry-year shortages, these measures could be used in conjunction with the above measures to provide additional buffer, as needed, if other supplies are unexpectedly curtailed. Stronger restrictions (level 3 or 4), could be used to achieve greater reductions if necessary, but are not likely to be needed.

19 For the purposes of the UWMP and this WSA, demand is assumed to be the same in normal- and dry-year scenarios for a given planning period.
2501

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 32 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.

Table 11 Projected drought-year demand savings. Estimated drought conservation volume (potable demand reduction) that could be used during future droughts to help the City manage supply shortages.

Volumes based on 13% savings achieved between 2013 and 2014.

4.2.4 OPEN MARKET PURCHASES
As discussed in Section 2.4 the City has the option to purchase additional water from a variety of other sources on an as-needed and as-available basis. These potential purchases were not considered as a reliable long-term supply for the purposes of this WSA, though the City could choose to purchase additional supply in dry years when normal supplies are constrained. In fact, the City chose to utilize this option in 2015, and purchased 216 af of additional supply through the Dry Year Transfer and Yuba Accord Programs. As with the above options, Open Market Purchases can provide additional operational flexibility for the City during dry periods when other supplies are reduced.

4.3 Recycled Water
As discussed in Section 2.5, the City’s recycled water system has a supply capacity of up to 1,271 acre-feet per year by 2035, and NSD has agreed to provide up to 591 acre-feet to supply the northern portion of the Airport Industrial Area (which is located within the City’s water service area). Practically, however, the City produces recycled water to meet demand, as shown in Table 8 (above). Because recycled water is derived from wastewater that is: 1) less susceptible to fluctuation due to climatic conditions, and 2) available in excess of the capacity of the recycled water system, recycled water is assumed to be 100 percent available during single- and multi-year-drought scenarios.

Table 8 presents recycled water supply versus demand for the 2015-2040 planning period under various year-type scenarios. Because recycled water use offsets water that would otherwise be delivered from limited potable or imported-water supply, it is in the City’s 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy)
Projected normal-year
potable demand1 2,345 3,150 3,350 3,606 3,862 4,131
Estimated drought
conservation volume2 305 410 436 469 502 537
Notes:
1 From Table 5
2 13% of potable demand.
2502

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 33
best interest to maximize recycled water use by way of increasing the number of recycled water users tied into the system.

The projections for recycled water use in the 2015 UWMP were, in effect, operational goals to maximize recycled water use. The UWMP projected 1,862 acre-feet of recycled water use by 2035. Recent recycled water use has been much lower than projected in the UWMP. For example, in 2019 water demand was projected to be about 883 AF, but the City only used 282 AF of recycled water. The City expects a significant expansion in the recycled water delivery system by 2035, allowing full use of the system by that time.

Recycled water demand by sector is shown in Table 12.

Table 12 Summary of potential recycled water demand, by sector

4.4 Summary
In summary, the analysis in this WSA shows that the City’s water supply is sufficient to meet projected demand, in all years and under all normal-, dry, and multi-dry-year scenarios.

The analysis shows that demand will exceed supply during some dry years, but the City will still be able to meet demand through the use of carryover SWP water, or through some combination of carryover SWP water, Advanced Table A Water, demand Utility land-use classification
Potable offset
demand1 Buildout demand2
(afy) (afy)
Single-family residential -- 22.8
Multi-family residential -- 41.8
Commercial 3.4 49.7
Industrial 4.7 209.9
Institutional/Governmental 101.9 127.4
Landscape 69.4 119.5
Open Space -- --
Watson Ranch -- 253.2
Recreation -- 204.3
Agricultural 68.1 173.2
Total 247.5 1,201.9
Notes:
2 Buildout demand for Institutional/Gonvernmental assumes the American Canyon High School will halve existing demand by fixing suspected leaks in the irrigation system. 1 Adapted from GHD, 2016, Table 14. Projected demand used in the WSA analysis (Table 6) are lower than the numbers shown here in order to provide a conservative estimate of future demand. 2503

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 34 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
reductions, and/or additional purchases on the open market. In addition, recycled water supply in the City is available to meet existing and projected demand, and available in sufficient volume to support non-potable uses at the Project site. Use of recycled water at the site will increase the City’s utilization of this supply. 2504

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 35
5 ZERO WATER FOOTPRINT POLICY
In October 2007, the City adopted a policy to regulate water use for new development.

Under this Zero Water Footprint (ZWF) policy, new accounts are required to offset the proposed project’s potable water use through off-site water conservation measures, conversion of off-site potable irrigation to recycled water, on-site demand reduction (relative to existing use), or by acquiring additional supply. The City has provided a list of potential conservation, repair, and other projects within the service area that could be used as offsets for new service accounts. In 2011, the City adopted an additional policy that further refined the offset options available to meet the ZWF requirements.

5.1 Project ZWF Compliance
The proposed Project is required to comply with the City’s ZWF policy, and will offset all of its potable water demand. The Project will offset its potable water demand by implementing several items off of the City’s offset “toolbox”, likely to include a combination of off-site landscape irrigation water conversion and conversion of existing potable water customers.

Anticipated potable water use for the Project, once completed, would be 23.9 afy. ZWF offset totals will be required to be at least that amount.

5.2 City-wide Compliance
On the whole, compliance with the City’s ZWF policy should essentially result in no net increase in potable water demand20 as new projects are built within the City’s water distribution area. The effect of this policy was not explicitly accounted for in the long-term potable demand projections in the 2015 UWMP or for this WSA. However, two of the main ways that projects can reach compliance with the ZWF policy would be through funding conversion of irrigated landscape areas to recycled water, and improving the efficiency of the City’s water distribution system (reducing system losses). The analysis in this WSA has included projections of both recycled water system expansion and reduced potable water losses that would, at least in part, be funded through implementation of the ZWF policy.

20 Or alternatively, offset increases in demand with increased volume of reliable supply. 2505

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 36 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
6 LIMITATIONS
This technical report was prepared in general accordance with the accepted standardof-practice existing in Northern California at the time the analyses were performed. No other warranty is made or implied. Readers are asked to contact us if they have additional relevant information, or wish to propose revisions or modified descriptions of conditions, such that the best data can be applied at the earliest possible date. 2506

DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 37
7 REFERENCES
Balance Hydrologics, 2015, Water Supply Assessment for the Napa Airport Corporate Center Project, American Canyon, California. Report prepared for First Carbon Solutions.

Balance Hydrologics, 2021, Draft Stormwater Control Plan for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project – East. Report prepared for Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.

Brown, S., and Shaw, D., 2015, Water Supply Assessment for the Napa Airport Corporate Center Project, American Canyon, California. Prepared by Balance Hydrologics, Inc. for First Carbon Solutions, 87p.

GHD, 2016, City of American Canyon Recycled Water Master Plan. Report prepared for the City of American Canyon, dated May 2016, 96p.

Kennedy Jenks Consultants, 2016, Final 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Report prepared for the City of American Canyon, 153p.
2507

APPENDICES
2508

APPENDIX A
Potable water demand estimates by CBG Engineers
2509
Job No.: 2637-030
Land Use
Building Square
Footage
Average Day
Demand (gpd/sf)
Average Day
Demand (gpd) Max Day Factor
Max Day
Demand (gpd)
Peak Hour
Factor
Peak Hour
Demand (gpm)
Industrial 601,383 0.015 9,021 2.0 18,041 1.75 22
Industrial 468,521 0.015 7,028 2.0 14,056 1.75 17
Notes:

1. 2.

Design Criteria is based on the: City of American Canyon Potable Water Master plan dated, May 2016, and the City of American Canyon Engineering Standard Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements dated, May 1, 1995.

February 23, 2021

PRELIMINARY WATER DEMAND ESTIMATE

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER - EAST

AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA
Average Day Demand of 0.015 gpd/sf equates to 650 gpd/acre per the American Canyon Potable Water Master plan.

Proposed Flow
Description
Building A
Building B
P:\2600 - 2699\2637-030\Engineering\Water Demand\2637-30_Water Demand Estimates.xlsx Page 1 of 1 2510

APPENDIX B
Suisun Logistics Center Potable Water Demand
Estimates by RAK Engineers
2511
April 12, 2021
Mr. Paul Fuchslin
Director of Engineering
Solano Irrigation District
810 Vaca Valley Pkwy Suite 201
Vacaville, CA 95688
SUBJECT: Proposed Water Usage for the Suisun Logistics Center and Highway 12 Logistics Center Projects – Suisun City – CA.

The intent of this memo is to provide clarity as to the yearly anticipated water usage demand for both proposed Buzz Oates City of Suisun City projects (Suisun Logistics Center & Highway 12 Logistics Center).

High-Cube Warehouse and Distribution buildings are not a water-intensive use, especially when compared to other heavy industrial uses. Most of the water demand for High-Cube Warehouse and Distribution comes from landscape irrigation. Buzz Oates intends to minimize landscape irrigation, further reducing anticipated water demand.

We requested water meter data for similar buildings developed, constructed, owned, and operated by Buzz Oates from the City of Fairfield Water Department to provide accurate water usage loads.

Michael Hether, Assistant Public Works Director provided the attached usage data that spans approximately 5 years, 7 months. The annual acre-foot usage was calculated as an aggregate spanning the entire duration of building operation by utilizing the average daily usage data for domestic, irrigation, and fire suppression demands. Broken down, this equates to 0.29228 acre feet per year per developable acre of water demand.

Total water demand equals approximately +/-62 acre-feet when applied to the proposed City of Suisun City projects. See below breakdown. I have also attached the usage data provided by the City of Fairfield for reference.

Acre Feet Per
ADRESS Sq. Ft. Acres Yearly Acre Feet Developable Acre
2975 Cordelia Rd. 473,136 24.25 0.840132626
2925 Cordelia Rd. 318,402 18.73 10.05492075
2875 Cordelia Rd. 176,760 9.32 3.022470217
2825 Cordelia Rd. 36,950 3.99 2.534983094

56.29 16.45 0.29228
_____________________________________________________________________________________ Suisun Logistics Center 120 developable acres (x 0.29228) = 35.0736 Highway 12 Logistics Center 93 developable (x0.29228) = 27.182 TOTAL 62.255 ANTICIPATED YEARLY ACRE-FOOT
USAGE 2512
2513

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2514
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
I.2 - Hydrology Report
2515

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2516
Job No.: 2637-030
Acreage Q (gal/day) I/I (gal/day) Q (gal/day) Q (gpm) Q (cfs) d/D Downstream
Pipe Slope

34.7 86,750 14,100 152,900 106.2 0.237 0.36 0.5%

26.6 66,500 17,500 123,900 86.0 0.192 0.33 0.5%
Notes:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8

9. 10.

November 12, 2020

PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER SIZING CALCULATIONS

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER - EAST

AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA
Proposed Flow
The minimum pipe size for a public sanitary sewer main is 6".

Description
Building A
Buildings B
Sewers shall be sized to carry no greater than the design flow capacities of 75% for pipes 10" and smaller.

The n-value for new sewer pipe is 0.013.

All gravity sewers shall maintain a minimum velocity of 2.5 feet per second flowing full.

The minimum slope for 8" sewer pipe is 0.5%.

The maximum slope for gravity mains is 15%
Design Criteria is based on the: City of American Canyon Sanitary Sewer Master plan dated, May 2016, and the City of American Canyon Engineering Standard Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements dated, May 1, 1995.

The average acreage flow estimate for light industrial areas is 2500 Gal/Acre/Day The peak acreage flow estimate for light industrial areas is 4000 Gal/Acre/Day I/I is 4000 Gallons per inch diameter - mile per day
P:\2600 - 2699\2637-030\Engineering\Sewer\2637-30_SS Demand Estimates_East.xlsx Page 1 of 1 2517

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2518
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix J:

Travel Behavior Memorandum
2519

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2520
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.
2521
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 2 of 12 ends

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. 2522
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 3 of 12 ends

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. 2523
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 4 of 12 ends

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.
2524
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 5 of 12 ends

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
2525
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 6 of 12 ends

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. 2526
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 7 of 12 ends

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.
2527
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 8 of 12 ends

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. 2528
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 9 of 12 ends

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%
2529
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 10 of 12 ends

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.
2530
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 11 of 12 ends

Figure 3: Heavy-Duty Truck Inbound Distribution Pattern Figure 4: Heavy-Duty Truck Outbound Distribution Pattern 2531
Joe Livaich, Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.

June 16, 2022

Page 12 of 12 ends

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.
2532
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix K:

Fire Fiscal Impact Analysis
2533

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2534

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.
2535
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.
2536
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 2537
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 2538
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.
2539
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.
2540
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.
2541
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
2542
APPENDIX A:

General Assumption Tables
Table A-1 General Assumptions ..................................................... A-1 Table A-2 Project Land Uses and Estimated Persons Served ............... A-2 2543
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 2544
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 2545
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 2546
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 2547
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 2548
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 2549
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 2550
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 2551
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 2552
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 2553
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 2554
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 2555
APPENDIX D:

Supporting Table for Revenue- and
Expenditure-Estimating Tables
Table D-1 Project Assessed Valuation ............................................. D-1 2556
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 2557
2558
2559
2560
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix L:

Wildlife Hazard Assessment
2561

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2562
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. 2563
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.
2564
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
2565
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. 2566
Figure 1. Project Location
2567
Figure 2. Project Site Plan
2568
Figure 3. Impacted and Unimpacted Wetlands
2569
Figure 4. Proposed Mitigation Wetlands
Figure
2570
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. 2571
2022 Wildlife Hazard Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center
Photograph 3: Stormwater management channel located within the proposed Wetland Preserve Area. 2572
NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
FINAL
Environmental Impact Report–Volume 1
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: October 31, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1.EXHIBIT C1
2573

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2574
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Administrative Final EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/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................................................................................................3-1 Section 4: Responses to June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Comments...................... 4-1

4.1 - Introduction....................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 - List of Speakers and Authors..........................................................................................4-1

4.3 - June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ................................................4-1

4.4 - Responses to June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Comments......................4-5 Section 5: Errata.......................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 - Changes in Draft EIR .......................................................................................................5-1 List of Appendices
Appendix J: Travel Behavior Memorandum
Appendix K: Fire Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix L: Wildlife Hazard Assessment
List of Tables
Table 3-1: Proposed Mitigation Measure Feasibility Analysis...........................................................3-99 Table 3-2: Feasibility Analysis of Proposed Additional Mitigation Measures..................................3-293 2575

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2576
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (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 (Draft EIR). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR includes a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR; responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR; and errata, or revisions to the Draft EIR; as well as a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for use by the City of American Canyon during its review.

This document is organized into five sections:
• Section 1—Introduction. Provides an introduction to the Final EIR. • Section 2—Master Responses. Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a particular topic.
• Section 3—Responses to Written Comments. Provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals who commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of all of the letters received regarding the Draft EIR and responses thereto are included in this section. • Section 4—Responses to June 23, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting Comments. Provides a list of the speakers who commented on the Draft EIR, a summary of their comments, and responses thereto are included in this section.
• Section 5—Errata. Includes an addendum listing refinements and clarifications on the Draft EIR, which have been incorporated.

The Final EIR includes the following contents:
• Draft EIR (provided under separate cover)
• Draft EIR Appendices (provided under separate cover)
• Responses to Written Comments on the Draft EIR (Section 3), Responses to Planning Commission Meeting Comments (Section 4), and Errata (Section 5)
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (provided under separate cover) 2577

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2578
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx SECTION 2: MASTER RESPONSES
Master responses address similar comments made by multiple public agencies, businesses, organizations, or individuals 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.

The master responses are intended to provide thorough responses to all of the individual comments that raised the same issue or very similar issues.

2.1 - List of Master Responses
• Master Response 1—Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat • Master Response 2—New “North” Fire Station
• Master Response 3—Buildout Assumptions
• Master Response 4—Vehicle Miles Traveled

2.2 - Master Responses
Master Response 1—Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat Summary of Relevant Comments
Both the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and Scott Cashen stated that the proposed project would result in the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and this impact should be mitigated in accordance with CDFW mitigation guidelines. Mr. Cashen also provided similar comments about the loss of golden eagle foraging habitat. The CDFW noted that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) identifies that the proposed project would remove Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat but does not specify the acreage. The CDFW also stated that the approximately 45 acres of wetlands that would be preserved by the proposed project may not be sufficient to mitigate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, and the presence of suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat near the site does not negate the need to mitigate for permanent removal of foraging habitat for this species.

Response
Swainson’s Hawk
The development of Phase 1 would permanently impact approximately 68.8 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, and the development of Phase 2 would permanently impact approximately

85.9 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-24 acknowledges that development of the proposed project would remove some foraging area for this species, but also indicated that the proposed project would also provide and preserve in perpetuity approximately 45 acres of wetlands that would include habitat currently suitable for foraging by the Swainson’s hawk as indicated by the observation of a Swainson’s hawk foraging in the site in spring 2021. In addition, the Draft EIR acknowledges the Napa Logistics Park Project has preserved 37 acres of grassland and wetlands in perpetuity that provides foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and that there are several large open 2579
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR
2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx space preserves within 2 and 5 miles of the project site that, combined, provide approximately 2,000 acres of suitable foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk within a 10-mile radius of the project site.

This demonstrates that, based upon the limited number of known Swainson’s hawk to occur within a 10-mile radius of the project site, and with the acreage of existing foraging habitat currently protected, 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. Importantly, the operative significance thresholds for impacts to Swainson’s hawk are (i) whether the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on the species, either directly or through habitat modifications, or (ii) whether the proposed project would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of the species. 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, the proposed project would not cause either a substantial adverse effect on the species, a substantial reduction in its numbers, or a substantial restriction of its range. 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.)
CDFW’s Life History Account for the Swainson’s hawk indicates that this species feeds on small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, and soars and low and high levels in search of prey. The Life History Account also indicates that the Swainson’s hawk can be found in riparian habitat, sparsely vegetated flatlands, open desert, grassland, or cropland containing scattered large trees or small groves. In sum, Swainson’s hawk 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. The relatively small loss of foraging habitat on the project site would not affect the range of the species or cause the loss of substantial numbers of individual hawks.

Geoff Monk of Monk & Associates, one of the biological consulting firms that prepared the biological resources analysis, worked extensively with the Swainson’s hawk over four decades, and banded many nestlings of this species. The Swainson’s hawk is a California designated threatened species protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). To obtain known/recorded information for the occurrence of nesting Swainson’s hawk nearest the project site, Monk & Associates completed a record search in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). It should be noted that all species of Buteo frequently change nesting locations from year to year, and may reuse a nest site in successive years or may move to a different nest site for one year and then back to nest sites used previously. Raptor biologists generally regard nests that are currently in use to be the “active nests,” while nests that are used in successive years or in alternate years are regarded as “alternate nest sites.” CESA (FGC § 2050 et seq.) and Fish and Game Code statutes that protect nesting birds (and raptors) (FGC §§ 3503, 3503.5, 3513, and 3800) would afford protections only to those nests that are currently in use by the nesting birds. Alternate nesting sites that are not occupied are afforded no protections pursuant to CESA or the Fish and Game Codes that protect nesting birds.

In 1979, Dr. Peter Bloom published a report estimating that the historical baseline for Swainson’s hawk breeding pairs in California was somewhere between 4,284 to 17,136. Dr. Bloom’s 1979 report 2580
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-3 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx also estimated only 375 (±50) breeding pairs remained in California, showing a rapid decline in population at the time, as compared to the historical baseline. Dr. Bloom's report noted that breeding pairs were heavily concentrated in the Central Valley, the Great Basin area of northeastern California; as well as a few concentrated Swainson's hawk territories located in Shasta Valley, the Owens Valley, and the Mohave Desert.1 In 1988, a CDFW-led survey effort revealed no material change in Swainson's hawk distribution from the 1979 Bloom report. The 1988 effort estimated 430 pairs in the Central Valley and a Statewide estimate of 550 breeding pairs. In 2005, the CDFW conducted a Statewide survey estimating 2,081 breeding pairs.2 The 2005 survey showed a steady increase in Swainson’s hawk breeding pair population when compared to the 1979 breeding pair estimate.

In 2005, Dr. Bloom noted that the Swainson’s hawk population in California (and throughout North America) was suffering from acute poisoning from grasshopper insecticide use in Argentina applied directly to Swainson’s hawk’s gregarious migration roosts in Argentina. Detrimental Argentinian insecticide use has largely stopped in recent years, and the Swainson’s hawk nesting population in California has grown significantly. In 2007, the CDFW estimated 1,948 Swainson’s hawk breeding pairs in California’s Central Valley, with most of the population occurring in the area from Stanislaus County north to Butte County.

Dr. Bret Furnas’ 2022 study titled “Rapid Growth of the Swainson’s Hawk Population in California Since 2005”3 estimated the total Statewide population of 18,810 breeding Swainson’s hawk breeding pairs based on survey data collected in 2005, 2006, 2017, and 2018. The research group, which included Dr. Bloom, concluded that California’s Swainson’s hawk summering population grew between 2005 and 2018 at the rapid rate of 13.9 percent per year. It should also be noted that the current estimate of 18,810 breeding pairs is extraordinary given Dr. Bloom’s 1979 estimate of 375 nesting pairs in the State. The 2022 estimate is within the range of the historical baseline that Dr.

Bloom estimated in 1979 prior to the population decline.

The Swainson’s hawk nesting distribution now occurs in many areas where the Swainson’s hawk has not been known to nest for decades, if ever. Napa County, while considered within the historic distribution of the Swainson’s hawk, was not known to support any nesting sites for this hawk in the 1970s or 1980s. Similarly, the nesting population now extends into east Contra Costa County where nesting previously had not been recorded for many decades. Other nesting population recovery includes Southern California in the Antelope Valley and in Kern County. 1 Bloom, P.H. 1979. The Status of the Swainson’s Hawk in California, 1979. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825. 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Final Report, California Swainson’s Hawk Inventory 2005-2007. UC Davis Wildlife Health Center, Department of Fish and Game Resource Assessment Program, Final Report. May 31, 2007. 3 Furnas, Brett J., David H. Wright, Erin N. Tennant, Reagen M. O’Leary, Michael J. Kuehn, Peter H. Bloom, and Carie L. Battistone. 2022. Rapid Growth of the Swainson’s Hawk population in California since 2005. Ponithological applications, Volume 124, Issue 2.

May 2022.
2581
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR
2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Widespread nesting recovery documented by Furnas et al. (2022)4 has yet to be incorporated into CDFW policy and/or in records kept within the CNDDB.5 Accordingly, the “Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California” (Staff Report), besides being geographically inappropriate for the proposed project in Napa County, is also not relevant to current nest territory expansion of the Swainson’s hawk population into Napa County and elsewhere in the State. Thus, this document is not appropriately used as a basis for determining mitigation ratios for impacts to annual grassland in Napa County. The Staff Report recommends mitigation for projects that impacts foraging habitat within 10 miles of an “active” Swainson’s hawk nest (as defined by the CDFW Staff Report). For the reasons provided previously, this mitigation requirement does not reflect the current population expansion of the Swainson’s hawk in California, and its use is geographically limited.

It is noteworthy that other raptors that were State and federally listed when the Swainson’s hawk was State listed in 1983 such as the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) have been delisted (i.e., removed from protections provided by both CESA and the federal Endangered Species Act). The federal government conducted routine census surveys for these species and determined that the nesting populations of these species had fully recovered, and, thus, protection pursuant to the Endangered Species Act was no longer warranted. The CDFW followed these delisting efforts. In contrast, the Swainson’s hawk was never federally listed, and as the State of California does not have a recovery plan for the Swainson’s hawk, there is no guideline for what constitutes recovery. In addition, the Swainson’s hawk has not been counted to the extent that federal listed raptor species were. Thus, mitigation prescriptions developed more than 25 years ago are very likely outdated today.

The proposed 45-acre Wetland Preserve with its seasonal wetlands would be available to provide foraging habitat for the Swainson’s hawk in perpetuity. Additionally, less than 2 miles from the project site are 620 acres of dedicated open space (Newell Open Space) that are also preserved in perpetuity. The Newell Open Spaces appears to primarily comprise annual grassland with discrete areas of oak woodland and riparian woodland. Further, the Newell Open Space abuts other dedicated open space preserves, including the 1,039-acre Lynch Canyon Open Space Park and the American Canyon 308-acre California red-legged frog preserve. Combined, these open spaces dedicate over 2,000 acres of open space that can be used for foraging by the Swainson’s hawk because the open space supports the small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds on which Swainson’s hawks prey. This demonstrates that based on the limited number of Swainson’s hawk records in Napa County, there is more than sufficient foraging habitat in the area that will be preserved in perpetuity to support actively nesting hawks and that further provide foraging habitat for other raptors of concern, specifically golden eagles and western burrowing owls. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to foraging habitat either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. The net loss of foraging habitat resulting from the proposed project will not cause either a substantial adverse effect on the species, a substantial reduction in its numbers, or a 4 Furnas, Brett J., David H. Wright, Erin N. Tennant, Reagen M. O’Leary, Michael J. Kuehn, Peter H. Bloom, and Carie L. Battistone. 2022. Rapid Growth of the Swainson’s Hawk population in California since 2005. Ponithological applications, Volume 124, Issue 2.

May 2022. 5 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2015. RareFind 3.2. Computer printout for special-status species within a 5-mile radius of the project site. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 2582
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx substantial restriction of its range. Construction of the proposed project would not be expected to affect the nesting population of Swainson’s hawk known from Napa County. Accordingly, additional preservation over and above the 45-acre Wetland Preserve is not warranted for the proposed project. Thus, there is no potential for significant indirect or cumulative impacts associated with habitat for Swainson’s hawk in this area and the proposed project would not add to any such impact.

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.

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 golden eagle foraging habitat.

Master Response 2—New “North” Fire Station
Summary of Relevant Comments
The American Canyon Fire Protection District (ACFPD) indicated that the proposed project, along with other planned development, would trigger the need for a new “North” fire station and related apparatus. The Sentinels of Freedom, a 501(c3) nonprofit organization, indicated that it owns a

25.44-acre vacant property adjacent to Napa Logistics Park and would like to offer to sell the site to the City of American Canyon for the development of a fire station and training center.

Response
As the ACFPD letter indicates, the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project and other planned projects in the northern portion of American Canyon create a need for a new fire station. The need is not solely caused by the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project. At the time of Final EIR publication, the new “North” fire station is conceptual in nature and no facility planning has occurred. The ultimate fate of the potential facility therefore remains speculative. (See California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines, § 15145 [lead agencies need not address speculative impacts].) The letter from ACFPD identified a number of possible “mitigation measures” for addressing ACFPD’s “annual operating deficit.” The City notes in response that “mitigation” is not the right word to describe any fair share funding that the project proponent may contribute to ACFPD’s operations.

Under CEQA, the proper focus of service-related impacts is on the physical effects of the construction of new or expanded facilities to provide services. Any inadequacy in the provision of actual services due to funding shortfalls is not a CEQA impact triggering mitigation. (See City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of the Cal. State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, 843 [“[t]he need for additional fire protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate”]; Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1025, 1031–1034 [school overcrowding attributable to new development is not an environmental effect subject to CEQA, though the physical effects of new facility construction to 2583
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR
2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx serve new students would be]; and CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131, subdivision (a) [“[e]conomic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”]).

The Sentinels of Freedom property was evaluated as a potential alternative location for the proposed project in Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project. As discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, page 5-17, the site was determined to be too small to support a 2.4-million-square-foot logistics center. However, the property is designated for “Industrial” use by the Napa County General Plan, zoned “Business/Industrial” by the Napa County Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan, and is within both the City of American Canyon’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Limit Line (ULL). From a preliminary perspective, the Sentinels property may be a suitable location for a new fire station but more due diligence would be required to confirm its suitability.

Regardless, at the time of Final EIR publication, no decisions had been made regarding the acquisition of the Sentinels property or any other property for a new “North” fire station. Hence, the development of a new fire station is outside the scope of the Draft EIR.

Master Response 3—Buildout Assumptions
Summary of Relevant Comments
Both Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) and Napa-Solano Residents for Responsible Growth (NSRRG) alleged that the Draft EIR used inconsistent buildout assumptions. Both organizations first cited a statement in Draft EIR, Chapter 2, Project Description, page 2-9, to the effect that the Draft EIR assumes that Phase 1 would buildout first followed by Phase 2 and then noted a subsequent statement indicating that, as a practical matter, the proposed project would likely buildout over a period of years, if not decades. NSRRG alleged that a prolonged construction schedule that extends over several years (multiple nesting seasons, multiple “rainy seasons”) increases the potential for construction-related impacts to aquatic resources.

Response
The Draft EIR provided the following statement on page 2-9 in Chapter 2, Project Description:

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 18 months.

As a practical matter, the proposed project would buildout over a period of years or decades.

Phase 1 would be developed first, followed by Phase 2.

The applicant has indicated that actual buildout is expected to occur as follows:
• Phase 1 is permitted through the resource agencies.
• Phase 1 is mass graded; building pads and wetland restoration areas are created. • Phase 1 is developed with buildings, either spec or with known end user(s). • Phase 2 is permitted through the resource agencies.
• Phase 2 is mass graded; building pads and wetland restoration areas are created. • Phase 2 is developed with buildings, either spec or with known end user(s). 2584
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-7 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx Given the uncertainty regarding the timing of each of these stages, using a “front loaded” buildout horizon allowed the Draft EIR to disclose the maximum amount of construction and operational emissions that could be emitted. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) air emissions model is predicated on both the construction equipment and operational vehicle fleet getting cleaner over time. Thus, “front loading” buildout for the purposes of modeling reasonable worstcase emissions is consistent with CEQA principles, which disfavor the understatement of environmental impacts. Moreover, this was the same approach used in the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 and Napa Airport Corporate Center EIRs. Furthermore, this statement reflects observations of how buildout of the neighboring Napa Logistics Park and the Green Island Business Park has occurred.

Likewise, if a longer buildout schedule were used (i.e., 10 years), the net effect would be to reduce the amount of construction and operational emissions attributable to the project because it would benefit from a cleaner fleet. Moreover, such an approach would also require a more complicated multi-phased analysis that would involve considerable speculation and would require a significant amount of time and effort to complete and which may not yield any more meaningful, probative information about project impacts.

NSRRG is speculating in assuming that a prolonged buildout schedule would result in greater impacts to aquatic resources. In fact, however, the approach taken in the EIR has created a more conservative, reasonable worst-case approach. As indicated previously, Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be mass graded following resource agency permitting. Building pads and wetland restoration areas would be created. Furthermore, the applicant is required by Mitigation Measure (MM) HYD-1a to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best Management Practices (BMPs) during grading and construction. Those protections would remain in place in the interim period between mass grading and building completion. Thus, it is speculative to assume that a prolonged buildout schedule would result in greater impacts to aquatic resources.

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

NSRRG also alleged that a prolonged construction schedule that extends over several years increases the potential for construction-related impacts to aquatic resources and nesting birds. As stated above in the response to emissions, given the uncertainty regarding the timing of each of these stages, using a “front loaded” buildout horizon allowed the Draft EIR to disclose the maximum amount of impacts to aquatic resources wetland impacts.

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. 2585
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR
2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx 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.

Therefore, there is no basis to assume new impacts would occur if Phases 1 and 2 take two months to complete or 24 months. It should also be noted that the project will occur over at least two nesting periods, and if birds do nest in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it should be assumed that 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 the chance of construction-related impacts.

Regardless, for consistency and to address the commenters concerns, MM BIO-4 was revised to require additional pre-construction breeding bird surveys if construction activities are discontinued for more than 7 days.

Master Response 4—Vehicle Miles Traveled
Summary of Relevant Comments
Both GSEJA and NSRRG alleged that the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis provided no justification for the threshold of 23 miles per employee, and improperly used the California Statewide Travel Demand Model. NSRRG referenced the VMT analysis for a 217,000-square-foot wine distribution warehouse (SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project) less than 2 miles away, which employed a different methodology and thresholds. GSEJA also argued that the VMT analysis was flawed due to its failure to account for non-employee heavy-duty truck trips in the analysis.

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, it 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 2586
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-9 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx “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 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.
2587
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR
2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx The California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM) was determined to be the best available source of traffic analysis zone (TAZ)-level VMT data when the proposed project's Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released (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.

With respect to the use of a different VMT threshold of significance for a nearby distribution center, as discussed below, that project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has not been accepted by the City of American Canyon. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to compare the proposed project’s VMT methodology and thresholds to those applied in evaluating that project.

SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project
The SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project was initially evaluated in an MND issued in December 2020. Following receipt of comments, the City of American Canyon recirculated the MND in April 2021. Following another round of comments, the applicant requested that the City withdraw consideration of the MND in July 2021. The applicant then elected to proceed with the preparation of an EIR, which has not yet been publicly released at the time of Final EIR publication. It should be noted that neither FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) nor W-Trans had any involvement with the SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project MND and, thus, have no insights into the decision-making process concerning the VMT analysis.

The Giovannoni Logistics Center EIR did not tier from or rely upon any of the SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project MND’s conclusions. Furthermore, the SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project MND has no legal significance given that it was withdrawn from consideration. Lastly, lead agencies have the discretion to use different methodologies and thresholds on a project-byproject basis so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. For these reasons, the VMT methodologies and thresholds used in the SDG Commerce 217 Distribution Center Project MND do not have any bearing on Giovannoni Logistics Center EIR.

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 to promulgate what became CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. 2588
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-11 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx 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 California Natural Resources Agency 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.

Furthermore, as the Draft EIR explained in its discussion of environmental effects associated with greenhouse gas (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 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 heavy2589 City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR
2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx duty 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 recent 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 is a June 16, 2022, technical memorandum prepared for Joe Livaich of Buzz Oates Construction from 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 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 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 origindestination 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:
2590
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Master Responses
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-13 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx • 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.

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 “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 GSEJA suggested was necessary, the analysis would still have concluded that the proposed project would have less than significant VMT-related 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 2591
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Master Responses Final EIR
2-14 FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/3 - Final EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Master Responses.docx 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. 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.
2592
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1 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 SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS

3.1 - List of Authors
A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR 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.

Author Author Code
State Agencies
California Department of Transportation.................................................................................CALTRANS California Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................................................... CDFW Local Agencies
American Canyon Fire Protection District ..................................................................................... ACFPD Tribal Government
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation ..................................................................................................................YD Organizations
Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance ................................................................................ GSEJA1 Sentinels of Freedom............................................................................................................... SENTINELS Napa-Solano Residents For Responsible Growth .......................................................................NSSRRG2

3.2 - Responses to Comments

3.2.1 - Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of American Canyon, as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021010104) for the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project), and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

Comments on an EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document’s identification and analysis of significant environmental impacts, and the adequacy of measures designed to avoid or mitigate those impacts (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(a)). Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments 1 Includes comments from SWAPE (SWAPE) 2
Includes comments from Clark & Associates (CLARK), Shannon & Wilson (S&W), Scott Cashen (CASHEN) and Smart Mobility (SM) 2593
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-2 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 and provide data, references, or other evidence to support their comments (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(c)).

CEQA requires that the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) address comments submitted during the public comment period that raise significant environmental issues (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21091(d)(2)(B)). The lead agency’s written responses shall describe the disposition of such significant environmental issues (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections) CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)).

CEQA does not require that the lead agency respond to every comment submitted to it. While conclusory statements by the lead agency unsupported by factual information will not suffice, the level of detail in the response may correspond to the level of detail in the comment. A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c)). Additionally, the lead agency generally has considerable leeway regarding responses to comments and need not respond to comments that do not raise a significant environmental issue. The lead agency also need not respond to general reference materials submitted in support of comments, comments that repeat those already considered, or comments that are clearly irrelevant, and the lead agency has the discretion to reject comments that are not focused as provided by the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines § 15204(e)).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, personal opinions expressing general support for, or opposition to, the proposed project are noted and will be noted in the response to comments and included within the administrative record for the proposed project, but do not require a specific written response if they do not relate to a significant environmental issue that is addressed within the Draft EIR and/or otherwise within the purview of CEQA. Likewise, opinions about the general desirability, merits, and/or purely economic, social, or political considerations of the proposed project are not within the purview of CEQA and do not require a specific written response in this Final EIR. In cases where the comment provides background information, an opinion and/or generalized concerns about the merits of the proposed project but does not challenge the sufficiency of the Draft EIR, the City will note the comment in these responses and include the opinion in this Final EIR for informational purposes. Where a commenter offers unsubstantiated assertions about a significant environmental issue or the adequacy of the Draft EIR, the City will note the assertion in these responses and include the comment in the Final EIR for informational purposes but will not alter or augment the analysis in the Draft EIR, pursuant CEQA Guidelines Section 15204. Although CEQA does not require a detailed response to each of these general comments in this Final EIR, each comment is part of the administrative record on the proposed project and will be forwarded to City decision-makers for consideration.

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.
2594

CEQA REVIEW COMMENT SHEET
USDA-Rural Development Environmental Assessment
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
LDR GTS # 04-NAP-2021-00280
PROJECT LIMITS: 04-NAP-029 PM 3.05
REVIEWED BY: Wichai Hanittinan (510)-286-6431
Office of Highway Operations June 17, 2022
For: Yunshen Luo
Comments:
1) Suggest being specific on a period of time for the VMT mentioned in this report. Is the VMT reported for one year, one month, or one day?
2) In Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information, suggest clarifying the following sentence: "The morning peak hour occurs between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and reflects conditions during the home to work or school commute, while the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. and typically reflects the highest level of congestion during the homeward bound commute."
According to its Appendix B Traffic Count Data, the peak hour at each intersection varies, especially during the AM peak period, suggest explain/describe this information in the report.
3) For the traffic count results at the Devlin Rd and S Kelly Rd intersection (intersection 2 as referred in the report) in Appendix B Traffic Count Data of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information, why are the truck volumes more than the total traffic volumes for the same movement?
Are the truck volumes reported separately from the traffic volumes for regular vehicles? If this is the case, there are additional 36 trucks on NB Devlin Rd marking the left turn to EB S Kelly Rd during the 8-9 AM peak hour, why are they not accounted/included in the left turn traffic volumes from NB Devlin Rd to EB S Kelly Rd reported in Exhibit 3.12-4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes in the Transportation section of the Draft EIR and Figure 6 – Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information?
The same question can also be applied to the 11 trucks on NB Devlin Rd marking the left turn to EB S Kelly Rd during the 4-5 PM peak hour.
4) In Exhibit 3.12-3 Project Traffic Volumes in the Transportation section of the Draft EIR and in Figure 5 – Project Traffic Volumes of Appendix H Transportation Supporting

CALTRANS

Page 1 of 3 ends

1 2
3 4
2595
Information, are the traffic volumes reported here additionally generated and reported separately as the results of the project?
And what year of these Project traffic volumes are for, are they for the existing year (2019) or the future year (2040)?
5) If the traffic volumes show in Exhibit 3.12-3 Project Traffic Volumes in the Transportation section of the Draft EIR and in Figure 5 – Project Traffic Volumes of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information are for the future year (2040), please verify the 2458 (veh) traffic volumes for the northbound through traffic on SR 29. Should it be 2464 (veh) traffic volumes?
6) In Exhibit 3.12-3 Project Traffic Volumes in the Transportation section of the Draft EIR and in Figure 5 – Project Traffic Volumes of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information,

6.1) Why isn't there any EB traffic on Green Island Rd making a left turn to the NB of the future Devlin Rd? Will the intersection between Green Island Rd and the future Devlin Rd prohibit the left-turn movement from the EB Green Island Rd to the NB of the future Devlin Rd? If that is the case, please document and specify it in the report.

6.2) Why isn't there any SB traffic on the future Devlin Rd making a right turn to the WB of Green Island Rd . Will the intersection between Green Island Rd and the future Devlin Rd prohibit the right-turn movement from the SB of the future Devlin Rd to the WB Green Island Rd? If that is the case, please document and specify it in the report.
7) For Exhibit 3.12-4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes in the Transportation section of the Draft EIR and Figure 6 – Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information,
If these added-on traffic volumes as the results of the project are for the future year (2040), why are they directly added to the traffic volumes for the existing year (2019) to obtain the results for Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes as shown in the Exhibit 3.12-4 and Figure 6 mentioned above?
8) In Exhibit 3.12-5 Future Traffic Volumes in the Transportation section of the Draft EIR and in Figure 3 – Future Traffic Volumes of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information, are these future traffic volumes for the future year (2040) under the existing conditions without the project?
9) For Exhibit 3.12-6 Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes in the Transportation section of the Draft EIR and Figure 7 – Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information,
If these added-on traffic volumes as the results of the project are for the existing year (2019), why are they directly added to the traffic volumes for the future year (2040) to obtain the results for Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes as shown in the Exhibit 3.12-4 and Figure 6 mentioned above? Are they expected to increase in the future year (2040) to get the traffic volumes for the Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes? 10) Since the traffic data presented in Appendix B Traffic Count Data of Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information were collected from a few samples, suggest also

CALTRANS

Page 2 of 3 ends

4 CONT
5 6
7 8
9 10
2596
presenting and discussing/comparing with the historical traffic data and census, such as those obtained by Caltrans or from other sources.

For an example, the traffic volumes for the Ahead Peak Hour and Back Peak Hour at NAP 29 PM 3.601 (at the S Kelly Rd and SR-29 intersection) were 3,700 and 3,100 respectively. In addition, the average historical traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hour(s) in weekdays at nearby SR-29 PM 3.601 can be obtained and compared with the traffic data presented in this report.

CALTRANS

Page 3 of 3 ends

10 CONT
2597

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2598
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-7 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 State Agencies
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)
Response to CALTRANS-1
The agency inquired about the time period for the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis (e.g., one year, one month, or one day?).

As described on page 20 of the Traffic Impact Study for the Giovannoni Logistics Center (Appendix H, Transportation Supporting Information), the VMT reported is measured in VMT per capita, or the number of daily miles driven per employee. See also Master Response 4—Vehicle Miles Traveled.

Response to CALTRANS-2
The agency requested a clarification about the description of the AM and PM peak-hours and suggested that an explanation be provided about the variation in the peak-hour at each study intersection.

The peak-hour varies from intersection to intersection, and all were evaluated based on the highestvolume hour at that location to provide a conservative analysis.

Response to CALTRANS-3
The agency inquired about discrepancies in the traffic volumes for various turn movements at Devlin Road/South Kelly Road shown on Draft EIR Section 3.12, Transportation Exhibit 3.12-4.

The reported truck values in Appendix B Traffic Count Data of Draft EIR Appendix H summarize the percentage of vehicles that are trucks at each turning movement, and do not report the number (or volume) which are trucks.

Response to CALTRANS-4
The agency inquired whether the traffic volumes shown on Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-3 are additionally generated or reported separately. The agency inquired about the year the volumes shown on Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-3.

The number of newly-generated vehicle trips is summarized in Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-3. The number of trips does not change between the existing and future conditions. Therefore, these projectgenerated trips are applicable to both the Existing Plus Project and Future Plus Project conditions evaluated.

Response to CALTRANS-5
The agency requested clarification about the northbound through volumes on State Route (SR) 29 shown in Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-3.

The value of 2,458 shown at Intersection No. 1 on Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-6 is correct. However, the value 2,458 shown at Intersection No. 1 on Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-5 is a typo and should be 2,451 instead. The proposed project is expected to add seven vehicles to the existing 2,451 trips without the proposed project, resulting in a volume of 2,458 when project trips are added (as depicted on Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-6). The analysis was based on the correct number and is unaffected by this typo. The corrected Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-5 is provided in Final EIR Section 5, Errata. 2599
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-8 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 CALTRANS-6
The agency inquired about the traffic volumes at Green Island Road/Devlin Road shown in Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-3 and requested clarification about various turn movements.

The trip distribution, summarized on Table 7 (Appendix H Transportation Supporting Information), shows all project-related traffic would solely use SR-29 to access the project site. This means there are assumed to be no trips heading to or arriving from Green Island Road west of the project site, as this route does not have a direct connection with SR-29.

Turn prohibitions are not proposed at the future intersection of Devlin Road/Green Island Road.

Response to CALTRANS-7
The agency inquired about the volumes shown in Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-4.

The number of new trips attributable to the proposed project is constant and not anticipated to change from year to year. Therefore, the proposed project is expected to contribute the same number of vehicle trips to the roadway network during both the existing and future years.

Response to CALTRANS-8
The agency requested clarification about the traffic volumes shown on Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-5.

As described on pages 9 through 11 of Appendix H, Transportation Supporting Information, the volumes shown in Figure 3 represent the anticipated volumes for the year 2040 without the proposed project.

Response to CALTRANS-9
The agency requested clarification about traffic volumes shown on Draft EIR Exhibit 3.12-6.

Refer to Response to CALTRANS-4 and Response to CALTRANS-7.

Response to CALTRANS-10
The agency requested the traffic volumes provided in Appendix H on SR-29 at Post Mile 3.601 be compared to historical traffic data and census.

Traffic volumes provided in Appendix H were based on actual counts taken at the study intersections.

Comparing traffic volumes in Appendix H to historical traffic data along SR-29 would not provide further insight into assessing traffic effects attributable to the proposed project. 2600
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
July 18, 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, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2021010104, City of American Canyon, Napa County Dear Mr. Cooper:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of American Canyon (City) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 CDFW previously submitted comments in response to the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR.

CDFW is submitting comments on the DEIR to inform the City, as the Lead Agency, of potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the Project.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources. CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, or other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Buzz Oates
Objective: Develop a 2.4-million square-foot logistics center on an approximately 208- acre site; 163 acres would be developed, and 45 acres would be preserved as wetlands. In conjunction with the Project, the City would extend Devlin Road through the

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: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2601
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

Project site. The Project is proposed to occur in two phases. During Phase 1, the 94.7- acre area east of the Devlin Road extension would be developed. During Phase 2, the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road would be developed.

Location: The Project site is in the City of American Canyon, approximately one mile southeast of the Napa County Airport and directly west of State Route 29, in southern Napa County. The Project site is bounded by the Napa Logistics Park and Devlin Road to the north and Green Island Business Park (i.e., industrial development) to the southwest, and centered at approximately Latitude 38.198921°N, Longitude 122.268598°W.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
Please be advised that a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. The Project has the potential to impact Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), both of which are CESA listed as threatened species, as further described below. Issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain an ITP.

CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species. (Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064, & 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC).

The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the project proponent’s obligation to comply with CESA.

Fully Protected Species
Fully Protected species, such as golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), may not be taken or possessed at any time (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515) except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research, relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock, or if they are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2602
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 3 ends

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. Based on the potential for the Project to have a significant impact on biological resources, CDFW concludes that an environmental impact report is appropriate for the Project.

Mandatory Findings of Significance: Does the Project have the potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species?
Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measures
COMMENT 1: Swainson’s Hawk MM BIO-1a (Section 3.3, Pages 24-27) Issue: Mitigation measure (MM) BIO-1a identifies a 1,000-foot no disturbance buffer shall be established for any Swainson’s hawk nest, which may be insufficient to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less-than-significant and comply with CESA.

Furthermore, the language of MM BIO-1a regarding when surveys will occur should be revised for clarity to ensure any nesting Swainson’s hawks that could be disturbed by the Project are detected. In the first paragraph it states that surveys will be completed for at least two survey periods prior to commencement of construction. In the second paragraph it inconsistently states that construction may commence if no nesting Swainson’s hawks are found during the first non-optional survey period.

Additionally, the DEIR identifies the Project will remove Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, but it does not specify the number of acres that the Project will remove.

Therefore, the approximately 45 acres of wetlands that will be preserved by the Project may not be sufficient to mitigate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Additionally, please note that the presence of suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat near the Project site does not negate the need to mitigate for the permanent removal of foraging habitat for this species.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: If active Swainson’s hawk nests are not detected by the proposed surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established, Swainson’s hawks could be disturbed by Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young, thereby substantially reducing the number of the species. Additionally, loss of foraging habitat is the primary threat to Swainson’s hawk populations in California (CDFW 2016).

Swainson’s hawk is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Therefore, if an DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2603
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 4 ends

active Swainson’s hawk nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Recommendation: For an adequate environmental setting, to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less-than-significant, and to comply with CESA, CDFW recommends revising MM BIO-1a to require that Swainson’s hawk surveys be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience surveying for and detecting the species pursuant to the Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk (2000) survey protocol, within 0.5 mile of the Project site each year that Project activities occur. Pursuant to the above survey protocol, surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a Project’s initiation. For example, if the project is scheduled to begin on June 20, the qualified biologist shall complete three surveys in Period III and three surveys in Period V. It is recommended that surveys be completed in Periods II, III and V. Surveys in Period I may be required if the Project will commence by April 5. The Project shall obtain CDFW’s written acceptance of the qualified biologist and survey report prior to Project construction occurring between March 1 and August 31 each year. If the qualified biologist identifies nesting Swainson’s hawks, the Project shall implement a 0.5 mile no disturbance buffer zone around the nest, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Project activities shall be prohibited within the buffer zone between March 1 and August 31, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

Additionally, to mitigate for the loss of foraging habitat, CDFW recommends including a mitigation measure that requires the preservation through a conservation easement of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, of equal or greater habitat value than that which will be impacted by the Project, in perpetuity at a minimum 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio.

CDFW must provide written approval of the habitat proposed for preservation prior to the start of Project activities.

COMMENT 2: Tricolored Blackbird (Section 3.3, Page 26)
Issue: The DEIR identifies there will be no impact on tricolored blackbird because there is no suitable nesting habitat within the Project site. However, the Project may impact tricolored blackbird that occur within 500 feet of the Project site.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: If active tricolored blackbird nests are not detected by the proposed surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established, tricolored blackbird could be disturbed by Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young, DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2604
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 5 ends

thereby substantially reducing the number of the species. Tricolored blackbird is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Therefore, if an active tricolored blackbird nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Recommendation: For an adequate environmental setting, to reduce impacts to tricolored blackbird to less-than-significant, and to comply with CESA, CDFW recommends revising MM BIO-4 to require that a survey for active tricolored blackbird nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven days prior to the beginning of Project activities, and within a minimum 500-foot distance of the Project. If nesting bird surveys, per MM BIO-4, detect nesting tricolored blackbird or evidence of their presence, CDFW shall be notified immediately, and Project activities shall not occur without written approval from CDFW allowing the Project to proceed. Presence of nesting tricolored blackbird may require CESA consultation and an Incidental Take Permit before Project activities may commence. If a lapse in Project construction of seven days or more occurs during nesting season, another survey shall be conducted.

Please note, this also addresses impacts to nesting birds, which are protected under Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Mitigation Measures
COMMENT 3: Golden Eagle MM-BIO 1b (Section 3.3, Pages 27) Issue: MM-BIO 1b identifies a 1,000-foot no disturbance buffer shall be established for any golden eagle nests within 1,000 feet of construction activities, which may be insufficient to reduce impacts to golden eagle to less-than-significant. Additionally, the measure allows for modification of the buffer zone depending on behavioral factors and acclimation of nesting golden eagles. CDFW should be consulted before implementation of a reduced buffer zone to ensure protection of any nesting golden eagle.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: Golden eagle is a fully protected species and may not be taken or possessed at any time, except as described above (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511), and is also protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Golden eagle is highly sensitive to human disturbance which can result in lower brood size (Steenhof et al. 2014), lower nest DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2605
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 6 ends

attendance (Spaul and Heath 2016), and increased time spent away from the nest (Spaul and Heath 2017). If appropriate buffer zones are not established around active golden eagle nests, Project impacts to golden eagle would be potentially significant.

Recommendation: For an adequate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to golden eagle to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends revising MM BIO-1b to require that the survey area for golden eagle shall be determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist in consultation with CDFW, and if any golden eagle nest is identified during pre-construction golden eagle nesting surveys, a biological based justification for the buffer zone, as determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist, shall be submitted to CDFW for review. Project activities shall not proceed between March 1 and August 31 unless CDFW provides written approval of the buffer zone around any golden eagle nest.

COMMENT 4: Northern Harrier MM-BIO 1c (Section 3.3, Pages 27) Issue: It appears that surveys for nesting northern harrier (Circus hudsonius) would only occur within the Project site. However, nesting northern harrier may be impacted if they occur off-site within a minimum 500-foot radius around the Project site.

Additionally, MM-BIO 1c allows for modification of the buffer zone depending on behavioral factors and acclimation of northern harrier. CDFW should be consulted before implementation of a reduced buffer zone.

Specific impact and why they may occur and be significant: If an active northern harrier nest is present within a minimum of 500 feet of the Project and is not detected by the proposed surveys, or appropriate no disturbance buffer zones are not implemented, nesting northern harriers could be disturbed by Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young. Northern harrier is a California Species of Special Concern (SSC). An SSC is a species, subspecies, or distinct population of an animal native to California that currently satisfies one or more of the following (not necessarily mutually exclusive) criteria: is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, is extirpated in its primary season or breeding role; is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious (noncyclical) population declines or range retractions that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; or has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. Therefore, if nesting northern harriers are present and would be disturbed by the Project, impacts to northern harrier would be potentially significant.

Recommendation: For an adequate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to northern harrier to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends revising MM BIO-1c to DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2606
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 7 ends

require submission of a biological based justification for reducing the buffer zone, as determined by the qualified Raptor Biologist, to CDFW for review. Project activities shall not commence until CDFW provides written approval for the reduction of the no disturbance buffer zone around any northern harrier nest.

Additionally, MM BIO-1c should be revised to state that surveys shall be conducted to determine the presence of nesting northern harrier within a minimum 500-foot radius around the Project site.

COMMENT 5: Burrowing Owl MM BIO-1d (Section 3.3, Page 28) Issue: MM BIO-1d indicates that surveys for burrowing owl (Athena cunicularia) would occur within two weeks prior to Project construction and a 100-foot no disturbance buffer would be implemented around refugia occupied by non-nesting wintering owls.

However, the aforementioned survey and buffer distance may not be adequate to detect and avoid Project impacts to burrowing owls. The Project may result in the loss of burrowing owl breeding and non-breeding habitat and would likely result in the loss of foraging habitat.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: The Project could result in burrowing owl nest abandonment, loss of young, reduced health and vigor of owlets, or injury or mortality of adults, and a permanent reduction of burrowing owl habitat in Napa County.

Burrowing owl is an SSC because the species’ population viability and survival are adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; evictions from nesting sites without habitat mitigation; wind turbine mortality; human disturbance; and eradication of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by burrowing owls for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter (Shuford and Gardali 2008; CDFW 2012 Staff Report; personal communication, CDFW Statewide Burrowing Owl Coordinator Esther Burkett, May 13, 2022). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding populations of burrowing owls have detected declines both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has experienced breeding range retraction (CDFW 2012 Staff Report; personal communication, Esther Burkett, May 13, 2022).

Historically, the most abundant populations of burrowing owl within the San Francisco Bay Area were in Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties and populations were locally abundant within portions of Solano and San Mateo counties. Burrowing owls are no longer abundant and may be disappearing entirely from western Contra Costa, western Alameda, and Santa Clara counties. Breeding burrowing owls may be extirpated in Marin County, and only use the region on a limited basis in winter DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2607
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 8 ends

(Townsend and Lenihan 2007 as cited in Sheffield 2021). Habitat loss caused by development is the most immediate threat to burrowing owls in high growth areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, and loss of burrowing owl habitat will likely continue well into the future (Townsend and Lenihan 2007). As urbanization increases and local burrowing owl populations decline, they become vulnerable to stochastic events (demographic, genetic, and environmental) associated with small population size, creating the potential for an extinction “vortex” (Gilpin and Soulé 1986 as cited in Townsend and Lenihan 2007).

Based on the above, if the Project would result in impacts to burrowing owl, Project impacts to burrowing owls would be potentially significant.

Recommendation: For an adequate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends that MM BIO-1d be revised to require that a habitat assessment, and if warranted based on the habitat assessment breeding and non-breeding surveys, be conducted in conformance with the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 Staff Report), which states: A) breeding season surveys should include four survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between 15 February and 15 April, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between 15 April and 15 July, with at least one visit after 15 June; and B) nonbreeding season surveys shall be conducted according to the methods described for breeding season surveys (i.e., a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart), but conduct at least four visits, spread evenly throughout the non-breeding season. The habitat assessment and surveys shall be conducted within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of the Project site for breeding or non-breeding burrowing owls and the no disturbance buffer distance of 500 meters outlined in the 2012 Staff Report shall be implemented, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

Additionally, pursuant to the 2012 Staff Report, CDFW does not consider eviction of western burrowing owl (i.e., passive removal of an owl from its burrow or other shelter) as a “take” avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measure. Therefore, to reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less-than-significant, off-site habitat compensation shall be included in the eviction plan. Habitat compensation acreages shall be approved by CDFW, as the amount depends on site-specific conditions, and completed before Project construction. It shall also include placement of a conservation easement and preparation and implementation of a long-term management plan.

If the Project would impact an unoccupied nesting burrowing owl burrow or burrow surrogate (i.e., a burrow known to have been used in the past three years for nesting), or an occupied burrow (where a non-nesting owl would be evicted as described above), the following habitat mitigation shall be implemented prior to Project construction:

DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2608
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 9 ends

Impacts to each nesting site shall be mitigated by permanent preservation of two occupied nesting sites with appropriate foraging habitat within Solano County, unless otherwise approved by CDFW, through a conservation easement and implementing and funding a long-term management plan in perpetuity. The same requirements shall apply for impacts to non-nesting evicted owl sites.

Impacts to burrowing owl foraging habitat shall be mitigated by permanent preservation through a conservation easement of foraging habitat at a 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio, in the same manner described above, and accepted by CDFW in writing. The CDFW 2012 Staff Report states, “current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal…”

EDITORIAL SUGGESTIONS
Clarify the development footprint for the Project component compared to the Program component. It is unclear if the 208-acre Project site will be used for both Phase 1 and Phase 2, or if a different site will be used for Phase 2.

The Project Summary (Section 2.3.1) indicates 163-acres will be developed. However, it also states that the Phase 1 will develop 94.7 acres and Phase 2 will develop 113.1 acres, for a total of approximately 208 acres. If the 208-acre Project site is specific to Phase 1, and only 94.7 acres will be developed during Phase 1, it is unclear what is occurring on the remaining 68.3 acres of the 163 acres planned for development.

CDFW recommends providing an aerial image outlining where both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development will occur, as well as the 44.8 acres that will be preserved as open space.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2609
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 10 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Alicia Bird, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 980-5154 or [email protected]; or Melanie Day, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 210-4415 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2021010104)

REFERENCES
CDFW. 2016. Status Review: Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in California.

Prepared for the California Fish and Game Commission. Nongame Bird and Mammal Program 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=133622&inline Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2610
Brent Cooper
City of American Canyon
July 18, 2022

Page 11 ends

Spaul, R.J. and Heath, J.A., 2016. Nonmotorized recreation and motorized recreation in shrub‐steppe habitats affects behavior and reproduction of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). Ecology and Evolution, 6(22), pp.8037-8049.

Spaul, R.J. and Heath, J.A., 2017. Flushing responses of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in response to recreation. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology, 129(4), pp.834-845.

Steenhof, K., Brown, J.L. and Kochert, M.N., 2014. Temporal and spatial changes in Golden Eagle reproduction in relation to increased off highway vehicle activity.

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38(4), pp.682-688.

Townsend, S.E. and C. Lenihan. 2007. Burrowing Owl status in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the Burrowing Owl Symposium 60-69. The Institute for Bird Populations 2007.

DocuSign Envelope ID: A59D3452-8C9D-4684-8C9C-56BA7F98131A 2611

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2612
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-21 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Response to CDFW-1
The agency provided introductory remarks. No response is necessary.

Response to CDFW-2
The agency summarized the proposed project. No response is necessary.

Response to CDFW-3
The agency noted the proposed project may require an Incidental Take Permit for plants or animals including the Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird. The agency also noted CEQA requires a mandatory finding of a significance if a project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species.

Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1a indicates an Incidental Take Permit shall be required if there is a valid concern the project activities would result in the “take” of an adult Swainson’s hawk or nestlings. As such, the Draft EIR disclosed this possibility. No Incidental Take Permit will be necessary solely due to the loss of foraging habitat, as such an outcome does not directly or foreseeably result in the mortality of individual hawks or nestlings.

The Draft EIR included, as a significance threshold, whether the proposed project would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species. (Draft EIR, page 3.3-22.) Applying this threshold, the Draft EIR found all impacts on special-status species could be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The proposed project, as mitigated, therefore would not substantially reduce or restrict the range or reduce the population of the Swainson’s hawk. See also Master Response 1—Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk/Golden Eagle Foraging Habitat.

Response to CDFW-4
The agency indicated an EIR is the appropriate level of CEQA documentation for the proposed project.

The City of American Canyon concurs an EIR is the appropriate level of CEQA documentation for the proposed project.

Response to CDFW-5a
The agency stated a 1,000-foot non-disturbance buffer from an active Swainson’s hawk nest identified in MM BIO-1a may not be sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant and comply with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

MM BIO-1a identifies a “minimum” 1,000-foot non-disturbance buffer to be established from an active Swainson’s hawk nest, and if Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting within 1,000 feet of the project site, MM BIO-1a requires the Biologist to consult with the CDFW regarding the adequacy of the buffer. As explained in the Draft EIR, all Swainson’s hawk surveys would be conducted within 0.5 mile of proposed work areas. If the CDFW determines a larger buffer may be warranted to comply with CESA, the buffer may be increased.
2613
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-22 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 agency also requested the language in MM BIO-1a regarding when surveys would occur should be revised for clarity. The CDFW noted in the first paragraph of MM BIO-1a in the Draft EIR states surveys would be completed for at least two survey periods prior to the commencement of construction but the second paragraph states construction may commence if no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first “non-optional” survey period.

The Swainson’s Hawk Technical Guidelines state the first survey is “optional.” The first “non-optional” survey period stated in the second paragraph of MM BIO-1a is the second survey. Although the language in MM BIO-1a is technically consistent it may not be clear to all readers. In response to CDFWs comment, the first sentence of the second paragraph should be amended for clarity as follows:
“If no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first non-optional second survey period starting March 20, then project construction may commence.” Response to CDFW-5b
The CDFW noted the Draft EIR identifies the proposed project would remove Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat but does not specify the acreage.

Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is addressed in Master Response 1.

Response to CDFW-5c
The agency stated if active Swainson’s hawk nests are not detected by the proposed surveys, or if appropriate buffer zones are not established, Swainson’s hawk could be disturbed by project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young, thereby substantially reducing the number of Swainson’s hawks. The agency also stated the loss of foraging habitat is the primary threat to Swainson’s hawk populations in California. The agency concludes that if an active Swainson’s hawk nest is disturbed by the proposed project, the proposed project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

The Draft EIR acknowledges in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-24, that if Swainson’s hawk was found nesting within a zone of influence (which is generally considered within 1,000 feet) during the construction period, potential impacts to this species could occur, including disturbance to nesting birds and possible mortality of adults and/or young. Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-26 also acknowledges the level of impact to a nesting Swainson’s hawk is potentially significant. To avoid impacting an active Swainson’s hawk nest, MM BIO-1a requires implementing pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk following CDFW guidelines for conducting surveys for Swainson’s hawk were developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee specifically to maximize locating nesting Swainson’s hawk and reduce nest failures due to project activities and/or disturbances. These pre-construction surveys would be conducted at all locations within 0.5 mile of work areas. Implementation of MM BIO-1a would reduce potential impacts to this impact to less than significant and ensure the proposed project would not result in a substantial reduction in the number of this threatened species. 2614
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-23 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 Master Response 1 for discussion of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat.

Response to CDFW-5d
To reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less than significant and comply with CESA, CDFW recommends revising MM BIO-1a to require a Swainson’s hawk survey be conducted by a qualified Biologist with experience surveying for and detecting the species pursuant to the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley survey protocol within 0.5 mile of the project site each year proposed project activities occur.

Conducting surveys each year project activities occur is not warranted when construction is continuous. As stated in Draft EIR MM BIO-1a, if Swainson’s hawk are found nesting in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it shall be assumed the Swainson’s hawk commenced nesting and thus the Swainson’s hawk are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site.

If project activities have commenced, but are delayed prior to the second survey period (March 20 to April 5), and scheduled to recommence during the second survey period but before August 1, then surveys should be repeated to avoid impacting nesting Swainson’s hawk that may have started nesting during this period of delayed construction.

In response to CDFWs comment, the MM BIO-1a shall be revised to include additional survey language if construction is delayed and minimum requirements for the qualified Raptor Biologist.

MM BIO-1a shall be revised as follows:

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 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 2615
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-24 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 hawk commenced nesting and thus the Swainson’s hawk are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site.

If Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting within 1,000 feet of the project site, a non-disturbance buffer shall be established to keep all construction activities a minimum of 1,000 feet from the nest site. The CDFW shall be consulted regarding the adequacy of the buffer established by the qualified Raptor Biologist. At that time the necessity for acquiring a Fish and Game Section 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) authorization would be determined. An ITP authorization shall be required if there were a valid concern the project activities would result in the “take” of an adult Swainson’s hawk, eggs, or nestlings.

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 the 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 the young have fledged or the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

The CDFW recommended the project obtain CDFW’s written acceptance of the qualified Biologist and survey report prior to the project construction occurring between March 1 and August 31 each year.

Conducting Swainson’s hawk surveys and establishing buffers do not require obtaining an Incidental Take Permit or coordination with the CDFW, and coordination with the CDFW is not required to reduce impacts to less than significant. Revisions to MM BIO-1a defining the minimum qualifications of the “qualified Raptor Biologist” would ensure surveys are conducted pursuant to Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley survey protocol and would ensure potential impacts to active Swainson’s hawk are less than significant.

The CDFW also recommended the project implement a 0.5-mile non-disturbance buffer zone around a nest and prohibit work between March 1 and August 31, unless otherwise approved in writing by the CDFW.

Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-24 acknowledged if Swainson’s hawk was found nesting within a zone of influence (which is generally considered within 1,000 feet) during the construction period, potential impacts to this species could occur, including disturbance to nesting birds and possible mortality of adults and/or young. To avoid impacting an active Swainson’s hawk nest, Draft EIR MM BIO-1a requires a non-disturbance buffer be established to keep all construction activities a minimum of 1,000 feet from a Swainson’s hawk nest meaning the Biologist could require a larger buffer. In addition, although not required by law, MM BIO-1a additionally requires the CDFW be consulted regarding the adequacy of the buffer established by the qualified Raptor Biologist. If the CDFW determines a larger buffer may be warranted to comply with CESA, the buffer may be increased. Based on the ambient noise and visual disturbance surrounding the project site being 2616
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-25 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 adjacent to large commercial developments, major highway, and residential communities, construction of the proposed project would not be expected to affect a nesting Swainson’s hawk 0.5 mile from the project site. Thus, implementation of a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from a Swainson’s hawk nest and consultation with the CDFW on the adequacy of the buffer would ensure impacts are less than significant.

Response to CDFW-5e
The agency recommended mitigation measures for loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat of equal to or greater than would be impacted by the proposed project, in perpetuity at a minimum of 1:1. In addition, the CDFW states it must provide written approval of the preserved habitat prior to the start of project activities.

Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat is addressed in Master Response 1, which explains why impacts relating to the loss of foraging habitat are less than significant and therefore do not require mitigation under CEQA.

Response to CDFW-6a
The CDFW stated correctly the Draft EIR identified no impacts on tricolored blackbird because there is no suitable nesting habitat on the project site. The CDFW states the project may impact tricolored blackbird within 500 feet of the project site, and if nests are detected and appropriate buffer zones are not established, tricolored blackbird could be disturbed by the project activities resulting in a nest abandonment and loss of egg or reduced health and vigor and loss of young.

The Draft EIR includes MM BIO-4 requiring nesting bird surveys. To clarify the applicability to tricolored blackbirds and in response to CDFW’s comment, MM BIO-4 has been revised as follows:

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, 500 feet for special-status passerine species (e.g., tricolored blackbird), and 1,000 feet from the construction limits for nesting raptors. 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. If the survey area is found to be absent of nesting birds, no further mitigation would be required. However, if project 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 2617
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-26 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 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.

Response to CDFW-6b
The CDFW recommended revising MM BIO-4 to include surveys and buffers specific to tricolored blackbird.

CDFW’s recommendations have been incorporated into minor revisions to MM BIO-4 to better clarify the mitigation. No changes are proposed or needed to the analysis or impact conclusions. Refer to Response to CDFW-6a.

Response to CDFW-7a
The agency stated a 1,000-foot non-disturbance buffer from an active golden eagle nest identified in MM BIO-1a may not be sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant, and if appropriate buffer zones are not established around an active golden eagle nest, project impacts to golden eagles would be potentially significant. The agency noted MM BIO-1b also allows modification of the buffer and requested the CDFW be consulted before implementation of a reduced buffer zone to ensure protection of any nesting golden eagles.

MM BIO-1b requires a minimum 1,000-foot non-disturbance buffer from golden eagle nest. The qualified Raptor Biologist can modify (i.e., increase) the size of the buffer to ensure noise or activity from the proposed project would not cause nest disturbance or young or adult bird mortality, but the buffer cannot be reduced below 1,000 feet. MM BIO-1b has been clarified to avoid any ambiguity regarding the manner in which modifications to the default buffer of 1,000 feet could be made:

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 2618
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-27 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 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.

Response to CDFW-7b
The agency recommended MM BIO-1b be revised to (1) require the survey area for golden eagle be determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist; (2) in consultation with the CDFW; and (3) if any golden eagle nest is identified during pre-construction golden eagle nesting surveys, a biological-based justification for the buffer zone, as determined by the qualified Raptor Biologist, shall be submitted to the CDFW for review, and project activities shall not proceed between March 1 and August 31 unless the CDFW provides written approval of the buffer zone.

Conducting golden eagle surveys does not require obtaining any kind of permit or coordination with the CDFW, and coordination is not warranted to reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, requesting written acceptance of the qualified Raptor Biologist conducting the golden eagle survey and providing the survey report to the CDFW for written approval prior to the start of construction is not required under MM BIO-1b.

To address CDFW’s comment requiring the survey area for golden eagle be determined by the qualified Raptor Biologist, and to clarify the buffer zone cannot be reduced to less than 1,000 feet, MM BIO-1b shall be revised as shown in CDFW-7a above.

Response to CDFW-8a
The CDFW correctly stated MM BIO-1c requires nesting surveys for northern harrier only within the project site, and the size of the buffer could be modified depending on behavioral factors and acclimation of northern harrier. The CDFW is concerned northern harriers nesting off-site but within 500 feet of the project site may be impacted, and CDFW recommends the CDFW should be consulted before implementing a reduced buffer zone. Additional comments were received suggesting short-eared owl, with habitat requirements and foraging habits similar to northern harrier, should also be included, and the wording of MM BIO 1c has been revised to account for this species as well.

To address CDFW’s concern, MM BIO-1c shall be revised as follows:

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 2619
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-28 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 Biologist(s) shall conduct walking transects through the project site grassland habitat searching for nests and within a 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.

Response to CDFW-8b
The CDFW provided recommendations to reduce impacts to northern harrier to less than significant.

Recommendations included revisions to MM BIO-1c to require submission of biological-based justification for reducing the buffer zone, as determined by the qualified Raptor Biologist, to the CDFW for review. The CDFW also stated work activities could not commence until the CDFW provides written approval for the reduction of the non-disturbance buffer zone. Additionally, the CDFW recommended revising MM BIO-1c to state surveys shall be conducted within a minimum 500-foot radius of the project site.

As indicated in Response to CDFW-8a, MM BIO-1c has been revised to clarify the “minimum” buffer requirement and ensure surveys are conducted a minimum 500-foot radius from the construction limits project.

Response to CDFW-9a
The CDFW states MM BIO-1d requirements to conduct burrowing owl surveys 2 weeks prior to project construction and a 100-foot non-disturbance buffer may not be adequate to detect burrowing owls and avoid project impacts to burrowing owls, including permanent reduction of burrowing owl habitat in Napa County.

MM BIO-1d requires a minimum 100-foot buffer zone, which means the qualified Raptor Biologist could require a larger buffer if it is determined, by the Raptor Biologist, that a larger buffer is warranted to avoid project impacts that could result in nest abandonment, loss of young, and/or injury or mortality of burrowing owls.

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, page 3.3-17, pre-construction surveys, referred to as “take avoidance surveys” in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation 2620
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-29 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 (2012 Staff Report), are intended to detect presence of burrowing owl on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform necessary take avoidance actions. Take avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl presence such as colonizing burrowing owl that have recently moved onto the site, migrating owl, resident burrowing owl changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have not dispersed. In summary, survey methodology for pre-construction surveys should be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities according to the CDFW Staff Report. Consistent with the 2012 Staff Report, MM BIO-1d requires that preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 2 weeks prior to onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of pre-construction surveys conducted within 2 weeks prior to onset of any ground-disturbing activities would detect whether burrowing owls were present on-site, allowing avoidance measures, such as a minimum 100-foot buffer, to be implemented thus ensuring no burrowing owl would be impacted by construction activities.

Response to CDFW-9b
The CDFW recommends MM BIO-1d be revised to require a habitat assessment be conducted within 500 meters of the project site, and if warranted based on the habitat assessment breeding and nonbreeding surveys be conducted within 500 meters of the project site in conformance with the 2012 Staff Report.

The biological resource report referenced in the Draft EIR made an assessment that the project site did not support suitable habitat for burrowing owl. This assessment demonstrated that, based on the absence of suitable habitat on the project site due to general lack of California ground squirrel and ground squirrel colonies, and the fact no burrowing owl were observed during several biological field surveys conducted by Huffman-Broadway Group (HBG) Biologists between December 2020 and April 2021, Helm Biological Consulting in December 2020 and April and May 2021, or during previous biological studies conducted by Monk & Associates, LSA Associates, or Rana Resources, and that the nearest burrowing owl recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is 1.7 miles from the project site, breeding and nonbreeding surveys are not warranted.

It should be noted the 2012 Staff Report recommends conducting surveys and habitat assessments within 150 meters of the project site, not 500 meters as referenced by the CDFW. To address CDFW’s concern, and ensure any burrowing owl that may be within the project site or adjacent to the project site are not impacted by project activities, the first paragraph of MM BIO-1d shall be revised as follows:

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 2621
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-30 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 Report survey methods and Biologist qualifications to establish the status of burrowing owl on the project site.
• If burrowing owl are found to occupy the project site during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), occupied burrows shall be avoided by establishing a nodisturbance buffer zone a minimum of 100 feet around the burrow. Buffers may be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the impact assessment approach described in the CDFW 2012 staff report. If a qualified Raptor Biologist determines the location of an occupied burrow/s may be impacted even with a 100-foot buffer, or the burrow(s) are in a location(s) on the project site where a buffer cannot be established without preventing the proposed project from moving forward, then a passive relocation effort may be instituted to relocate the individual(s) out of harm’s way pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with the CDFW 2012 staff report.
• If burrowing owl are found to be present during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed project ground-disturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 staff report recommended avoidance protocol whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a nodisturbance buffer. • If burrowing owls are ultimately found on the site and burrow eviction/ relocation of burrowing owls during the non-nesting season is a selected strategy to move forward with the project without direct impacts to burrowing owl individuals, the applicant shall coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl.

The CDFW indicates that habitat compensation mitigation would be required for evictions of a burrowing owl from its shelter, impacting an unoccupied nesting burrowing owl burrow or burrow surrogate or an occupied burrow, and that habitat mitigation shall be approved by CDFW prior to the start of construction. The CDFW provides mitigation ratios for impacts to each nest site and burrowing owl foraging habitat.

The Draft EIR acknowledged the proposed project would preserve in perpetuity, using a deed restriction or conservation easement, approximately 45 acres of open space abutting the project site. This 45-acre open space area would provide similar habitat as the project site for burrowing owl. In addition the Draft EIR acknowledges the Napa Logistics Park Project has preserved 37 acres of grassland and wetlands in perpetuity that provides similar habitat as what is found on the project site, and there are several large open space preserves including the 620-acre Newell Open Space less than 2 miles from the project site, the 1,039-acre Lynch Canyon Open Space Park, and the 308-acre American Canyon red-legged frog preserve, all within 2-5 miles of the project site. A small number of burrowing owl have been recorded in the CNDDB within the general project vicinity, with the nearest reports from as close as about 1.7 miles north of the project site and about 2.5 miles to the south.

This demonstrates that, based upon the limited number of known burrowing owls to occur within a

2.5-mile radius of the project site and the acreage of existing foraging habitat currently protected, there is more than sufficient foraging and nesting habitat near the project site. Accordingly, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to foraging or nesting habitat nor affect the nesting populations of burrowing owl near the project site either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively, 2622
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR Responses to Written Comments
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-31 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 nor require habitat compensation for evictions of a burrowing owl from its shelter, impacting an unoccupied nesting burrowing owl burrow or burrow surrogate or an occupied burrow, or foraging habitat should a burrowing owl be located on or adjacent to the project site.

It should be noted that, 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 will coordinate this effort with CDFW and provide habitat mitigation consistent with the 2012 CDFW Staff Report on burrowing owl, as indicated by the third bullet in the modified MM BIO-1d shown above.

The operative significance threshold for impacts to burrowing owls, 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 burrowing owl foraging habitat, such a net loss occurring in the particular area in which the project site is located 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 CDFW-10
The agency requested clarification about the development footprint for the project-level component and the program-level component.

Phase 1, the project-level component, totals 94.7 acres. The applicant proposes to develop 1,097,488 square feet of high-cube warehouse on 70.2 acres and preserve the remaining 24.5 acres as open space.

Phase 2, the program-level component, totals 113.1 acres. The applicant proposes to develop up to

1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on this site on approximately 92 acres and preserve the remaining approximately 21 acres. Because wetlands are located throughout Phase 2, the layout will be dependent on the outcome of the permitting process with the resource agencies. Hence, those acreage values are subject to change.

Response to CDFW-11
The agency requested clarification about how much of the project site would be developed.

As indicated in Response to CDFW-10, 70.2 acres would be developed in Phase 1 and approximately 92 acres would be developed in Phase 2, for a combined total of approximately 163 acres.

Response to CDFW-12
The agency requested that a site plan be provided.

The site plan is provided in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-4. As shown in the exhibit, the layout for Phase 1 is shown but no layout is shown for Phase 2 because it will depend on the aforementioned permitting process.

Response to CDFW-13
The agency provided standard language about environmental data. No response is necessary. 2623
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Responses to Written Comments Final EIR
3-32 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 CDFW-14
The agency provided standard language about Notice of Determination filing fees. No response is necessary.

Response to CDFW-15
The agency provided closing remarks. No response is necessary. 2624

AMERICAN CANYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Michael P. Cahill 911 DONALDSON WAY, EAST Geoff Belyea
Fire Chief AMERICAN CANYON, CA. 94503 Assistant Fire Chief Phone 707-551-0650 Fax 707-642-0201
_
June 28, 2022
Brent Cooper, Director
American Canyon Community Development Department
4381 Broadway, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 95403
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) (SCH # 2021010104) Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Cooper,
The American Canyon Fire Protection District appreciates the opportunity to provide comment on the fiscal impacts of the proposed 2.4 million square foot Giovannoni Logistics Center Project on District operations and capital facility needs. The project calls for a high cube warehouse on a 208-acre site.

Based upon a fiscal analysis prepared by the developer’s consultant, and reviewed by the District, the annual cost of providing fire suppression and EMS services to the Project is expected to exceed the property tax and fire service fee revenue generated from the Project by approximately $158,000; and this annual operating deficit will continue to increase over time as the growth in the cost of providing fire and EMS services is projected to outpace the growth in revenue due to the 2% cap on property tax increases imposed by Proposition

13. A potential mitigation measure discussed with the developer to address the annual operating deficit involved the formation of a benefit assessment district that would provide the District with a source of additional, ongoing revenue. The developer suggested that the funds from this benefit assessment district could be used to negotiate down a portion of the fire mitigation fees and other related development fees that would be payable to the Fire District prior to construction of this project. The operational impacts of a project of this magnitude will be significant to the Fire District. It is imperative that the gap between the annual cost of providing fire and ems services to this proposed project and the estimated property tax it is expected to generate be bridged as a condition of approval prior to construction.

This Project, along with other current and planned development within the District’s service area will trigger the need for a new “north” fire station and related apparatus. The District has adopted fire mitigation fees to address the cumulative impact of new development on need for new and expanded capital facilities. Based on the Fiscal Year 2021-22 per square foot mitigation

ACFPD

Page 1 of 2 ends

American Canyon City CouncilMarch 21, 2023

American Canyon City Council
March 21, 2023