NOTES
C2.0
AS SHOWN
JULY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
IMPROVEMENTPLANS
HI GHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CALTRANSSUBMITTAL07082021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
07/08/ 2021
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES - GEOTECHINCAL REPORT
DUST ABATEMENT NOTES:
KIER & WRIGHT GENERAL NOTES
GRADING NOTES
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES
CALTRANS GENERAL NOTES
CULTURAL RESOURCE NOTES:
EXHIBITC
Page2 of 23 3561
DETAILS
C3.0
JULY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
IMPROVEMENTPLANS
HI GHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CALTRANSSUBMITTAL07082021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
07/08/ 2021
AS SHOWN
1SEDIMENT
TRAP/ FILTER
WILDLIFE FRIENDLY" STRAW WATTLE
EXHIBITC
Page3 of 23 3562
HIGHWAY 29
HIGHWAY 29
HWY29STA18050TOSTA20000
C4.0
AS SHOWN
JULY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
IMPROVEMENTPLANS
HI GHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CALTRANSSUBMITTAL07082021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
07/08/ 2021
MATCHLINESEEBELOWLEFT
NORTH
MATCHLINESEEABOVERIGHT
SOUTH
KELLYROAD
DEMOLITION NOTES
MATCHLINE SEE ABOVE RIGHT
EXHIBITC
Page4 of 23 3563
PROFILE
1" = 40' HORIZ.
1" = 4' VERT.
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2 9
S. KELLY ROAD
CURVE TABLE
SCALE: 1"= 40'
PLAN
NORTH
SOUTHKELLYROADSTA600TO1100
C5.0
AS SHOWN
JULY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
IMPROVEMENTPLANS
HI GHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CALTRANSSUBMITTAL07082021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
07/08/ 2021
KEY NOTES
EXHIBITC
Page5 of 23 3564
HIGHWAY 29
HIGHWAY 29
S. KELLY ROAD
SI GNINGANDSTRIPING
C6.0
1" = 40'
JULY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
IMPROVEMENTPLANS
HI GHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CALTRANSSUBMITTAL07082021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
07/08/ 2021
MATCHLINEASEEABOVERIGHT
MATCHLINEASEEBELOWLEFT
KEY NOTES
NORTH
NORT
H
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2 9
EXHIBITC
Page6 of 23 3565
HIGHWAY 29
HIGHWAY 29
S. KELLY ROAD
EROSIONCONTROLPLAN
C7.0
1" = 40'
JULY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
IMPROVEMENTPLANS
HI GHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CALTRANSSUBMITTAL07082021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
07/08/ 2021
NORTH
LEGEND
1 C3.0
1 C3.0
MATCHLINEASEEABOVERIGHT
MATCHLINEASEEBELOWLEFT
NORT
H
HIG
H
W
A
Y
2 9
1 C3.0
EXHIBITC
Page7 of 23 3566
OF
STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS
VICINITY MAP
R
Callbefore you dig.
Know what' below. s
SHEET INDEX
SHEET DESCRIPTION
CIVIL
C1.0 COVER SHEET
C1.1 NOTES
C2.1 DETAILS
C3.1 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS
C4.0 SOUTH KELLY ROAD - STA 1+ 00 TO 11+ 00
C5.0 SIGNING AND STRIPING
C6.0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN
KEY MAP
PRELIMINARYNOTFORCONSTRUCTION
FEBRUARY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
STREETIMPROVEMENTPLANS
S. KELLYROADATHIGHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CI TYSUBMITTAL02122021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
CI TYSUBMITTAL07082021
COVERSHEET
C1.0
AS SHOWN
N
SITE
AMERICAN CANYON, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JULY, 2021
UTILTIY PROVIDERS
BASIS OF BEARINGS
PROJECT BENCH MARK
LEGEND
ABBREVIATIONS
SOUTH KELLY ROAD
DEVLI
N
R
O
A
D
HIGHWAY 29
NORTH
HIGHWAY 29SKELLYROAD
EXHIBITC
Page8 of 23 3567
NOTES
C1.1
AS SHOWN
PRELIMINARYNOTFORCONSTRUCTION
FEBRUARY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
STREETIMPROVEMENTPLANS
S. KELLYROADATHIGHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CI TYSUBMITTAL02122021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
CI TYSUBMITTAL07082021
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
CONSTRUCTION NOTES: NOTES - GEOTECHINCAL REPORT
DUST ABATEMENT NOTES:
UTILITY NOTES
KIER & WRIGHT GENERAL NOTES
GRADING NOTES
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES
CALTRANS GENERAL NOTES
CULTURAL RESOURCE NOTES:
EXHIBITC
Page9 of 23 3568
DE
T
A
I
L
S
1PRC2.
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
FEBRUARY, 2021
OF 7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
BY
ST
R
E
E
T
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
S.
K
E
L
L
Y
R
O
A
D
A
T
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2 9
KAS
AM
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
CI
T
Y
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
0 2
1 2
2 0
2 1
JA
M
28 5
0 C
o
l
l
i
e
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
Li
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
C
A
9 4
5 5
1 P
h
o
n
e
9 2
5 2
4 5
8 7
8 8
ww
w
k
i
e
r
w
r
i
g
h
t
c
o
m
CI
T
Y
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
0 7
0 8
2 0
2 1
AS SHOWN
1SEDIMENT
TRAP/ FILTER
WILDLIFE FRIENDLY" STRAW WATTLE
2 EXISTING CURB
INLET FILTER DETAIL
EXHIBIT C
TY
P
I
C
A
L
C
R
O
S
S
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
C3.1
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
N
O
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
FEBRUARY, 2021
OF 7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
BY
ST
R
E
E
T
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
S.
K
E
L
L
Y
R
O
A
D
A
T
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2 9
KAS
AM
E
R
I
C
A
N
C
A
N
Y
O
N
CA
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
CI
T
Y
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
0 2
1 2
2 0
2 1
JA
M
28 5
0 C
o
l
l
i
e
r
C
a
n
y
o
n
R
o
a
d
Li
v
e
r
m
o
r
e
C
A
9 4
5 5
1 P
h
o
n
e
9 2
5 2
4 5
8 7
8 8
ww
w
k
i
e
r
w
r
i
g
h
t
c
o
m
CI
T
Y
S
U
B
M
I
T
T
A
L
0 7
0 8
2 0
2 1
AS SHOWN
EXHIBIT C
PROFILE
1" = 40' HORIZ.
1" = 4' VERT.
S. KELLY ROAD
DEVLI
N
RD
CURVE TABLE
SCALE: 1"= 40'
PLAN
NORTH
SOUTHKELLYROADSTA100TO1100
C4.0
AS SHOWN
PRELIMINARYNOTFORCONSTRUCTION
FEBRUARY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
STREETIMPROVEMENTPLANS
S. KELLYROADATHIGHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CI TYSUBMITTAL02122021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
CI TYSUBMITTAL07082021
KEY NOTES
EXHIBITC
STOP
STOP
STOP
S. KELLY ROAD
DEVLIN
RD
NORTH
SI GNINGANDSTRIPING
C5.0
AS SHOWN
PRELIMINARYNOTFORCONSTRUCTION
FEBRUARY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
STREETIMPROVEMENTPLANS
S. KELLYROADATHIGHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CI TYSUBMITTAL02122021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
CI TYSUBMITTAL07082021
KEY NOTES
EXHIBITC
S. KELLY ROAD
DEVLIN
RD
NORTH
EROSIONCONTROLPLAN
C6.0
AS SHOWN
PRELIMINARYNOTFORCONSTRUCTION
FEBRUARY, 2021
OF7 SHEETS
SHEET
DATE
SCALE
DESIGNER
JOB NO. A13631- 32
NO
REVISION
BY
STREETIMPROVEMENTPLANS
S. KELLYROADATHIGHWAY29
KAS
AMERICANCANYON
CALIFORNIA
CI TYSUBMITTAL02122021
JAM
2850CollierCanyonRoadLi vermoreCA94551
Phone9252458788
wwwkierwrightcom
CI TYSUBMITTAL07082021
LEGEND
1 C2.1
2 C2.1
EXHIBITC
Anticipated City Cost to Deliver
Off-site Improvements South Kelly Road (City) 535,000.00$ Off-site Improvements Highway 29 (Caltrans) 297,035.00$ Anticipated Construction Cost subtotal 832,035.00$
Final Design/Caltrans Encroachment/ City Administration ( 10%) 83,203.50$ Construction Management ( 15%) 124,805.25$
Construction Contingency ( 20%) 166,407.00$
Soft Cost Subtotal 374,415.75$
Grand Total 1,206,450.75$
NLP's 83% Share 1,001,354.12$
2022 ESTIMATED CITY COST TO DELIVER PROJECT
EXHIBIT C
A. GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 SITE PREPARATION / MOBILIZATION LS 1 25, 000. 00$ 25, 000. 00$ 2 EARTHWORK ( CUT) CY 750 30. 00$ 22, 500. 00$
3 SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL LS 1 25, 000. 00$ 25, 000. 00$ 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL / STAGING LS 1 40, 000. 00$ 40, 000. 00$
GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING SUB TOTAL
B. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ( X" AC / X" AB) SF 18500 10. 00$ 185, 000. 00$ 2 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE ( AC) GRIND AND OVERLAY SF 15020 3.00$ 45, 060. 00$ 3 CURB & GUTTER PER AMERICAN CANYON STANDARD DWG. # 3.07, TYPE A LF 1080 20. 00$ 21, 600. 00$ 4 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK ( 4" CONC/ 4" AB) SF 8530 8.00$ 68, 240. 00$ 5 DRIVEWAYS / CONCRETE PAVING ( 6" CONCRETE OVER 4" AB) SF 1400 10. 00$ 14, 000. 00$ 6 ACCESSIBLE RAMPS PER CALTRANS A88A CASE A EA 1 2,000. 00$ 2,000. 00$
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS SUB TOTAL
C. STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 12" RCP STORM DRAIN LINE LF 45 70. 00$ 3,150. 00$
2 CURB INLET EA 1 6,500. 00$ 6,500. 00$
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS SUB TOTAL
D. WATER
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT EA 1 6,000. 00$ 6,000. 00$
2 RELOCATE WATER METER EA 2 4,000. 00$ 8,000. 00$
WATER IMPROVEMENTS SUB TOTAL
E. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 OTHER MISC. TRAFFIC SIGN/ POLE INSTALLATION PER SIGNING PLAN EA 8 200. 00$ 1,600. 00$ 2 PAVEMENT ARROW MARKINGS ( TYPE IV) IN THERMOPLASTIC EA 11 150. 00$ 1,650. 00$ 3 STOP/ YEILD LEGEND IN THERMOPLASTIC EA 4 350. 00$ 1,400. 00$ 4 12" WHITE THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK LF 290 4.00$ 1,160. 00$ 5 DETAIL 38 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 460 3.00$ 1,380. 00$
5 DETAIL 39 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 210 3.00$ 630. 00$
6 DETAIL 39A IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 180 2.50$ 450. 00$
7 DETAIL 32 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 900 2.50$ 2,250. 00$
8 DETAIL 22 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 300 3.00$ 900. 00$
9 DETAIL 9 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 690 3.00$ 2,070. 00$
SIGNALS, STRIPING AND SIGNAGE SUB TOTAL
F. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 STREET MONUMENT EA 1 1,000. 00$ 1,000. 00$
2 ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE EA 1 1,200. 00$ 1,200. 00$
3 RELOCATE ELECTRICAL BOX EA 3 2,000. 00$ 6,000. 00$
4 ADJUST WATERVALVE TO GRADE SF 3 600. 00$ 1,800. 00$
5 RELOCATE STREET LIGHT EA 1 3,000. 00$ 3,000. 00$
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS SUB TOTAL
13,490.00$
14,000.00$
KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
335,900.00$
9,650.00$
Project No. A13631-9 (within City Right-of-Way)
City of American Canyon
112,500.00$
13,000.00$
EXHIBIT C
KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Project No. A13631-9 (within City Right-of-Way)
City of American Canyon
G. LANDSCAPE
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREAS SF 1980 6.50$ 12, 870. 00$
LANDSCAPE SUB TOTAL
H. DEMOLITION
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LF 255 6.00$ 1,530. 00$
2 REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT SF 1120 3.50$ 3,920. 00$
3 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING LF 420 2.00$ 840. 00$
4 REMOVE SIGN/ POLE AND FOUNDATION EA 1 100. 00$ 100. 00$ 5 REMOVE EXISTING FENCE/ GATE AND INSTALL AT RIGHT OF WAY LF 860 20. 00$ 17, 200. 00$
DEMOLITION SUB TOTAL
TOTAL
10% CONTINGENCY
GRAND TOTAL
NOTE:
ESTIMATE IS BY ON 1/14/ 21 PLOT SET
23,590.00$
12,870.00$
53,500.00$
588,500.00$
535,000.00$
EXHIBIT C
A. GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 SITE PREPARATION / MOBILIZATION LS 1 20,000. 00$ 20, 000. 00$ 2 EARTHWORK ( CUT) CY 650 20.00$ 13, 000. 00$
3 SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL LS 1 25,000. 00$ 25, 000. 00$ 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL / STAGING ( INCLUDING K-RAILS) LS 1 50,000. 00$ 50, 000. 00$ 5 GUARD RAIL LS 1 3,000. 00$ 3,000. 00$
GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING SUB TOTAL
B. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ( X" AC / X" AB) SF 13000 12.00$ 156, 000. 00$
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS SUB TOTAL
C. STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 OTHER MISC. TRAFFIC SIGN/ POST INSTALLATION PER SIGNING PLAN EA 2 200. 00$ 400. 00$ 2 PAVEMENT ARROW MARKINGS ( IV) IN THERMOPLASTIC EA 6 200. 00$ 1,200. 00$ 3 DETAIL 25 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 1420 3.50$ 4,970. 00$
4 DETAIL 38 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 1150 3.50$ 4,025. 00$
5 RESTRIPE EXISTING DETAIL 25 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 210 3.00$ 630. 00$ 6 RESTRIPE EXISTING DETAIL 38 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 220 3.00$ 660. 00$
SIGNALS, STRIPING AND SIGNAGE SUB TOTAL
C. ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 LOOPS EA 2 5,000. 00$ 10, 000. 00$
ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS SUB TOTAL
D. DEMOLITION
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 SAWCUT AND REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT SF 1630 5.00$ 8,150. 00$
DEMOLITION SUB TOTAL
TOTAL
10% CONTINGENCY
GRAND TOTAL
111,000.00$
156,000.00$
ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
Project No. A13631- 9 (within Caltrans Right-of-way)
City of American Canyon
297,035.00$
29,703.50$
326,738.50$
11,885.00$
8,150.00$
10,000.00$
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT C
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2
FirstCarbon Solutions
M.8 - Agreement 2022-32-R
3583
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3584
3c YZ_
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1JIIIfJIII IIII! !IIIIVIIIIIIIIIIFI! Iil;Il 2022- 0018869
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
Recorded
O ficiel Record
County of
Nopc
JOHN ThTELfR
e. r4? ecclrth ='_ D.
O9: 14. APA 12 Oct 2022
EXEMPT from recording fee pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 F. EC FEE
cci- CONFORMED
jw
Page i of 44
TERMINATION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT
AND
FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Napa Logistics Park
This Termination of Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement and First Amendment to Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement collectively, this " Amendment"), is made by and between the CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON (" City"), a California Municipal Corporation, and DWF IV NLP I I , LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (" Developer") and is effective as of August Z, 2022 ( the " Effective Date").
RECITALS
A. Developer is the developer of the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 project (" Phase 2" or " Project"). Developer formerly owned the entirety of the Phase 2 site, consisting of an approximately 172. 61 -acre parcel ( formerly Napa County Assessor Parcel Number 057-90- 083). Developer currently owns Lots 1 and 2 of the Phase 2 site, as more particularly described on Exhibit A.
B. On December 15, 2015, the City Planning Commission
recommended the City Council certify a Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ( Pub. Res. Code 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") for the Project, and the City Council: (A) (i) certified the Final EIR as adequate to address environmental impacts associated with the Project, (ii) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, and iii) adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (" MMRP") for the Project, based on all of the evidence presented to the City Council, as set out in City Council Resolution 2015- 106, and ( B) approved a Conditional Use Permit CUP") for the Project by adopting City Council Resolution 2015- 107. The CUP 1 c
3585
includes several conditions of approval, including conditions related to certain required public and private improvements ( the " CUP Conditions").
C. On November 7, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2017- 08, authorizing a Development Agreement for the Project to extend the CUP by an additional ten ( 10) years. To comply with CEQA, the City Council approved an Initial Study/ Addendum prepared by First Carbon Solutions, dated August 31, 2017 2017 Addendum"). The City and Developer then entered into that certain Development Agreement, dated November 7, 2017, and recorded on November 8, 2017, as Instrument No. 2017- 0025000 in the Official Records of the County the " Phase 2 Development Agreement").
D. On January 25, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018- 02, the City Planning Commission approved a Design Permit application for a building in Phase 2 and issued conditions of approval in connection therewith ( the " Building 4 Conditions").
E. On March 22, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018- 06, the City Planning Commission approved a Tentative Parcel Map, further subdividing Phase 2 into six ( 6) legal lots: (a) three ( 3) buildable lots of 58. 19 acres, 37. 40 acres, and 24. 51 acres each ( the " Development Parcels"), and ( b) the collective remainder lots including an 8. 54 acre lot for storm drainage purposes, a designated remainder lot of 37. 21 acres which is subject to a wetlands conservation easement, and public road rights of way totaling 6.7 acres ( the " Tentative Map Approval"). The Tentative Map Approval includes several conditions of approval, including conditions related to certain required public and private improvements ( the " Map Conditions"). Map Condition 8 incorporates by reference as Map Conditions all CUP Conditions.
F. On June 27, 2018 the City and Developer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement ( recorded on July 2, 2018 as Instrument No. 2018- 0013094 in the Official Records of the County) ( the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement"), documenting certain improvement requirements for the Project.
G. On December 18, 2018, the City and Developer entered into that certain Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement ( recorded on December 18, 2018, as Instrument No. 2018- 0024204 in the Official Records of the County) ( the " Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement"), documenting certain improvement requirements for the Project.
H. On March 4, 2019, Developer recorded Parcel Map —Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 in Book 28 of Parcel Maps, Pages 1 through 4, in the Official Records of the County (" Parcel Map"). Following recordation of the Parcel Map, Developer transferred Lot 4 to the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (" PG& E"), and Developer transferred Lot 3 and the designated remainder lot to the Napa Logistics Park Association. Developer and PG& E also entered into a partial assignment and assumption of the Phase 2 Development Agreement, by which Developer retained 2 3586
certain improvement obligations. Developer currently owns Lots 1 and 2 of the original Phase 2 site, as more particularly described on Exhibit A.
I. On June 25, 2020, by Resolution No. 2020- 06, the City Planning Commission approved a Design Permit application for a building in Phase 2 and issued conditions of approval in connection therewith ( the " Building 3 Conditions").
J. Both the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement and the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement addressed and implemented requirements for certain roadway improvements at SR -29 and South Kelly Road ( the " Original South Kelly Improvements"), as set forth in CUP Condition 16., the Map Conditions, MM -TRANS -1d, MM -TRANS -2a, the Napa Logistics Park Phase I approvals, and other Project approvals. The Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement also addressed certain Transportation Demand Management (" TDM") requirements for the Project, as set forth in CUP Conditions 16. e and 17, MM -TRANS - 1 a and MM -TRANS - lb, and other Project approvals.
K. The Original South Kelly Improvements were premised on conservative assumptions about the Project' s
land uses, development square
footage, and trip generation as analyzed in the Final EIR, and were based on the City' s, County' s, Napa Valley Transportation Authority' s (" NVTA"), and Caltrans' plans for traffic improvements along the SR -29 corridor as of 2015. The Project' s actual buildout has resulted in less intensive land uses, reduced development square footage, and fewer traffic trips compared to what was assumed and analyzed in the Final EIR and 2017 Addendum. In addition, the City, County, NVTA, and Caltrans have since updated their plans for traffic improvements along the SR -29 corridor.
L. Developer and the City now desire to modify the Original Roadway Improvements to reflect the actual land uses, development square footage, and trip generation for the Project as -built, and the agencies' updated improvement plans for the SR -29 corridor (" Modified South Kelly Improvements"). The Modified South Kelly Improvements are depicted in the preliminary plans, engineer' s estimate, and contractor' sestimate previously submitted to the City and listed on Exhibit C ( the " Modified South Kelly Improvement Plans"), and are described on Exhibit D and in the Project' s
Amended MMRP, dated June 2022.
M. Developer and the City further desire to clarify the Transportation Demand Management (" TDM") requirements for the Project and the current status of those requirements. The clarified TDM requirements for the Project are described on Exhibit D and in the Project' s
Amended MMRP, dated June 2022.
N. Developer and the City further desire to document the Modified South Kelly Improvements and clarified TDM requirements in a single agreement. 3 3587
O. The City has approved an Initial Study/ Addendum prepared by First Carbon Solutions, dated July 2022 (" 2022 Addendum"), which evaluated whether approval of the Modified South Kelly Improvements and other items included in this Amendment have the potential to cause new or substantially more severe environmental impacts over the Project impacts evaluated and identified in the Final EIR and 2017 Addendum, or whether there is any new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Final EIR was certified as complete, that would require additional environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and the CEQA Guidelines sections 15162-5164. The 2022 Initial Study/ Addendum determined that there is no potential for new or more severe significant environmental impacts, and the City has determined that no subsequent EIR is required. The City has also approved an Amended MMRP for the Project, dated June 2022, which addresses the Modified South Kelly Improvements and the TDM requirements, and which identifies those Mitigation Measures that continue to apply to the Project and those that have been completed or no longer apply.
P. Since the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement and the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement both address the Original South Kelly Improvements and since there are no other improvements or Developer obligations otherwise outstanding under the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement, the Parties now desire to: (1) terminate the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement, and ( 2) amend the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement to require the Modified South Kelly Improvements in lieu of the Original South Kelly Improvements, to specify the Parties' respective rights and obligations for the construction and funding of the Modified South Kelly Improvements, to clarify the TDM requirements, and to make corresponding revisions to all other Project approvals, entitlements, and requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the City and Developer Parties") agree as follows:
TERMINATION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT
Napa Logistics Park Phases I and II
1. Termination. The Parties agree that the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement is terminated as of the Effective Date.
2. Improvements. Developer shall have no further obligations with respect to the Improvements listed in Section 2, including subsections ( a) through e), of the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement. These Improvements 4 3588
are superseded and replaced by the Modified South Kelly Improvements, which will be governed by this Amendment, as set forth below.
3. Security. The Parties acknowledge that Developer caused Bank of America, N. A. to issue and annually renew Irrevocable Standby Letters of Credit, naming the City as beneficiary, as security for the obligations set forth in the Amended and Restated Improvement Agreement ( the " Letters of Credit"). The Parties agree that the Letters of Credit may now be cancelled. The City shall provide Developer with its written consent to cancel the Letters of Credit within five 5) business days following Developer' s payment of the fair share obligation described in Section 4 of this Amendment.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
Napa Logistics Park Phase 2
4. Amendment to Section 2. c. Section 2. c of the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows.
CUP Condition 16. a: South Kelly Improvements. The Parties hereby agree to modify the roadway improvements required at SR - 29 and South Kelly Road, as originally set forth in CUP Condition
16. a, Mitigation Measure TRANS - 1d, and Mitigation Measure TRANS -2a (" Original South Kelly Improvements"). The modified improvements at SR -29 and South Kelly Road (" Modified South Kelly Improvements") are depicted on the improvement plans listed on Exhibit C, and are described on Exhibit D and in the Project' s Amended MMRP dated June 2022.
The Parties agree and acknowledge that Developer shall have no further obligations with respect to the Original South Kelly Improvements, and that the City did not require construction of the Original South Kelly Improvements prior to issuing certificates of occupancy for the Project.
Developer' s obligation with respect to the Modified South Kelly Improvements is limited to making a fair share payment to the City, in the amount of $ 1, 001, 354. 12, reflecting 83% of the engineer' s estimate for the work. The fair share payment shall be due to the City within 60 days following the Effective Date.
The City shall be responsible for all other obligations relating to the Modified South Kelly Improvements, including without limitation, obtaining any required encroachment permits from the County or 5 3589
Caftans; acquiring any necessary easements or rights -of -way; constructing, repairing, and replacing the Modified South Kelly Improvements; and satisfying any other applicable obligations for the Modified South Kelly Improvements identified in Section 1 of this Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement.
5. Amendment to Section 2.d. Section 2. d of the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows.
CUP Condition 17: TDM. The Parties agree and acknowledge that Developer has submitted, and the City has approved, a
Transportation Demand Management program for the Project, entitled " Napa Logistics Park Transportation Demand Management TDM) Strategies and Monitoring," prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated October 2020 ( the " TDM Program"). The Parties further agree and acknowledge that the TDM Program has been incorporated into the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and Grant of Easements for Napa Logistics Park ( recorded on September 12, 2017 as Instrument No. 2017- 0020645 in the Official Records of the County), as subsequently amended ( the " CC& Rs").
Section 3. 14 of the CC& Rs requires the Association to monitor each Occupant' scompliance with the TDM Program and to allocate to an Owner or Owners any fines imposed by the City in connection with an Occupant' s
violation of the TDM Program.
The Parties hereby agree to clarify and/ or modify the TDM requirements as originally set forth in the Project approvals, including CUP Condition 16. e, CUP Condition 17, and Mitigation Measures TRANS - 1a and TRANS - 1b, such that Developer is not required to satisfy any further TDM requirements beyond those it has already completed as described in the paragraph above. Without limitation, Developer is not required to enter into any further TDM Agreement, conduct additional monitoring, install a permanent vehicle counting station, or make any further financial guarantee to the City. The City finds that the TDM Program as implemented through the CC& Rs is effective, and Developer is hereby deemed to have complied with all applicable TDM requirements for the Project.
6. Addition of New Section 2. f. A new Section 2. fis added to the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement as follows.
Applicability to Other Proiect Approvals. The provisions of this Subdivision and Improvement Agreement, including the requirements for the Modified South Kelly Improvements and TDM requirements as described herein, shall control over and be automatically substituted into all 6 3590
other Project approvals, entitlements, and agreements that address the same improvements or requirements.
7. Amendment to Exhibit C. Exhibit C to the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement, listing the Improvement Plans, is hereby amended to include the Improvement Plans listed on Exhibit C to this Amendment.
8. Amendment to Exhibit D. Exhibit D to the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement, describing the covered Improvements, is hereby amended with respect to CUP Conditions 16. a, 16. e, and 17 as shown on Exhibit D to this Amendment.
9. Section 3. b. The Parties agree and acknowledge that Developer' s payment under Section 4 of this Amendment represents the Project' sfair share of the construction costs for the Modified South Kelly Improvements. The reimbursement provisions of Section 3. b of the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement shall continue to apply only for the limited purpose of entitling Developer to reimbursement for the planning and engineering costs for the Modified South Kelly Improvements, which Developer paid for and advanced 100%.
10. Deletion of Section 3. e. Section 3. e of the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. City shall be solely responsible for constructing the Modified South Kelly Improvements and Developer shall be responsible only for making the fair share payment described in Section 4 of this Amendment.
11. Full Force and Effect. The Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, shall continue to remain in full force and effect. This Amendment and the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement shall be construed as a whole in order to effectuate the intent of the Parties as specified in this Amendment. All provisions of the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement affected by this Amendment shall be deemed amended regardless of whether so specified in this Amendment. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective successors and assigns.
12. Indemnification. Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of American Canyon, its elected and appointed officials, employees, volunteers, and legal counsel, as set forth in the Phase 2 Development Agreement.
MISCELLANEOUS AGREEMENTS
13. Defined Terms. Defined terms used in this Amendment which are not defined herein shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement.
7 3591
14. Captions. The section headings or captions appearing in this Amendment are for convenience only, are not a part of this Amendment and are not to be considered in interpreting this Amendment.
15. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute but one and the same document.
16. Entire Aareement: Modification. This Amendment constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements between the Parties. There are no verbal agreements that change this Amendment, and no waiver of any of their respective terms will be effective, unless in writing executed by the Parties.
Amendment continued on next page]
8 3592
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.
City"
City of America
By:
Jaso B. olley
City an . ger
ATTEST:
Teresa uss
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO
By: Al// t.ef4C- 1 .F017
William D. Ross
City Attorney
9 Developer"
DWF IV NLP I I, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability compa
By:
Developer"
Title: V,' c.2 Fred: g-e- C. vi"
Name:
Title:
t.e_v% her+
Gtv
Ili Ce Ptesq%eAd- `
1 3593
California Acknowledgment Form
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of .=;' ? -- rabv (,s -- C' C7
SS.
On -` , t'1f?Yll 1, a2= 2 before me, ?% he-, V'. ela/ 1 /071. / Votery here insert name and title of the Officer) fK/ IG
personally appeared ;, 0s -roil Le dtht'. rf'
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person( s) whose name( s) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ she/ they executed the same in his/er/ their authorized capacity( ies), and that by his/er/ their signature( s) on the instrument the person( s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person( s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Seal
SALLIE V. SCANLON
COMM. # 2345367 z
Notary Public • California o
San Francisco County -
Comm. Expires Feb. 512025/
WITNESS
my
hand and official seal.
f •
i
Signature of Notary
Optional Information
To help prevent fraud, it is recommended that you provide information about the attached document below.
This is not required under California State notary public law.*** Document Title: # of Pages:
Notes
2014 Golden State Notary, Inc. www. Notary. net 888) 263- 1977 3594
California Acknowledgment Form
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of Californ'
County of '- 3 f c2t' lE' iSoo
SS.
personally appeared S' ep('n Ceti
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person( s) whose name( s) is/ are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ she/ they executed the same in his/er/ their authorized capacity( ies), and that by his/er/ their signature( s) on the instrument the person( s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person( s) acted, executed the instrument.
On { e. tiiz( 1, before me, Si /I c, V Sea_ % IfU'` r .t'v fU. I1IC'/ here insert name and title of the officer) `
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
Seal
SALLIE V. SCANLON I
COMM. # 2345367 z
Notary Public • California b
San Francisco County
AI Comm. Exles Feb. 5, 2025 I
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature of Notary
Optional Information
To help prevent fraud, it is recommended that you provide information about the attached document below.
This is not required under California State notary public law.*** Document Title: # of Pages:
Notes
2014 Golden State Notary, Inc. www. Notary. net 888) 263- 1977 3595 CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of
On -- j(1rrk- 0- I >02 -1 -
Date
personally appeared
before me,
3- acSc9n
e and Title of t Officer
Name( s) of SignerX
Here Insert N
e9_
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person( 4whose namer, s1 si'; e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hGs/- sl eItt- rey executed the same ink/ herft-eir authorized capacity( is ), and that by ii
cr tk ix signature(_ onthe instrument the person( s); or the entity upon behalf of which the person( s) acted, executed the instrument.
R. HENORYX
Notary Public • California
Napa County
Commission S 2336722
My Comm. Expires Nov 1, 2024
Place Notary Sea/ and/ or Stamp Above
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
OPTIONAL
Signature of Notary Public
Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:- Ikn. m,; nG."^-
Document Date:
Signer( s) Other Than Named Above:
4- muz_-, ArunM
Number of Pages:
Capacity( ies) Claimed by Signer( s)
Signer' s
Name:
Corporate Officer - Title( s):
Partner - 0 Limited General
Individual 0 Attorney in Fact
Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator
Other:
Signer is Representing:
Signer' s
Name:
Corporate Officer - Title( s):
Partner - 0 Limited 0 General
Individual 0 Attorney in Fact
Trustee 0 Guardian or Conservator
Other:
Signer is Representing:
2019 National Notary Association
3596
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
12 3597
OWNER' S
STATEMENT
THEUNDERSIGNED
DOES
HEREBY
STATE
THAT
THEY
ARE
THE
ONLY
ENTITY
FI
N
IC
A
RECORD
TITLE
INTEREST
IN
THE
REAL
PROPERTY
INCLUDED
WHI
N
THE DISTINCTIVE
BOUNDARY
OF
THIS
PARCEL
MAP
SHO
HEREONWN
ENTIT4EO '
PARCEL
MAP
NAPA
LOGISTICS
PARK
PHASE
2 ',
CONSISTING
OF
4 SHE ETS INCLUDING
THIS
ONE,
NAT
THEY
D0
HEREBY
CONSE
NTTO
THE PREPARATION
ANO
RECORDING
OF
SAID
MAP,
AND
THAT
THEY
HEREBY
IRREVOCABLY
001ER
FOR DEDICATION:
OEVI
N
ROAD
DEDICATION
A5
A
PUBUC
ROAD
RIGHT
O
WAY
A4L
PUBLIC
UTILITY
EASEMENT
BOONE
DRIVE.
DEDICATION '
A'
AS
A
PUBLIC
ROAD
RICHT
OF
WAY
AND
PUBLIC
UTILITY
EASEMENT
BOONE
DRIVE,
DEDICATION '
B'
AS
A
PUBLIC
ROAD
RIGHT
OF
WAY
AND
PUBLIC
UIUTY
EASEMENT
20 FOOT
WDE
PUBLIC
STORM
DRAIN
EASEMENT ( DESIGNATED
20 '
PUBLIC
5. 17 E .)
6 FOOT
ME
PUBUC
UTILITY
EASEMENTS ( DESIGNATED
6'
P .
U, E .) 20'
TEMPORARY
WOE
PUBLIC
SEWER
EASEMENT .
TO
EXACT AFTER
10 YEARS (
DESIGNATED
20 '
TEMPORARY
PUBLIC
E) 5..
AS HE
1140091
REON
IN
THE
BODY
OF
SAID
MAP.
M
TNESS
WHEREOF,
THEUNDERSIGNED
HAVE
CAUSED
THESE
PRESENTS
TO
BEEXECUTED
THIS
1 OF
018.
DYE
IV
N1P
11,
ELS
ADELAWARE
UNITED
LIABILITY
COMPANY;
811 NAME:
V!
ITSMANAGING
AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY
OWN
R'
ACKNONR
D •
MENT
DAY
A
NOTARY
PUBLIC
OR
OTHER
OFFICER
COMPLETING
THIS
CERTIFICATE
VERIFIES
THE
ONLY
IDENTITY
OF
THE
INDIADUAL
WHO
SIGNED
THE
00CUMEM
TOWHICH
THIS
CERTIFICATE
15ATTACHED,
AND
NOT TRUTHFULNESS, THE
ACCURACY,
OR
VALIDITY
OF
THAT
DOCUMENT.
STATE
Of CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY
OF
SAN
FRANCISCO)
S.S
ON
2018
BEFORE
TMME,
AA1M(
e6aaMwtk1
NG4t
PUik(.
PERSONALLY
APPEARED
SUM(
N
ON41L
4 (
WHO
ROVED EANDTITLTO
ME
ON
THE
BASIS
OFSATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE
TO
BE
THE
PERSON( S)
WHOSE
NAME( 5)
15/ ARE
SUBSCRIBED
70 THE
WITHIN
INSTRUMENT
AND
TO
ACKNOWLEDGED
ME
THAT
HE/ SHE/ THEY
EXECUTED
THE
SAME
IN
811/ HER /
THEIR
AU040RIZED
CAPACITY( IES),
AND
THAT
BY
HIS/ER/ THEIR
SIGNATURE( S)
ON
THE
INSTRUMENT
THE
PERSDN( S)
OR
ENTITY
UPON
BEHALF
OFWHICH
THE
PERSONS)
ACTED,
EXECUTED
THE
INSTRUMENT.
1 CERTIFY
UNDER
PENALTY
OFPERJURY
UNDER
THE
LAWS
DF
THE
STATE
OFCALIFORNIA
THAT
THE
FOREGOING
PARAGRAPH
IS
TRUE
AND
CORRECT.
WITNESS
MY
HAND. lI9Z11'" SIGNATURE:.
NUt44oLI
PRINT
04551]• .
y9lL
i ,delte41lM11' I(L
MYCOMMISSION
N
MBER
MYCOMMISSION
IO
EXPIRES:'
WA (
41a , d.
a. 00 "
PRINCIPAL
COUNTY
OF BUSINESS:
7..
ig2- L!A8ISd$
COUNTY
TAX
COLLECTOR
AND
REDEMPTION
OFFICER
CERTIFICATE
I
CERTIFY
HEREBY
THAT
ACCORDING
TO
THE RECORDS
OF
MY
OFFICE
THERE
ARE
NO
LIENS
FOR UNPAID
STATE,
COUNTY,
MUNICIPAL
OR
LOCAL
TAXES
ORSPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
COLLECTED
AS
TAXES (
EXCEPT
TAXES
OR SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS
8407
YET PAYABLE)
AGAINST
All
PART
OF
THE
LAND
INCLUDED
IN
ME
WHIN
SUBDIVISION,
THAT
SECURITY
IN
THE AMOUNT
OF ( 04
51,
114
HAS
SEEN
FILED
WITH
MECOUNTY
TAX
COLLECTOR
AND
REDEMPTION
OFFICER
TOGUARANTEE
THE PAYMEN
T
00 ALL
TAXES
AND
ASSESSM
ENTS
COLLECTED
AS
TAXES,
WHICH
ARE
NOW
A
UEN
AGAINST
NEPROPERTY
IN
THE
W
HIN
9 180N510N
BUT,
NOT cures
PAYABLE curi{ LtaIAK
III14 R}
W88 -
R ,
111gs r:.
YA DALA{ 11uA1'
TE
COUNTY
TAX
C
c
AND
BE (
01111
N
DEFACER
BATE
SIGNATURE
OMISSIONS
SIGNATURES
OFWNERS O
OF
THE FOLLOWING
EASE
MENTS HAVE
BEEN
OMITTED
UNDER
114E PROVISIONS
OFSECTION
66436
OF
THE SUBDIVISION
MA
P
ACT .
THEIR
INTE
REST 15
SUCH
THAT
IT
CANNOT
RIPEN
INTO
FEE
TITLE
AND
SUCH
SIGNATURES
ARE
NOT REQUIRED
BY
THE GOVERNING
BODY.
NAME ARTHUR
H.
D840041
N
AMERICAN
CANYON
COUNTY
WATER
DISTRICT
SOUTH
NAPA
660111
8666008061
AUTHORITY
RECORDED
NATURE
OF
INTER
EST
36 O. R
192
984
0. 8
291
PIPE
L144E (
NOT PLOTTABLE)
WATER
AND
SEWER
LINES (
PLOTTED)
037831 1993-
STORM
DRAINAGE (
PLOTTED)
ALBERT
R.
5ARNVA
1998- 011349
COUNTY
OF
NAPA
2010- 0017496 2010- 0016563 2014- 0007861 2018- 0013094 2010- 0017498 NAPA
AIRPORT
CORPORATE
2011- 0006435
CENTRE,
LLC
GOLDEN STATE
LAND
2013- 0017750
CONSERVA
NCY
WEST
COMMUNICA7ON5
CO.
2013- 0035312
CITY
OFAMERICAN
CANYON
2012- 0000442 2015- 0016898 2017- 0025000
01 W
IV
NAPA
LOGISTICS
CENTER
0009047 219-
SURVEYORS
STATEMENT
STANDARD
DRAINAGE (
NOT
PLOTTABLE)
6800709
RIGHTS (
110T PLOTTABLE)
DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (
NOT PLOTTABLE)
DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (
NOT
PLOTTABLE)
IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT (
NOT PLOTTABLE)
USE
8 DEVELOPMENT
RE5101000NS
MITIGATION
AGREEMENT (
NOT
PLOTTABLE)
CONSERVATION
EASE
MENT (
PLOTTED)
170000MMUNICA70NS (
NOT PLOTTABLE)
AGREEMENT (
NOT P10TTA9LE)
IMPROVEMENT
AGREEME
NT (
NOT PLOTTABLE)
AGREEMENT APPURTENANT
RAIL
EAS EMENT (
PLOTTED)
I.
RICHARD
JAMES
HIC (
758011OM,
DOHEREBY
STATE
THAT
THE PARCELS
SHOWN
ON
THIS
MAP
ENTAILED
PARCEL
MAP
NAPA
LOGISTICS
PARK
PHASE
2',
IS
BASED
ON
A
FIELD
SURVEY
MADE
BY
ME
OR
UNDER
MY
ERECTION
IN
J0/ L1
201&
INCONFORMANCE
WTH
THEREOUREMENT5
OF
144E SUBDIVISION
MAP
ACT
AND
LOCAL
ORDINANCE
AT
THE REQUEST
OFORCHARD
PARTNERS.
1 HEREBY
STATE
THAT
11115
MAP
SUBSTANTIALLY
CONFORMS
TO
THE APPROVED
ORCONOI7ONALLY
APPROVED
TENTATIVE
PARCEL
MAP,
IF
ANY,
AO
THAT
ALL MONUMENTS
SHOWN
ON
SAO
MAP
ARE
O
THE CHARACTER
AND
OCCUPY
THE
POSITIONS
INDIC
ATED
OR
MAT
THEY
VALL
BE
SET
IN
NOSE
POSITIONS
WHIN
ONE
YEAR
OF
THE DATE
OF
FILING
SAID
MAP,
AND
THAT
SAID
MONUMENTS
ARE
0R
WILL
BESUFFICIENT
TO
ENABLE
ME
SURVEY
TO
BE
RETRACED. •".
P.
L
S.
8654
Jg1L$DA
CITY
ENGINEER' S
STATEMENT
I
HEREBY
STATE
THAT
114E
MAP
ON
THIS
IT
15SUBSTANTIALLY
THE
SAME
AS
IT
THEREOF:
THAT
ALL PRO8SIONS
OF
THE
APPIY' ARIF
AT
THE
TIME
OFAPPROVAL
OF
STEVEN
L1770,
CITY
R.
436
CITY
ENGINEER,
O
AMERICAN
1 HEREBY
STATE
THAT
THE
MAP
ON
THIS
BEHALF
OF
THE
CITY
ENGINEER
AND
1 AM
RICHARD
A
MO5HIER,
ER. C
30696
CITY
CLERK' S
CERTIFICATE
I
HEREBY
CERTIFY
THAT
THE
01 Y
COUNCIL
PARCEL
MAP
MI
RED
PARCEL
MAP
NAPA
VACATION
OF
THE
20'
WOE
PUBUC
WATER
SANITARY
SEWER
EASEMENT)
AND
HAS
PUBLIC
SHOWN
HEREON
IN
THE
BODY
OF
DEVLIN
ROAD
OE0( 7416
N
AS
A
SUBJECT
TO
IMPROVEME
NT
BOONE
DRIVE
DEDIG
I
N
A'
AS
A
SUBJECT
TO
IMPROVEMENT
BOONE
DRIVE
DEDICATION '
8'
A5
A
SUBJECT
TO
IMPROVEMENT
20 FOOT
WIDE
PUBLIC
STORM
DRAIN
6 FOOT
WIDE
PUBLIC
UNUTY
TEMPORARY
20'
WIDE
PUB
UC
SEWER
TEMPORARY
PUBLIC
SSE .)
CITYSUECL
JOHNSTON, 0170
CITY
CLERK,
an
of
RICAN
CANYON
COUNTY
RECORDER' S
FI7£ 0
AT
THE REQUES
OF
114E
CITY
OF
In /
PM
ON
THE
THE COUNTY
RECORDER
00 114( E. 00411TY
OF
PARCEL
MAPS
AT
PAGES
l^
8i
RECORDER' S
SERIAL
NO .
20 atc6
Y4aY
706
PAID
4g1 .—
DATE:
3I
ei u
i
2ure,,,
JOHN
NTEUR,
COUNTY
RECORDER
COUNTY
OF
14dp&
STATE
OF
CAL7
ORWA
DEPUTY
COUNTY
RECORDgi
COUNTY
OF
NAPA
STATE
O
CALIFORNIA
NAPA
BEING
A
FOUR (
4)
LOT
SUBDI
VISION
OF
THE
GRANT
DEED
RECORDED
JUNE
30,
2015
AS
COUNTY.
BEING
THE
DESIGNATED
REMAI
NDER
AS
PARK
PHASE
1,
FILED
FOR
RECORD
ON
JUNE
OFFICIAL
RECORDS
OF
NAPA
COUNTY.
APN ><
CITY
OF
AMERICAN
KIER & CIVIL
2850
7 41
Liv
ermore
45e ( wom.%
JOB
NO .:
This
page
mabe
reproducible
BY:
3598
0 125'
250'
500'
Sc
ale
1 = 250' ANO2OU
213
tae9
R. D
5844E 4410
RECORD
ANGLE (
RI)
28' 30` 11588'
NOTES:
31'D' W 97. 49 LOT
4 24. 51t
ACRES
SEE
SHEET
3 11
AVIGATION
AND
HAZARD
EASEMENT:
1410 PROPERTY
TS
IN
THE
AREA
IFCT 0m.
10OVERFLIGHTS
BYAIRCRAFT
USING
NAPA
COUNTY
AIRPORT, AND
AS
A
RESULT,
RESIDENTS
MAY
EXPERIENCE
INCONVENIENCE,
ANNOYANCE
ORDISCOMFORT
ARISING
FROM
ME
NOSE
09 SUCH
OPERATIONS
STATE
LAW (
PUNK
MUTES
CODE
SEC110N
21670
ET
5E0)
ESTABLISHES
THE
IMPORTANCE
OF
PUBLIC
USE AIRPORTS
FOR
THE PROTECTION
OF
810
PUBLIC
INTEREST
Of
144E PEOPLE
OF
THE STATE
OFCAUFORMA .
RES0EN15
OFPROPERTY
NEAR
A
PUB2C
USE AIRPORT
SHOULD
THEREFORE
BEPREPARED
TO
ACCEPT
SUCH
INCONVENIENCE
ANNOYANCE
ORO5CONFCRT FROM
NORMAL
AIRCRAFT
OPERATIONS
THIS
PROPERTY
IS
SUBJECT
TO
ANAMGATION
AND HAZARD
EASEMENT
FRED
AUGUST
04,
2010
UNDER
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
2010- 0017496,
NAPA
COUNTY
RECORD
S (
ORD .
1194- 8,
2002:
ORD . *
3, 04-
1992
PRIOR
Cam -
11630 .
1)
LAN051099
oRAZ3
UNYY 50' STOvoNG1s1 1" RM
D
RAIN EASEMENT
PER / /
INST.
NO
1993- 037831 (
EXH& T
0)
DESIGNATED
REMAINDER
37. 21±
ACRES
SEE
SHEET
3 WEIIANDS
AND CONSERVATION
EASEM
T ^
r
1 T.
NO.
2013- 0017750 6=3203' 1259' 29 0= 143. L=
31'
LANDS
BIAGOF
I &
A660CIAT05,
LLC.
2012- 0090888
0. 075128' 59 E
24' 141.
013000
7E74 .
78'
S111. 43 .
6 47' 233.
BOONE
DRIVE
DEDICATION "
A "
2.541
ACRES 45' 528
41' 6 16' 105. S4814' 2819' 87181.
444 LOT
3 6. 901 526' ACRES 40' 04 E
93'( 7) 650.
O
Ay\
00`\\ R=56.
0 345 D3' 45 \\\ 11' 34. L= 58919' 23"
11 25200'
ED. 3/ 4'
LP -
50' R- 222.
LS
4510 (
Rt)
0=5' 250' L=
21. 06'
LANDS
OF .
0,
474NONI
00' R=600.
1889
O. R.
43' 2 0=16' 175,2' L=
1. ALL DISTANCES
SH
ARE
OWN
IN
FEET
A
NDDECIMALS
THEREOF.
2. 107
3 AND
THE
DESIGNATED
REMAINDER
ARE
NON -
DEVELOPABLE
PARCELS.
3. ALL PRIVATE
EASEMENTS
W
ILL
BEDEDICATED
GO
AND
VERNED
BY
THE
COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS
AN0
RESTRICTIONS
DESCRIBED
BELOW .
4. AGEOTECHNICAL
REPORT
OF
THE
PROPERTY
W
ASPREPARED
BY
CORNERSTONE
EARTH
GROUP,
HAVING
A
PROJECT
NUMBER
OF
582- 2
A
ND
DATED
JULY
25, 5. 2016.
COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS
AND
RESTRICTIONS
AFFECTING
THIS
SUBDIVISION
HAVE
BEEN
RECORDED
A5
N0.
INSTRUMENT
2017- 0020645,
ASAMENDED
BY
THAT
RECO
DOCUMENT
RDED
AS
INSTR
UMENT
N0.
2017- 0025597,
AND
FURTHER
AMENDED
BY
DOCUM
THAT
ENT
TO
BERECORDED.
CONCURRENTLY
YATH
THIS
MAP
AS
INSTRUMENT
NO O6OC. 01.
sni'
REFERENCES: R1)
PARCEL
MAP
27 PM
26-9
BASIS
OFBEARINGS'
THE
OF
BEARMO
N
65' 3 52'
WBETWEEN
FOUND
MONUMENTS ALON
G
THECENTERLINE
TOWER
OF
ROAD
AS
5N0WN
ON
THAT
CERTAIN
RECORD
SURVEY OF
MAP
N0.
4929. N0 SERIAL
00335
FILED
FOR
R
ECORD
ON
FEBRUARY
25,
2057 M
BOOK
31 SU
OF RVEYS ,
AT
PAGES
8- 10,
N. C. R
DESIGNATED
REMAINDER
27 PM
2028-
6'
PDX.
6'
P .
EU.
A/
LOT
2 .
37. 21±
ACRES
SEE
SHEET3
4/
LEGEND:
20'
PUBLIC
0 . 5.
E.
59'TE SB9
45' 163. N881217E 48' 175. 57' 99
0' 283.
A
11" W448919'
26'( TXNHR1) 4543.
CENTER
LINE
PROPOSED
EASEM
ENT
UNE
EXISTING
EASEMENT
UNE
SUBDIVISION
B
OUNDARY JURISDICTION
AND
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
CITY
JURISDICTION
LOT
LINES
FOUND
1" IRON P
IPE
LS
8654,
OR
AS
NOTED
O
SET
1'
IRON
PIPE
LS
8254
FOUND
WELL
MONUMENT
SET
WELL
MONUMENT
DL
CENTER
UNE
FD
FOUND
I.
P.
IRON
PIPE
0. 11.
OFFICIAL
RECORDS
M)
MEASURED
DISTANCE
M -
M)
MONUMENT
TO
M
ONUMENT
W
RIGHT
OF
W
AY
SER
F
SEARCHED
FOR
NOT
100440
S.
D.
E.
STORM
DRAIN
EASEMENT
S.
S. E.
SANITARY
SEVER
EA9ENENT
7)
TOTAL
W.
E.
WATER
LINE
EASEM
ENT
908 '
49' 27 '
8,
78( lE) 1205.
TA
P.
1"
I.
LS
8854 (
61)
15'
a22ni 53116'019 23' 49. 00' 6=72.00'"=45 5890'( NXR1) L= R- 35800' 42' 13' 0=29'
185 .=
601( NXRl)
20'
PUBUC
WATER &
SANITARY
SE
VER
00NT EASE/
PER
BOOK
984,
PACE
291
0. 6
TO
BEVACATED
BY
THIS
MAP
BOONE
DRIVE
DEDICATION "
B "
3 .
044
ACRES
44891911" 6
55693.
LOT
1 58039
ACRES
SEE
SHEET
4 09' 876. R=
DEVLIN
ROAD
DEDICATION
N7310' 34 W
a
1692' 36 "
1.44±
ACRES
35' 27 ES75'
93. 93'
1=245.9 '
FD.
WELL
FD.
1'
LP.
LS6654( RI)\
FO .
RI)A
Rl) M
4003 35' 0. ' 0'
8,
PER
230. 91'( 44)( 61
i
1718 "
8, -
LS
6654 (
91)
PAR
27 PM
NOT
PART
w 6'
P .
U .
E.
8- 558 .
00'
42' 00--- N42 ' 13' D36'8 W
1=33 .
42'( 6)( 01)
45'( M)) 61 134.
S1813' 49 1
10838'( TXM)( R1
PUBLIC
O. E S.
PER
MST.
NO
2013- 0034594
6. 0
VICINITY
MAP
MO>
78 seal
5712
R=400. 00 '0=2618' 47 69' 1-63.
E. LS8207' 377495' 52"
1 36' 85.
414. 75 ' -
3/ 4'
LP
LAN05
LS
4510 (
R1)
1997-
NAPA
BEING
A
FOUR (
4)
LOT
SUBDIVISIO
N
OF
THE
GRANT
DEED
RECORDED
JUNE
30,
2015
A5
COUNTY,
BEING
THE
DESIGNATED
REMAINDER
AS
PARK
PHASE
1,
FILED
FOR
RECORD
ON
JUNE
OFFICIAL
RECORDS
OF
NAPA
COUNTY .
APN =
CITY
OF
AMERICAN
KIER &
CIVIL
2850
CMller
Livermore .
vo
kw.
JOB:
NO .
A13631-
This
pa
a
ma
be
reproducible
BY:
3599
LEGEND:
CENTER
LINE
PROPOSED
ASEMENT E
LINE
EXISTING
EASEMENT
LINE
SUBDIVISION
BOUND
ARY
CITY
JURISDICTION
AND
SUBDIVISION
BOUNDARY
CITY
JURISDICTION LOT
LINESDETAR5 FOUND
1'
IRON
PIPE
LS
8654.
OR
A5
NOTED
O
SET
1-
IRON
PIPE
LS
8654
FOUND
WELL
MONUMENT
@D
SET
WELL
MONUMENT
CL
CENTER
U
NE
FD
FOUND
I.P
IRON
PIPE R. O.
OFFICIAL
RECORDS
11)
MEASURED
DISTANCE
8 -
M)
MONUMENT
MONUM ENTO
T
R/ W
RICHT 5PNWAVOF
F
SEARCHED
FOR
NOT
FOUND D. S,
0,
STORM
DRAIN
EASEMENT
5.0 SANITARY
SEWER
EASEMENT
T)
TOTAL
VALE.
WATER
LINE
EASEMENT
LINE
TABLE
MIME
DIRECTION
MGM
LI 37' 08787
E
11232'
L2
07' 3" E087'
00' 34.
13 08919192
117. 91'
L4 43' 01 083'
E
1806'
LS
37' E24 080' L6. S89' 191l' 33' 88. 102. E
00'
L7
19'1 0S89
15'138.
L8 97.
58919' 11" E
00 L9 78.
5731034' E
62'
110 57' 59 089'
122. W
10'
111
06812' 17 W
127, 71'
112 57" 98959'
W
709. 58959'7" 113 114. E
55' 90114
70102" 0
91' 99. 23' S350
0 36' 5.
50' 47 W019'
2747.
of
SRf HELD
RECORD
gi
n
ANGLE (
R1)
2 26' 471 x69'
09' 47,
NOTES:1. SEE SHEET
1 FOR
NOTES .
coutETY
LAND51409
134. 213
S19' 43 31 '
E
200. 67'
OF
11 LAxO0
3 DUNIY
64 R. O.
213 _ _
N
11MT( 5
ANr\
1CAN' 26' 568.'
47' 00 12. I
35'
41-. ; 6286' 1I
34" E ;
4-
66" 243.
r
21 I9
5276' 34 00I--
62' 251.
1 080' 30' 2000'
58878' 30 1 28'
1 87385.
3. 5236' 24 w
32' 34' 5276'
W
23' 3. M1905' 41
68' 65. 41' 05 91
E
63' 64. 587725' 359. 00
17 355.
2725' W58'
51' 55' S1920'
1 65' 292.
I_
519'
9\
20' 56 0
90' 273.
18 \
ySEW (=
100 \
HELD
RECORD
10 ANGLE (
RI) \\
SEE
SHEET
4, C"
DETAIL "
FOR DEDICATION '
A'
AND
DESIGNATED
REMAINDER.
LO
3 0' pox A-
SD. E
DE5GNATEO
X\ \ 00'
REMINDER \ jR= 34. 0=3856'3
1 L -
T) 11( 23. 00' 56.
4. 345343"R9=
11'° 34. L- 9660, 50' R=222.
00 /-
22' 35 0- 4'
2751' / 0=75'
99' L=16.
001=79.
1OF
4 7904049' W
80 58. 40'9
LOT
62. 3
11' -
may/ N
1(
LOT
2 5. savo' o3° w \85'( 4.
1) 0.
5\7
56. R=
00' \ 1 0-
44' 17 70'( 6. 0]. ) L- 1.
11 9'
40' x76' 08'
1 (
R)( IDT
44 9/ 14)
222. 6-
50'
0245"- 1'
L=4. 06
r /
7 . 16l
6 50'
STORM
ORA1N
EASEMENT
PEROUST. N0 .
1993- 03781 (
EXHIBIT
E)
20'
PRIVATE
S. D. E .
FOR
186 BENEFIT
or
101E
DEDICAND
ATED
816EP
DESIGNATED
REMAINDER
4401RIMENT
RECORDED
CONCURRENTLY
37. 214
ACRES
ASDOW 81113x05
665
g04 .
50: 0'. 80: 3- 004508080106
EASEMENT
PER
1451 .
N0.
2013- 00 30' 31'
M
87' 49.
O,
58878177. E
785. 0( 7)
LOT
4 24. 59±
ACRES
05' 435.
63203' R=9=12
59' 2 31' 1=43. S75' 28' 59" 0
24' 141.
20'
S. PUBLIC
D. E
TO
8EDEDICATED
BYSEPARATE
INSTRUMENT
RECORDED
CONCURRENTLY
35° 0068915'
AS
000#
SEE PUBLIC
S.
D. E
DETAIL
TO
THE RRi1T
R=71 . 1815.
00 9516' 39 5=
07' 1=18.
S26 '
40' 04 '
E
97( 7) 650.
20'
P9NATE 0.
5. 0.
IN
FAVOR
OF
5001
2012- 0030698,
TO
BEDEg0ATED
BYSEPARATE
INSTRUMENT
RECORDED
CONCURRENTLY
8091911' 00
45' 4025.
I
AS
D0C/
DETAIL "
A"
1"
SCALE:
100'
41'
21' W00' 2.
SEE
DETAIL "
B "
TO
THE
RIGHT
6"
6513' 07" E04' 10 .
41'
507 . 516
W
373. L
1 x26 '
3 3°
10'
V ,
C5 \
ja
i
C
8=22250' \ \0=4 '
22' 35" 416 .
99'
56919' 23" E
252.
00' - 500.
500. DD' _'
204' 88.
500.
00'
500 .
00 58919'
11"
1 2057.
42'
LANDS
OF
BIAGI
4: ASSOCIATES,
110.
F0.
3/ 4'
LP
6000 R=
2012- 0035698
0. 71
LS
4510 (
R1)
7527' 51 0=
1=79 .
00 CURVE
TABLE
CURVE
TABLE
CURVE
TABLE
CURVE/
RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
CURVE
i
RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
03960 /
RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
CI
00' 5.
9976'
07"
92' 86.
011
136. 00'
541893"
90' 128.
021
104.
00 17'
04' 57
31. 01'
569. C2
00 30' 05 11 114.
22'
C12 166.
00'
2054' 17"
67. 86'
022
104
00'
23' 10" 16'
29. 74'
C3
10000'
05' 56 16'
10' 28.
C13
0050.
53'
39'
13'
82' 46.
023
100. 00'
1654'
00'
32. 99'
C4 104.
00'
16'
0055" 29.
22'
C14
00100.
1120' 28
79' 19.
024
642.
00'
95214" 145.
05'
C5
437. 00'
1471'
19'
49' 109.
CI5
00' 104.
98'
04'
27'
32. 81'
C25
00' 842.
158' 34"
04' 29.
06 00' 60.
215751'
23. 00'
CI6
10000'
1774 ' 5" 29. 81'
026
842.
00'
753' 40"
01' 116.
C7
64. 00'
57'2' 29'
53' 24.
097
904.
00'
17104'
57°
01' 3.
027
00' 8.
41'7 23'
24. 92'
08 00' 104.
170751"
39. 90'
018
104.
00 04' 57" 17'
01' 3.
C28 64.
00'
20' 2554"
82' 72.
C9
00' 100.
1704' 57
29. 81'
019
00' 100.
04' 57" 7'
81' 29.
029
00' 933.
028.
27 87' 6.
C10
00' 430.
1128" 6'
47. 21'
C20 900.
00'
04'7' 1'
29. 81'
030
00' 104.
04' 16
48°
32. 8'
281%
1- •
15 - . -'
513' 04 '
07" 1
04' 6.
E.. OT"
1 "(
72 ' 8. 7, 1,
10' 53 "
S
N17170D '
l'
20'
TEMPORARY
135 '
PUBLIC
S.. E
9=75. 00'12749' 59 0=79' 960. 1=
R=90 .
00'
20' 3" 0=43' 06' L=68.
DESIGNATE
D
RF064852
R
27 PM
28-0
BOONE
DRIVE
DEDICATION "
A"
03" W51170'
1570. 94'(
8) M- 3 b '81
6'
E. P. U
LOT
2 37 .
21±
ACRES
N26 '
40' 04 W 22 .
53'
20'
PU80C
S. D E SEE
DETAIL "
C "
ON
SHEET
FOR
LOT
3 AND
DEDICATION
SEE
DETAIL
A "
BELOW
58'r0 6'45' 163.
03 113
36 112
81 4
33 '
C29
10 C3
C287
0107003"
66. 00' 00 '
40'9 W 11' 62.
N6812' 17" E
LOT
3 48' 175.
1.74±
ACRES
58919' N E
1117 .
13' 00R=600. 43' 2 ' 0=16.12' 1=75.
CURVE
TABLE
CURVE /
RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
C31
00' 100,
49' 13 " 14'
25. 87'
032
563.
00'
13 '
27 '
49 "
30' 132.
C33
00' 100.
46'00 "16
29.6 '
C34
104. 00'
1758'
44'
63' 32.
C35 9567.
00'
02' 030'
97'15.
C36
00' 1489.
46° 147'
43' 46.
037
104. 00'
17')
4'
57"
31. 0'
038
100. 00'
1704' 57"
81' 29.
C39
45. 00'
9000' 0
69' 70.
19 67316' 34•189' 9.
1 -
NODS
I`
6=876, 00' 1672 '
36'
24529' L=
NAPA
BEING
A
FOUR (
4)
LOT
SUBDIVISION
OF
THE
GRANT
DEED
RECORDED
JJNE
30,
2015
AS
COUNTY,
BEING
THE
DESIGNATED
REMAINDER
AS
PARK
PHASE
1,
FlLED
FOR
RECORD
ON
J
UNE
OFFICIAL
RECORDS
OF
NAPA
COUNTY.
APN =
CITY
OF
AMERICAN
KIER & CIVIL3650
Collie,
LSsr
mora,
Men armx.
JOB:
NO.
M3631-
ThispageLrrlot
be
reproducible
BY:
3600
LOT
2 3 - L,
2036cY0"
o
Lit
DDbY1 p-- 6600• --
7FoN881Y17' 127.
21' 184. EI57119197. N859.98' 00' R=1558.
00' R=, 490.
SLOT
4 00' R=3.
LOT
3 47.0" 0=1'
90000=1'
1 I.
41' 32 34
1.74*
ACRES
48. 84 ' 1=
9646 " L=
1816' 1=
00' R=6.
L
504099' 8
352218' - 11' 2.37. L=
04'
00' R=100.112842-
43' 2 ' 16'
R. 50 .
00 '
0344'
a
20 . 1.=
03'
LOT
1 per'
L -
17s
12 '
x1
17172
110
C32 -
15. 09' 1=
00' R=878.
i--
1 59'7 91N89'
N8812' 10__. 283.
17548
589595 7E
7 49,
I
1602' 36 ' 0=
13. 78'
16J. 45
r?
99768
L=245 .
29'
1R=
8959' 67 '
W -
N>
93. C26 ,,.,
C22 ,,
L8 _
42 '
3 .
77. 4
C24 ---- "___
I'£2 -_-
C19
C76 _
L6
7 16 ---"
0=11 '
28 00' R=570.
5000. R=
w - -"-'__ - - __ 7BI>
L_
p
CIO ., }, %
20 . 1=
03 1524' 400=
1558' 44 0=
53079
y =
U .
08. - - _____
49919' 11 8
55' ] 693.
254. BP
5040' 49 8
50' 7.
5891011
1 724. 9 '
1A:
7 00'9:-\ \ R=50.
rSIB13' 4 E \`
36' 07D=99'
1'
93' 38.
1 BB. L•.
92'
I
00' 569. R=05' 10=139' L - y22-'/' 114.
VYj
phi DETAIL "
D"
SCALE:
1"= 60'
NOTES: 1.
SEE
SHEET
2 NOTE
FOR
S.
LOT
2 37. 211
ACRES
SEE
SHEET
3 LOT
3 1. 743
ACRES
98919111
13' 1117.
SEE
DETAIL "
C"
ABOVE
FOR
LOT
3 AND
DEDICATION "
B"
1=53. 31 '
1390 -_ • 1=
16772', 6•
L
4 ______________ ,
58919917E
114.3'
L=2§4:81- 50 '
40.9" W
YNXR1) 55(
9yo
S
15' _
5078 6: 5.
40 '
Sa <Py0
R=600. 00'
T_
X11581rFDp71fI. P .- LS
8654 (
81)
7,-:: ', t.
I0167 Nl6550TE'
831.
r
is
51304'77
L
4511900 ' 0= 70. 00'( 1)
AMXRI) 569( 1-
52117' 00 E 37135.
20' TEMPORARY PUBUC
S.. E DESIGNATED
RF_ AAA
ll7ER PM27
28-0
358. 0=
00' 29' D=
13'42'
60'( M)( R1 L=185.
l ..---.- ---.
BOONE
DRIVE
DEDICATION "
B"
5803*
ACRES
42. 00' 0=13.
SEE
DETAIL "
C"
ABOVE
PUBLIC
S
DI.
PER
L=
133.
42'( MXRI)
INST.
N0.
2013- 0034594
0. R. -.,
94276.
38. 8
45'( MXR1) 134.
N740
5'2' E
01813'
49'
E
39' 108.
85. 36' \.. ... .______
T)( MXR1)
C1
1813' 49 8
38' 100.
34 05
775. 007E 230 .
91'( 0X91) 54412' 18 E 18. 80( M)( Rl 8912' 181
1 41 .
00'
117
N04Y42
E
629 .
96'
5'
P .
U. E (
R1)
PARCEL
1 27
PM
25-9
NOT
A
R=324 .
09'
PART
OF
4213 ' 29.
THIS
97L=167.
SUBDIVISION 2854' 378 25' 723.
AJ
CiN\ 56 -
R=524 .
00'
q
I• -
42' 00 • 0=13'
p
1 L=125 .
29'
P. U6'
E
LOT
1 6'
P. U
E. -
RZ556
00'
ct
C21
C18
017
316
CI
314
C
C26
6 L.
7. L6
U •
0i
L3
C7`
Cl
58919' 111724. 92' -
1. 7)
58919911643. 19'80.
3/
4'
LP
DEVON
ROAD
DEDICATION
TLS
4510 (
111)
LAN
DS
OF GIOVAN
NONI
1835
0. 11.
474
5870737E 75' 414.
DETAIL "
C"
SCALE:
1 "=
100'
LINE
TABLE
UNE
TABLE
108E
f
OIRE311011
MGM
NNE
f
DIRECTION
L
ENGTH 11
58707 '
37 '
E
32' 112.
16 005' 19 '
11 '
E
97. 00 '
L2
5870737" E
00' 34.
L9
51316' 34 E
62' 78.
13 11' E58979'
91' 117.
110
889 '
59'7" 8
122.0 '
L4
43' ES8301'
06' 18.
111
58812' 17" W
127. 71'
15 S8924' 37 E
98 .
33'
112
889 '
59'7" W
9 .
73'
L6
58919711
7E
00' 152.
113
59'7 " 589'
E
55' 114.
L7
11' ES8979'
138. .
1 114
00' 52 E90'
91' 99.
CURVE
TABLE
CURVE
if
RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
32 569. 00 '
3005' 11'
22' 114.
33 100 .
00'
1605' 56'
28. 10'
C4
104. 00'
05' 50" 16'
29 .
22'
05 00' 437.
1421'9 '
49' 109.
C6
60 .
00'
2157' 51 '
00' 23.
C7
64 .
00 '
5752` 21'
5724.
C8
00' 104.
07' 51 1'
10' 31.
39 00' 100.
17 '
04' 57"
29 .
81'
310
05430.
17' 29 ' 8'
21' 47.
011
00' 136.
16'3 • 54'
128 .
90'
3638W 42'
00' 8=290.
45' 134.
1=9 'L=
4723.MXR1) 123.40(
324 . R=
00'
2422' 49 ' 1-
N6105' 20' E
137 .=
87'
32' ( 41.
RI)\ 5
1813' 49.68 .
91'
0165446' 0=
L=198. 05 (
97) \
O\
N.
1/ 2' 3-
BRASS
DISC
5 q5
STAMM
LS
8585 (
RI) \/
P.
U. E
PER
503.
N0.
2013- 0034593
06613' O. R
20' W
103.
02' (
R1)
FOUND
1=
O
5E7
1'
IRON
O
FOUND
WELL
O
SET
WELL
Cl
CENTER
UNE
FD
FOUND
I.P.
IRON
PIPE
O .
R .
OFFICIAL
CURVE
1 C22 C23
C24
842 .
C25
C26C27C28
64 .
C29030
331
100 .
CURVE
TABLE
CURVE
1 RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
312
166 .
00'
20 54' 17
86' 67.
313
00' 50.
13' 5' 39
82' 46.
014
00' 100.
1120' 28
79' 19.
315
104 .
00'
04' 27 ' 16'
81' 32.
C16
00' 100.
17 '
04' 57"
29. 81'
317
00' 104.
170457'
01' 3.
018
104 .
00'
1704' 57
01' 3.
319
100 .
00'
04' 57 1
81' 29.
C20
00' 100.
1704' 57 '
29 .
81'
321
104. 00 '
170457
31 .
01'
NAPA
BEING
A
FOUR (
4)
LOT
SUBDIVISION
OF
THE
GRANT
DEED
RECORDED
JU
NE
30 .
2015
AS
COUNTY,
BEING
THE
DESIGN
ATED
REM
AINDER
AS
PARK
PHASE
1,
FILED
FOR
RECORD
ON
JUNE
OFFICIAL
RECORDS
OF
NAPA
COUNTY.
APN
CITY
OF
AMERICAN
DEVLIN
ROAD (
R/ W
V
HIES) \
5 2013- 0034_ 592
O. R.
R=770 .
00'
32' 49 005'
58. 99 ( L=
RI)
88919'
05"W
31' ( 254.
RI)
7 .
7U (
01)
LANDS
OFG1oVANNONI
1997- 018814
0R
SEE
DETAIL "
D"
ABOVE
4f11,
KIER & CIVIL2850
cale,
rm
Liveor
e
klero341 wolv.
JOB:
NO.
A13631-
Thispagoot
be
reproducible
8Y:
3601
EXHIBIT B
INTENTIONALLY OMITTED)
13 3602
EXHIBIT C
LIST OF MODIFIED SOUTH KELLY IMPROVEMENT PLANS
Kier & Wright, dated July 2021)
14 3603
ABBREVIATIONS AREA I[
OWN
AIRMEM
WE
RAAUTOMARG VANE SAD1.
DLER
RI
BAWDSER
Y. PREYENTON
DMZ MAKZ
E!
YAK
81010
ANA BUONOWJRDNGUNE CPEAL CA.
MW
W
ALE
ELM CA1IRNM
W9
ROA
00 EN
DADA
D
R.
W1
SPDNT
E.M. 11 0110X40 01010 TTIM CE
GE
MRS
F..
R
OM
FIRE ROWMR. too
OBER AMO
PR6
R
MEIER
CAS
W
OE
GI
OE
BREAK
GUY INRAM PONT
VERT 00x031
IAgfATOx
MK
A
INT Far
KKR PONWHY LON MARRT pAOW
N
osy NduiDi
VAAL*
PONLR RANPOLE WA.
LEADER
RY
F RODRAIN
OW .
5 µ
SANITARY
MEER
WHALE NANfgSAN,
E
SPRINT MAW S1PM GPMR NAM.
0 WN AJNCT01 SAM E' , BOA
WHY SMETDONT
BOY
ME
PEN CA.
MN
TCA1EIEMWE
ER BM
P
a
RAMMER RAMC Mum
VwiPBOA
OLiE EN009U
TRASH
E
AA7ERD( MUM
NMI
M
R
vurc LEGEND
A-.
M
ASPHALT
KRA TEIAMMOx,
NO
NAIL
91140` 11
ARE..
OE.
CVO.
RUSH
CUPS
E
t MA WAD DORPR XEa maWARa1 PAexOUR
w,
ELECTRICP
LK
ELECIPMAE
O
JER
I1R1 MICE
REHYORART
YAM
FI CAER ORD*
E
CAS
U
E- vALK
a
WAR
ODIC
OE UNLO1
E PERMUIMUYEIDAICHUIAND TED SiOaA
MAN
AM
YA
110E
RPOE// JOH1
POOL SEV DIA
PROMO' WW1'
ER -
04A4042
aMAMA
SDEKWt VORA
WRE 01001- W.
6 CAM
DADA
SPOT
R
CM.
RLEPHONE
NE
TAU
CIAO
M
RO
AI
TA
S.
unU TRANSFORMER YE Ax
DK• YAKTY
STREET
IMPROVEMENT
PLANS
OF
HWY
29 POST
MILE
2 .
3 TO
POST
MILE
0, 5.
AMERICAN
CANYON,
NAPA
COUNTY,
CALIF
ORNIA
JULY,
2021
KEY
MAP
UTILTIY
PROVIDERS
RR:
CITY
P
AAIM1
CAM.
N CU
M
CAS 0" DIN00
E080
01 YCASMO
REDING
CAR
L
R LEKBD
L
MACAW
CAME
BASIS
OF
BEARINGS
INC ROAM
1 scum 88- 5233.
EASY.
1* 00111E
AR1IN
FLIT
WE
Of
ROAD
A5
9101
01 WP
NO.
H, 9.
VA
a311. NOTYIEC .
IASS' OFT0134
0S SIAM
AT
OF
X10,
MA
ORI
9W1
ON
11 5
YAP. PROJECT
BENCH
MARK
IEXORAItl0Y0N1YEM
M
MUM
ROW
AR
M
or
0011
ROAD.
REAM.
50. 23
New
29 SCALE
1-
A *
50. APAAMO
POR CQ6
O
CET2
P
APP
SiR0Nga
sAmICA1I
06, DOW
1181X
4 R
HOS
P. E.
45488
PAW
VOWS
POK
ER
OFAMOK
MACK GIEDMA
MR
SHEET
CIVIL 01.
G2. 0
C3 .
0 CA .
O
CS. OC6, 0
C7 .
0 QiAlOPE6:
RNA3501
H512
VIAL
ENGINEE
R
ADA
M
KBR
a
2850U.
925)
A
IRVFY0R.
DERY.
925)
QPOITOIORC
A
D
AN
11p/ .
AM)
1X
1044 O
S
I
ON
4300
3ES
SW
m
This
g__
y
not
be
repro
ducible
BY:
3604
CITY a a 01 R
OF COCANYON
AMERICAN NSTRUCTION
NOTES:
I.
CONNAC150
AGREES
TO
ASSURE
EKEMe COMPETE
RESPONLBIUTY
ON
NIE
JOB
DIE
CUR NG11E
COURSE
OE
C
451541C11W
OF
M6PROECI.
NCWOVO
SAFETY
OF
ALL PERSONS
AND PROPERTY:
MA1
M5RECORDER,
SHALL
APPLY
CONTNJOJAY
AND
NOT
R
BAITED
TONORMAL
74161600
TORS
AND
THAT
TIE SHAH
CONTRACTOR
DEE10.
116EI
N511 . AND
NOD
THE
CITY
RPRE0NTATWS
HARRLSS
F5M
A
NY
AND
ALL HOLM
REAL AND/ OR
ALIEOD .
NCONNNCTON
MM11E
PERPORMANCE
OF
11415 PROEM
2SNAI
GOMIRAONR
L
E
LEID RESPONSE/ LE
F50
ANY
AND ALL DAMAGES
TO
Ek15T% W
STLC11NE5
ARID
UNITES
BAND 3. CONST0CTION
CONTRACTOR
SHALL
TERM
LOCATIONS
MOS,
05INILES.
AND FEATURES
MAT
MAY AMC,
THE MUM. MOULD
ENSTNG
common
DEFER
FROM
NOSE
SNORT
OR
I11DICATED ,
OR
V
IT
APPEARS THAT
T
ESE
P
ANS,
STANDARD
SPE00GT04,
AND SPECIAL
PROMISORS
DO
NOT ADEQUATELY
DETAIL
TH
E
MMN
TO
BE
DONE.
SNAI
MEAGER
L
NDMT
FNME
0IEER
PRIOR
TO001110001
MI
T
ANT
RELATED
ION
NOa10WANF
TE1
BE
MATE
N
M5
BENNE
FOR
ANY
ENNA
DM&
RESULTING FROM
FAILURE
CR !
E
DICT
DETHIN
RONE
THE 00011005
UNDER
RICH
NOW
IS
10 BEPUEBLO. CMEHR
NOTED
MS
TAKE PRECEDENCE
OVER SCALE.
4 A
SET
O WUPRN
SINE
TS
ND
A
SET
0 WLL
SPECIFICATIONS
BE
KEPT
AT
ALL
IMES
AT
ME
UDR
51E
ON
MIO1
ALL CHANGES
ORVARIATIONS
N
114E 041)1
TERN.
6ALLG
DE
NGMATES.
ARE
TO
BE AN
RECORDED
D/ OR
CORRECTED
DAY
NWSIBM11E0
HE10
0TI40010011
M
IEN
1E
NORM
10 BE
DONE )
5 GI
RLIE.5COMPUTE
DO AN
0000
D
CHECK
LOCAONS
CP ME
DOSING
RE
PRIOR
0005101105TO
0 O. CONTRACTOR
91µL
NWT
PUNALL
IC
ORMATE
U1UP
COPANE55
48 (
0105
PRIOR
10 MENDED
Da
0 WORK
ADJACENT
TOEXISTING
WITTY
LOBS
M
USS
ENCRW
CN4ENT
PERRY
SEETHES
UTERNSE
1. CONTRACTOR
SMALL
TE
CONTACT
CTYS
ERECTOR
OF
PUBLIC
WORKS.
OR EHMEE, HS
TOARINNEE
A
FIE - CONFERENCE
FOR
THE PURPOSE
0 EMEIBIC
AB 10
EQRREMEMT5 *
3011 PR000URES
ERICH
TO
DE
START
OFCONSTRUCTOR
SHA
CONTACTOR
M
NOT*
MNORCRCND
BERME
ALERT
COO - NN ) 642 -
F0
TB
100095
EN51110
0 U1Mtt
E/OA11E&
A
MATERIALALL
S
SHALL
FUHSE MA
M9ED
INSTALLED
DEBY
CONTRACTOR
OM
WEISS
FAWSE
NOTED.
10. 0N1FACRR
5101 [
CORONAE
ALL NECESSARY
RELOCATIO
MITE
NS
F
10044105,
W
TI
TIE MU
APR10HA1E
COFAN16 . D
ItCON1RACRR
SNAIL
NOTIFY
NNE HECTOR
E
PUBLIC
ROOKS
AT
LEAST
12 X01115
N
ADVANCE
0 COMFIA
154* i
0 MY
PART
0111B NR. IOW
PRIOR
IDCOMMENCEMENT
O hYARY ACTM1FS, 61NCi150
CONTRACT.
91µL
LOCATE,
BY
EXCAVATOR,
E0S1WG
WATER *
DUTIES
A106FANW AIM401
VERTICAL
201Tµ
PO1IHN.
F
CON11615
DEWLOPER'
ARISE,
S
ENGINEER
SHALL
9111411
AN DESNA
NIERNAN
ACCEPTABLE
TO
THE
CITES
DIRECTOR
Of
PUBLIC
WORKS SEA13. CN1RACICR
PROAEL
RECORD
DRAWIGS
PER
CITY
0 CAN
AMERICAN
EREOWREMEN1S GENERA
CALTRANS
L
NOTES
1. ALCONSIMICIIUN
M1ALL
MEOW
TO NOE
THESE
LWEST
YERSW
DECALTRANS
ST/ EDAM) MDSPECK
TOW
AATANi
THE START.
OVALS ,
SPNN
EC/ SCAD0MS
0 THE
PIT
OF
A
KRON
KMEMNEE
DATED
1995
NNE COMP
0 NAPA
STANDARD
PLANS
SRFOR
C C06
MDRKS
TtUCTI
N,
2. NONALL
PERFORMED
MPDN
STATE
HOW*
SIGHT -
Of -
A
NY WO
MUST
RM
TO
AUAPPLICABLE
DEPARTMENTAL
COIS10000N
STANDARDS
INCLUDRG
BUT
NOT
LACED
TO
514405
DSPECIFICATIONS.
5IAM/ ARO
PLA6
ROBOT
0ML0ENT
PROCEDURES
MCMIN
IAAµ
N
DEVON
MANUAL
AND PROB
SEEMS & CONTRACT . 1
M
IST
EP
TIE PACK AGE
FOIST
CR
A TEED -
COY
AT MUMTE
SITE
AT
µ
11M6
AND MUST
S
OW
IT
UPON
EQE5110
ART WARRANT
EPRESENTATW
OR
WYDW0RCEENT OF0E .4.
0M0T505
FROM
PLANS
PMFM0O6
AND/ OR
lE
PER4T
E
500* 06
A5
DEEMED
INGENERAL
PRO/ 500
NUMBER
5 AR PILOTEDNOT
MTIOUT
PRAR
FRO
APPROVAL
M
PEAR1W0IS DE
0PIE5NTATW.
1 CONTRACTOR
NEE
10 PRONE
LANE CLOSURE
SBH 1N
K0E51
S N8I1PRO
CA4KN
CLOSE0
S
10 111E DEPARTMENT
STANER
DARD
AE
SP150000UNS
CONTRACTOR
MUSH
NOTIFY
THE REBBSDO
DEPARTMENTS
ATW
ARO
110E NARK
MAMA
DIENT
CENTER (
BEF
MAC)
ORE DaABNG
A
LAZE OCURE
CREROUCTNG
AC11MB
tt
NAT
MAY CAUSE
A
IMP ACT.
TRAFFIC
O
EMERGENCY
SITUATIONS
WHEN
EECRECHE
TEAK
0 THE
D
ERENM
ITSELF
MAY TR
AFFECT
OTS
THE RPE SP
EPARMENYS
IATW
AND
11E
MC
MUST
E
NOTED
BOWAS
B
P455RE.
E.
00REWIRED
BY
LAW,
DECONTRACT.
MUST
PROVIDE
INTO
CONTROL
PROTECTOR,
WARNING
RYA.
SN
TERM
ETY OEMCE&
ETC,
TAEATM
All
DEER
IEASURE4
ECESSARY
FOR
ME TRAVELING
5000 SA5
ETY.
ONE
PR0MOING
EWFIC
C51RO,
DE
NEEDS
E
N. I
USERS.
ROAD
BIB
MUM
NOT
0 0145
TO BEIDE
40T0850
15 PFDE51HN6AND
ERLCNG
PERSONS
MMDISABILITIES
N
AACC0 0AKE
NM
DEAMERICANS' A0M
05A0DE4
CT,
MUST
E
ANESSENTIALPART
0 THE
MOW
D
ITY PF01.
61TE
4 RESPONSIBLE
450NE - STMT.
BRA RPM
E HIG
STATE
HWAY MOT -
O -
WAY
RESULTING
FROM
PERMITTED
MEN (
STREETS
Al*
HIGHWAYS
CCFE, %
CTION
677
ET
SEA),
UPON
COMPLETION
0 CORE
CONTRACTOR
MUST
IR
BROW
O
0SP05E
0 ALL SCAMS,
REFUSE
INTE
BBU91.
MATERIALS ETCR,
OF
THE
STATE
HO
MY
510
11 -
0 -
W
AY. 0EAESTHETICS
0 THE
TIMMY
MUST EM
H
WAS
E
ENE WOO
PET
STARTSOR
ER.
DECd
CONTRRACTOR
SHALL
MOTET
TE
Ott ENGINEER
48 HAIRS
PRIOR
10 RED.* NSEC004
AND
10. CCMTRACI50
SNAIL MEP RATHE
DA SNOMF, NEH
MATE
C. K
IR
CANYON
E
DISTRICT,
AND ENGINEER
511G6E0
DAILY
REGAN**
EXCAVATE.
BARRICADES
AND
OETO
RS.
0941RACRH.
SRAM. R
LFAE
D
ERGFNCT
TLEPI0E
NUMBERS
BM
11E
ABM
DEPARTMENTS
AND
ENPMMEN
12 001TRTIE
ACT9R $
W
WI. UMWEP
STREETS
FROM
FREE
DIRT
AND DEBRIS
DURING
ALL PHASES
0 RECOSIEUCTDN.10
C01RAC150
SHAM
FROM
OUST
C01EL
AT
ALL
ANTES
PRIOR
MOBTAINING
NE
ER
FROM
FEE
MOATS,
1EC01RAC150
944E
50TAM
A
HYDRANT
WATER
TETER
FREE
11ECALIFORMA
MAID
SERVICE =
PANT (
OR
074
RE
MAZER
SOURCES
CORSON,
MERE
APPROPRIATE).
14 1EONTRACI50
10FY
SHALL
UADERGRG50
SMILE
ALERT (
USA)
800. 221- 0100.
4E
NOUR3
RECR
TO
START
0 EKCAVAIAN
OREN0110N
0 IMPROVEMENTS
SO
PAT
U14111E5
MATE
SOVIET
AND MARKS.
LINES
15 BYDAMAGE
10 114E
0141'
DOSING
IE6
IN0LLLWG
LANDSCAPING,
IRRIGATION, 100100
WALLS
SIDE**
AND
PAN AE
OTHER
IUIIIOES. NT
STALL
DE
RETRIED
ATCONTRACTORS
E%PENE.
KIER &
WRIGHT
GENERAL
NOTES
I.
THECON1RAC
R0 SOALL
ERESPONSIBLE
FOR ERVI
NG
PEE104010115
OF
DE
EOSINS
STORM
DRA91S ,
SEWERS
50 HAZER
PRIOR
TOC0NM6E1G
INC
B1E.
NOWT
MEMINER
IF
ACNE
6 DEFERENT
FROM
PLANS
1. CCN1IRUCT50
CONTRACTOR
AGREES
MATE
NAOCRDANE
MMGENERALLY
ACCEPTED
CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICES
C01S1R1Fi0N
CONTRACTOR
WLL
BEREOLMED
10 MEDIC
SOLE
AND
COWIE1E
RESPONSIBILITY
RRJCS
SOLE C0OTONS
WRING
TB
COURSE
CrENSWUCIEN
011E
PRDEOBMLIDP4 I
SAFETY
0 AIL PERSON
ARO PRO0ER1) INAT
MIS RCOUIRBENT
SHALL
BE
MADE
TO
APPLY
C51M000
1YAND
NOT
BEMITE L
M
NORMAL
WAKING
HO
UR5
210CO5IRUCT50
CCNIRACI50
FINMER KNEES
TO
DEFEND,
NENEFY AND
NOW DE90F
PROFESSOR
E
HARNESS
ARCM
ANY
AND
AU .
LIMEY,
REAL
ORAMIGO.
INCONNECTION
MM
110PERFORMANCE
0 WOE
ON
TIE
PRO[ CI.
DIPECIRI
MALTY
ATOM
FROM
DALE
SOLE
FECO
QW,
E0
DESIGN
PROFESSIONAL
1 1G5ORN HYSHOW
50 ME
BANS
REPRESENTS
MPNOY
MAIE 00010505 AS
OFSEPTENINR
10111
4. CONIAACT5
SNARL
REPLACE
OR
RPAIR ,
AT
CONTRACTOR' OWN MBE.
ALL DAMAGED S
REMOTE.
OR
01NER V% 455TUR
ED5µ15,
FENCES
SERVE&
U) 110NES
1MPROSEMENIS
OF
FEATURES
0 YAMMER
NATURE
TO
ME
W
ORBITAL
COA 01151 METER SHONE
ON
THE
PEWS
OR
NOT;
PROM
O
SUCH
REPAIR
ORREPLACEMENT
IS
CABEED
BYEXTRACT WEAK
OPERATES
5WEWMODU
D
CHAN0
5 ANDUSER
1E
EIC HER PREPARING
THEM
RAN
NO1
BEILL RESPONSIBLE
FEEL
01 UAW
FOR,
UNNIIH
OTE0 CRANES
TO
OR
USES
0 TEE
PLN6 ALL
CHANGES 10
ME
PLANS
14111
E
W
EING
1410 MUST
DEAPPROVED
81 MEPREPARE
OTEE PLANS
6. LOCAT505
0 EASI NGUNDERGROUND FACAJIES
AND LIMITS
910TH
ARE APPRECIATE
AND
ARE
BASED
OM
FELD
SDRN
Y
AND/ OR
AVAILABLE
TATTY
COP
EDOPoRMAIION.
IT
6 ME ER'
E111RAG
S
RESPW5BUTY
TO
OM
ACTUAL
t0CA1HN
00101505
PRIOR
TO
MEEWENCE* ENT
0 5051
ASREQUIRE/.
PHYSIC
VER1ICAIO AL
R
Of
U11LIN
L0Ull1
SHALL
DEPENFOHED
BY
POT
HONG CR
NAND
MGM
AND CARESUL *
050KAE
PECK% IN
EEORA
0N0 WMARTICLE
5 CP
THE
Cµ/ 0911
CONSTRUCTOR
SAFETY
ORDER .
ART OMABONS
FROALOU
T06 SHOWN
ON
THE
PLANS
SHALL
BEBROUGHT
M
RE
ENGINEERS
A1LYl150
EEO
E
STARTED
CONSTRUCTOR
1. CONSTRUCTOR
CONACTEPS
SHALL
MORE
14 0
SHIM
BEAMSADEXHAUSTS MMO
A
OR
9EL0
IMPACT 100; ANA
USE ELECTRIC- PONERED
RATER
GNAT OESEL- POMRED
001515011054
CCU..
A5FEASIBLE?
0 ALL STA90NARY
NSISE- O
MERAINC EOUPNE
NI DULL
BE
LOCATED
AS
FAR
AWAY
ASPO5000
FTWA
NER. IM( REC
PROPERTY
UREA 9. ALCONSTRUCTION
EOUPWIENT
51NL
E /
AMMLIANFD
AND
OPER
ATE ACCORDING
TOAAFACICNERS M
4BTDNAN0* SCHEMES
AND
ECOMRAATWS TOMINDEN
THE
AND ECIAUST
EMLSONS
PAR000AR
NITROGEN O. 0000).
THE
R
YLW[ R
STALL
BERESPON9RE
FOR MEMO
AND CLOAKI
NGTON APPROPRIATE
PtIan
I5
AIDE
THE AEBAY
A
AMMALAY
MANAGFILVI
DISTRICT
FOR
ANY ECPEENT
ORPROCESSES
THAT
COLL0
RESULT
INDEEM
E
CRETIN
TONG
ORODOROUS
RH9UN5
II.
THE 00TMC10116
E0U1E0
OE10
A
1FSTNG
LA80RAIORY
10HEM COFACTOR
16. TIE
TEST RESETS
SHAAL
DESUBMITTED
TO
PE
011' 5
C0411RUCT
INEN0EER
PRIOR
1O
ANY
OF -
510
PACK
12 CANING
C501RAC10R
STALL
BANYAN
A
WATER
TKO
OR
SHE ME
ALL
011AING
101MMY
TO
W
11ER GRADE
MATERIAL
AND COMM
COST.
ENTRACTE
SHALL
EVER
S10OP1m
DIRT
TM
AHD
PLASTIC
ANCHOR
TIE
R
APE
10 CROWD. TE
ALL
OAD
NG . URN- NOMNG
OR005581100
STALL CEASE
WET
W
ILDS EXCEED
MPH.20
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
NOTES: I. PROLIE
E/
SPONSOR
ION
HIE WAA
NG AA5IAE1001S110
MONITOR
ALLEXCAVATION
015155
15140,
0:%
GAMIC
AND
E
M0( 1NO
ACBM1ES
M0
WU
AO.
MESPONSOR
ON
AMOEBAE
EISA
N
ION
OWLS
AMCOOUCT
SPOT
WEEKS
0 ALL EXCAVAND
MAIEMNS
AND
OEM
FE/ NAME
THUS
1E AROUECLOOST
BILL
µ9U
S
EEPREECE
PERSONNEL
AND
CCS1RUCIION
WORMS
ON
THE P00610
FOR FOANG AO1E000CA
LRESOURCE?
AT
ME
517E
PEP.
MATERIALS
THAT
05GRE
THE APPURTENANCE
OFPORNML
RESOURCES,
MO
APPRISE
PERSONNEL
0 THE PROCEDURES
TO
FOLL
OW
M
9514
RESHAPES AEFOUND. 2
MgAE000GF
ESO .
AL
RCS
UNARE CORK,
HORN
AT
THE
BA. E
Of
DISCOVERT
DWI
E
RALDE
WEOAIFLY,
FORA
PERIOD
NOT
10 EMCEED FOR
WEEKS
AND
AOUAJIEO
A
O1AEEDGST
SU
MOEVALUATE
PFD .
TIE M0BO . BEN0TORIC
WCAL
NEE
INDICA
TORS
INOLOE:
MOPE
RAI
CHART
FLAKES ,
ADM OCPPE 1005150E
5:
GRIND
6 AN
DMASING
MR
EMENTS
SAN
B
SAABS
AND
NBOSIOES,
AND MORTARS
AND PESTEE
A4D LOCA
L',
ONNEE0
RIM
1085
CNTANNG
504E
0 MEPRENt005Y
USDE
11015
PUTS
FRAGILE/ OS
0 ERE
AND
FIRE
ENT
511
STONES
F
PE
AR01AE00GCI4.
RESOURCES
ARE DEEM /
ED
BY
NNE ARCRAEO. OGST
M
DE
9OIKCANi,
NNE
1950011
SPO
ON
KILL.
AMER
CON51ETA1H1 NP
NAPA
COUNTY,
CONSTRUCT
A
PUBLICLY
ACCESSIBLE
NBIOMC
DISPLAY
THAT
DOCUMENTS
ME
ND
AT
MEPROECT
SI100
3 MMF
ANREMAINS
ARE 01C1N
5RE0
001151
4 PRO
W
CO
NS15CR0A
TIE PROEM
PDN50R
AMD/ 0R
ITS EMPl01II5
SHALL
ROTH
E
1E
NAPA
COUNTY
MOT
0B04M
EDAR1
0901
DEERI1NAT5
BY
TB
COUNTY
CORKER' S
THAT
MEROAMS
ARE NAME
AMERICAN,
ME
005000¢
SEAL
CONTACT
DTCALIFOKIA
NAME
AI¢
PoCB
HERITAGE
CONWm1ON.
PURSUANT
TO
91B0N904( C)
Cf
SECTOR
1050, 5E
ME
TENET
AND BEM
GCE,
AND
ME
COMITY
CODNAM
R
0 110011
NEWELS
NOTES - GEOTECHINCAL
REPORT
I.
THE
PRQ[ C1001E0NIU1
REPORT
PREPARED
BYCORNERSTONE
FARM
C
04, E0RAP ,
NOE*.
2 2011
5NG2D
BE
USED
AND EDDIED
TO
FOR ADOBONµ
REC0M4fN0At10N5
NOT
101000
D
NMESE
NOTES.
2 SIRPEPARAT00
AREAS
70 DE
MEL
DED 5X1000
BECUOMO
or
WT
E1A15 AND
EONS .
IN0IANNG
TUT
LEFT
BY
THE RETOOL
OF
OSOET STRUCTURES
REFS
AND SHRUBSMAT
NU
NOT
BE
PART
0 114E PROP05E0
DEVELOPMENT
MU)
BER0AOWD
110
TEN
PRIMARY
ROOT
5414101
50UBE.
CLEARED
AND GRUBBED
WATER,
5MAU10
BEROAMED
FROM
T
HE
HR
ANT
DOPOEG
OF
NACCORDANCE
WIN COUNTY
HEALTH
DEPENDENT
0091, 15.
3. VMS
CREATED
DURING
CLEARING &
AULD
BEBAC5NLE0
MMENOIFFIED
FILL
ASREGEARENOD)
HEREIN
4. 51MEER*
ARE
TO
BEGRADEDSSHOULD
BESTEPPED
0 NNE UPPER
FEB
INCITES
0 SOIL
CONTAINING
DEW
EATR. COIL OPIAN
NGMORE
ALAN TREE
PERCENT
BY
EMI
5GAN0
NATTER
SNOOD
BEODEADE$ 0
ORGA
SBEpALHC
STRIPPING
91020
EXTEND
A
BOUT
3 10BIRCHES
EOME0SIWG
DERIDE
N
KGE1A1ED
AREAS
11E
A01UM.
511PPNI
DEPT' S
SIDED
BEDETERMINE
BY
P.BES051011
E
0 THE
GE0 10FMMCµ
ENGINEER M
THE
F
ED
AT
1E
TIME
0 5H
DPOG
TIE
STP0MN,
SHou0
BEREMOVED
FROM
NNE
511E
E
6 SUITABLE
STOCKPILED
FOR
RE -
USE
A5
TOPSOIL
LANOSUPW0 Ai
ALL
iota
TEMPO
WRY CONSTRUCTION
EXCAYA0NS
SNCIND
CONFORM
TO
IREREGULATIONS
0 1EDATE
E
CWFOMA
E
PMIYFNT
O
INDUSTRIAL
RLANE11S
Ow0E
NS
0 NUM. SAFETY
01 MER O
METER
000ERNN6
EODAD06.
D. NL
FALL MAIE
MALS SMUT
E
FREE
E
PERISHABLE
METIER
AND
ROMS
OR
LUMPS
OVER
6 DIMES
INDIAMETER,
AND MU51
BE
MR
C
ED
BY
DE
0O1E
01NCAL
MOINE.
MA
M
USG
9. Ni
JUDGE
THE
50-40
505
GENERALLY
SUITABLE
FOR
USE
ASGENERAL
FAL
BUT
WLL
NOT
BE
SUTIARE
FOR
IIEP
BNOFDPANO
E
FRL MUSS
THEY
ARE
010C
ALY
KE4TEU .
10. INCAMERAL .
BROIFD
FEE.
IF
N
EED
ROOD
E
I
MOAI* C
NM
A
Pl
AST01Y
INDEX (
R)
Cf
IS
OR
ES, AND
NOT
000) 41B
ECITIED
ASPHALT
NOMAD
MER0
IT
RI
LL
BE
USED WMN
DEBIDN9
WA
TIEGEOIEONIC
µ
ENGINEER
SHOULD
APP
ONE WONTED
MATERIAL
MN
TO
USE AS
COMPACT
EEL
MEORMNG
CONTRACTOR
6RESPONSIBLE
FOR SRN11NG
AT
LEAST
5 DAYS
IN
ADVANCE
0 115
INVADED
USE,
SAMPLES
0 1110 PROPOSED %
PORT
MA011L5
FOR
VBOLA/ 50Y
TEEM
AND
APPRON%
BYME
SIB ENOEEX .
H. *
0)100
FILL 0010Hµ
SITCOM
E
PLACED
N
5-1X50
DEIS
UNF05LY
4 05T RE- 00011ED
10 NEAR
OPTIMUM
AND PROPERLY
C
ODACIC.
FU.
PACE
RN1,
40510E
COIEIIIp0TE
ANA
COM PACTION 9NO MD
BE
MACCORDANCE
MM
MEGEOEO
NICIL
01400100050000101110011 045 H.
ALL STRUCTURE
ELLS,
INCLUDI
NG
THOSE
PLACED
TOESTANIDI
91E MY
MX ORANAOC
S1WLD
E
COMPACTED
TO
AT
LEAST
90 PERCENT
RELATE
COMPACTION
OR
PE
DER
001EC
NBCAL
ENGINEER' S
ECOMEWAINNS 15.
EXPAN501
SOILS
USED
A5
ALL
9401
BE
405ME- CON0T 010
10 AT
LEAST
3 PERCENT
ABM
0PTWUM
PER DIE
GEOT0CIMCAL
L
NONEERS
EOOMDAA006 M&
IRONER* OUT
AND
FEL
906
S02D
BE
DESIGNED
AND CONSTRUCTED
AT
SLOPE
50BEN15
0 11 ( NORE001µ
10 6E
RTCAL)
0 RAM
HARES
01NERW5E
APPROVED
BY
ME401001N1CAL
ENOIREEA
N
SECEER
AREAS
GRADING
N
OTES 1.
ALL GRA0100
SHA
LL
BE
01 1E
NACCORDANCE
MM
RCONENOAIT
NS
N
PEGE01E5WIICAL
AD
1 O1 0A10N
NVE51MATI
N
PREPARED
FOR
TEES
511E
1. CONTRACTOR
V
AN
0(1501NE
M6
OHM FARM
WA
ITTE5
AND
RASE
105
W
ACGOONA R, 3.
TO
Cr
CUM
DM.,
5 05
ABOVE
If
A .
C.
PAVING
AND
SPOT
ELEVATIONS
ARE
10MISTED
SURFACE
TRUSS
OMONTE
140/ 0).
4. COMPACT
OR
10 DE
0015NEO 04
U9N5
ASAP
01557 .
LATE51
EDITOR
UBCATORY
TEST PR00DLRE
1 ALL
UTILITY
STRUCTURES
MOW
BUT
MOT LIMPED
TO
9040. ES,
CATCH
EA5NS
WA
TER
MALTED
EWE HYDRANTS.
14104100E
ARD ELECTRIC
VA1R15
MO
PULL ACRES, MAT
LE
MI
DAS
DE
PUBLIC
H01T- 0 MY
EASEMENTS
OR
AREAS
DEEM
BY
W
OE
ON
1 M5
PRDECI
STALL
K
AAAS
T0
TO
CLYDE
BY
DE
C
ONTRACTOR
OR
110RESEC1M
M
AY
COM PANY
FOR
MROI
MECONTRACTOR
6 RESPONSIBLE
TO
AFFECT
COOWNAINA 8.
NE
TYPES
LOCAT06
S0E9
ROAR
O
PT4S
Cr
D. 1S01I
UNDERGROU
ND
MITES
B
9. 21
ON
1E5E5
IIROVEIENT
PL.
BE
MIR
ED
FROM
S
OURCES
0 VARMN9
REBA...
THE
C0ITRACT0 (
5CAUTIONED
NAT
EERY
µT0µ
DI
AYAT01
ALL E10µ
111E
TYPES
WM.
SEES,
LOCATORS
MIT DEEPS
0 SUM
UI
LFRL ROI NO
UNITES
AMAMMA
EFFORT
HAS
BEEN MBE
TO
LOCATE
AND
UELR EAN
AL
94094
U140M00
10 UTILITIE
S
IIPDVER ,
THE ENGINEER
CAW
NOT
ASSUME
RESEDA:
EW
Y
FOR
1ECOMPLETENESS
ORACCURACY
0 TOR
01FEATION
0 SUCH
UNEROR0E0
UTILITIES
MUCH
MAY
DEEN000M1E
E0,
BUT
ARE
NM
SHOWN
ON
TINE %
050
5 GS
T.
CONTRACTOR
9Iµ1
UNCOVER
AW
OL
E00SE
AL
EASING
UW1Y
AND
SEVER
I
MESERE
THEY
APE
TO
E
CROSSED,
ABM
OR
BELOW,
BY
140
MEW FROMM
BEING
CON51RC1E
B1
ORDER
10 BRIAT
1E
GRADE
AND
TO
ASSURE
MAT
TEE
4 SUFFICIENT
OE
A
ANC
G
PIP
E
SHALL
NOT
OE
STRUNG
NOR
TONGING
CCYMp6D
INTL
ALL
C
O5
911G5
HATE
EFD TERMED
EDTCLEARANCE .
F
TE
CONTRACTOR
FAILS
T010LL0W
1105 PROCEDURE,
HE
WILL
E
SMELT *
19+ 915810
FOR
ANY
EXTRA
TIM
ORMA1Wµ
REB
ATED
EA001FOAT0Y5
10 RE
LEACH
AE
E
ESSARY. W
MECONTRACTOR
SHALL
EFT
405
SIRING
OR
WE
11)) 5001
AT
LEAST
PRE
GRADE
STA KES
TO
B
RIM GRADE ,
F
THE
STABS
00 HOT PRODUCE
A
UNIFORM
CRAM.
NO
V,
THE ENGNEP
NNEDIANLY
AND
NAW
lE (
TRADES
CHEM
PRIOR
METRENCHING
OR
RNi5EN1
0 CONCAVE.
9. ALL WORK,
R
PE
PUDIC
HN1- 0' 101,
SMALL
CONFI
RM
TO
ME
Cµ1R
M6
STANDARD
SPEGHUTONS
410
0000110
ENI5
EROSION
AND
SEDIMENT
C
I.
EROSION
AND SEDIMENT
CON1ROL
E
A5WE5
2 AFTER
THE UNDERGROUND
STORM
OREN
OR ONSCOAS
MI5
PLAN
11L IR)
PRACTICE)
RR
R0 .
B .
VB
SITE
IS
3. S
COLD
1111
ON -
5 10
EXAM
DRAINS
NCO
SNAIL
CONVECT
1E4POURY
SEDIM011
4 PERSON
1 SSWNSPLE
FORMPLEEBAT50
NW:
180
000106&
lE
TELEPHONE
10 S
114E CONTRACTOR
5H
µ1
PAGE
Y- 51
TIE
BILL
MOM
AND
50 FEET
LONG))
AT
ONTO
P6& C
5115 0
5 SHALL
R
ZIDED
CANY
ON
6. ALL EA0901
CONTROL
MEASURES
SE
AL
DE
MANES
TO
MI5 EROSION
ANDMOM
DB
Y
MME
APPR04µ
0 OR
AT
THE
7. ALL
PRIED
AREAS
9101
EC
KEPT CLEAR
MAINTAINED
S
AS
TO
1NW90E
SEDIMENT -
ALL EROSION
CONTROL
FA0J1E5
MUST
BE
DAY .
9. MOUNT
BASINS
SHALL
E
0E0ED
WT /
N05AT6
ON
ME
PLANS
10 .
000010
AREAS
AND 1ELROR.
0100
PRE5
MEAS
URES
TO
TBSAOSEACT50
0 IFE
Ott
11 .
ALL
CUT
AND
RILL SLOPES
ARE
TO
NE
12 1
9215 MMI
ARENTT
USE
N
EIALNCII
DEOMR.,
CR
O1ER
MSE
AMSTED
TO
55010100. DUST
ABATE MENT
NOTES:
THECONSTRUCT.
00014005105015
REWIRE
TO
114
6 PROGRA
M
SHALL
BO10E
TI
E
FOLLOW*
L
WATER
ALL
ACME
0 0161
UC
NM
AREAS
2 COVER
µL
TRUCKS
NAINRNG
50X .
S
KALD
MANTB1
AT
LEAST
IPM
FEET
0 EEIDOII
EP
lE
EOM
ANDME
TOP
E
THE
3. PAVE ,
APPLY
WATER
THREE
IME5
0001 ,
ACCESS
ROADS
NAENG
AREAS
AND
4 TRW
DAILY (
PREFERABLY
MP
WATER
P
AREAS
AlENSTRUCTOI
SIZE;
5. STEEP
MEETS
DELT (
PREFERABLY
MTN
5000
ADJACENT
RAMC
STREE
T
e. HYDRDEE
OR
APPLY (
NON- IOWC)
SE
PEMWSEA
CRATED
AREAS
INACTIVE
FOR
I.
ENCLO
SE,
COVER, MAE
R
T
RICE DULY
CN
DIRT.
S
ILO ,
ETCH:
E.
MEN TRADE
SPEEDS
ON
U
NMATED
ROADS
3605
OW
00- urESSEA
u
rc
awx
ARES
A =
rrt Irt 01200- rum
7J $
t
AB
AS
HIGHWAY
29 180+
STA:
76 TO
188+ 65
N011
TO
SCALE
ROW JYH
IGHWAY
29 STA:
192+ 73
TO
197+ 65
N
OT SCALETO
A
SOUTH
K ELLY
STA:
6+00
TO
10+ 0
NOT
TO
50. 107E
taL 1.
SIM .
OMB
AS
ACES
YAM
FMB
STRAW
MONO
Aarat1ADA
e! lxrnxc
AD
FLASK wATMxxs
MIME .
nc.
ua
A10* N
RM
6'- 10
OAx010-70
R
LO,
00000;
WWM 9[
7EN
S
TOP1µ
D
ROOM 9411 IADNUEROSION
01706,00TI
LTON7TES 100700,00070000 0000
RIOJONC
A
FAVORABLE DARTO% FOR V09T BUR16TA
919V 0N1.
1 SIR/
M
AMT
IHSOLAT01REO0RES
1310 RAC07001
0017 40771E
SUMO a
111E .
AST
EH
A
r -
r
TENON CCU, .
DA
ONKamBL
RUNOFF
DUN
NOT MR
OBBO
IS .
111, 00
RO1. RIX
THE MAO
NM
A
BE
W
111/ 4£D,
NOT ABUTTED.
131621116 ENOSMYAna
o
0011 1'
ROLL
01. .
0 E
TO
PREVENTRUKATROLL
KIM WILDLIFE
FRIENDLY"
STRAW
WATTLE
SEDIMENT
TRAP/ FILTER CI
TO
SCALE
O
This
page
ma
be
raproclucibl4
BY:
3606
X
2vvp NBp W-91601- 991. 0,$2013\ Z:\ 18 +21OB-T
5 .
ubsw- 41, 20
O
a
A
g 5
L.
n
H
STA 29 - WY
180+
50 TO
00200+STA
29 HIGHWAY
0 RIGHTV/ KIER+
iNO.
REv191aN BY
SUB OALTRRN: A
MITTAL
101ROi1 O> 400
p r
1 o
W
IM
PLANS PROVEMENT MO
C9N
M 200 t925) e: O^N' Road Can5n0 6,
1i
Q
in v z =
A
CANYON, MERICAN
CALIFORNIA
asassL urrnnore.
mR. rue,. R.,..
Q e7 ..
3607
Zu913W,4W. 2108-7- 90189 NIW ] KEUY- SOWN V-9MASI- 9\ ua1- elvn ub A4 79 o =
n
F c,
p
m
s V
0011+TO 006+TAS ROAD KELLY SOUTH
GHTWRIKIER+
o. 97 pREVISION 151ON
SUM,.SN LTNANS
NM
o
n
z -
t
kb 29 aHIGHWAY
PLANS IMPROVEMENT 93511a5 E 000000 9sOCdlo
EBB
A
Q
E w
AMER
ICAN
CA
CALIFORNIA NYON, A I,art9Y,.;L., 97251„,,.,. 87802107N. 3608
9µrw-91631- 9.\ 41631- 1\291, is\ nen. A4 99W. 1U 210e-2- 9F929.
Tm1 1°0
5 yo
nI.
0 A
STRIPING AND SIGNING WRIGHT KIER+
J
N
O.
MACM:
NS
SUB
TAL MIT
292.99, 92 ,
Q
HIGHWAY 9y Q 29
Q 294800 924) ft.: [ eoeo Canyon 2esocao. PLANS IMPROVEMENT O o
Q j .. i^ Xkm °°°„ mm. G91392mmi9'tl
CALIFORNIA CANYON, AMERICAN
3609
4. sl it 6-i
KELLY
ill
ra• 3Errrrr. ra
to, \ `-
Thlsa
day
be
reproducible
BY:
2 I
Q
3610
ABBREVIATIONS WVA, Y BFPO BLDG E mn010CIO m FWrmr 00 ro n1 R fW 9V
AREA OWN Talal
R
AP
YAM
ROST
K
IARG SPRWRER
RI.GOMMPRE DEW
WEN
G
BO00T
V111E
BACt
O
VGA KONG MOW
UNE COROE0G.
MR
CAKE
MGM.
BIG
GLENNE
4 GIG WANBASIN G/
m
WOE Ta
000( 1 Damnrt
EOM INn
G
GO
AR PNBO
A
F.
O
CURB MEW
FLOOR
NOE
VG
MR WRIE
GIES
R
GAS WWI DOR VEROAS
MAX
mY . MIN POWNOR s
NVER7
UMW.
MAW
4 4
AAIT PONS
POLE
WIT LOR DROWNPOW GAWK WW1 WARa
CIICII
POSE
G
OWER
YAW
POLAR
POLE IEALTR
RAVE
ROG ROG
OW GEERSAG.
80015. 0
SPRINT '. SAW
MORN .
OREN 51RSEM ET
0 0411101
SIOL
0PE0 CA101
BASH
MALEWIDOW Ni oNBSI ow
N
1000i1OMIAllSO.
BOX PO
SOK
E
WAG
RnoeEc Xc
YAM
u
EA.
VALVE LEGEND
1 re.•
V sae
o
0 10
001/ E75100 O0l00GEL 50004010 ew : Da0000
c
LW OW
WOOL
N
CURB
c10arE
Ow
OJT
Matt10100
OAS
d
Qlilm
UK
MEDAY E9R RAMO.O WOW
OE ELEGIRA MICE 4100 0041
0 TRR140 HWWR
ANTa
VALSE
rB03 0E
PROS
GAS
LINE- VurT
a
KRA
V
RAE
4 IMOIMOONE
007IR
E
E
OEVIEIDAD
POW. STOK
PEREDAARD
I
DR..
POST WIGi0H
WIRE
PORR
774040
POLE
PROPER PAWNDER Ri.- NAME
1010 R
4010
wTESNOT
urc
G
a
cATw
nATI
MU
MS
OWN
MGM
510, 4
NAIE1R. LO
R
UIE
EOi WAVE
UDE f
VNw
STREET
IMPROVEMENT
PLANS
OF
SOUTH
KELLY
ROAD
AMERICAN
CANYON,
NAPA
COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
JULY,
2021
KEY
M
AP
UTILTIY
PROVIDERS
IFR
Ott
Cr
AR
RIC. W
GN10N
045
2 00
450
PAG
E
4000
0 MUG
101007005
AI* T
CABLE
O
WSOE
COMOA
5r
WILE
BASIS
OF
BEARINGS
DIE
011411
O
SOYA
BTST3 ' GATT, OX
EN
OH
ENE
7445
5IB
04 O'
EWER
NOG
AS
SA
ONR
ON
RAY
W.
490B,
nlID
20 WO
O
IN
Bm0
AI
O
S1EHMS
AT
0004
O -
w.
RADA 201017
RCO
OS
DAS
iNm1
AS
THE &
SS
Of
BEARER
WM
ON
GS
ANY. PROJECTBENCH
MARK
RRUw
4EV. .
NON
1 WG.24
AN
Raw
NOM
O
POLY
AYW40004
EppCO
IIRLI
W
DIY APRNIOUYI
COWRIE.
Of .
NI
5T
AR0 MW,
SPE61G
KNRI
WIRES,
P. E .
W
W
YORE
ORCn1V01YLNKM50 AEWGN
CROCK
CNEDDIDA
GTE
41VTLO
741:
MECROWD
91 NIT)
OW
ENGINEE
wR
0oR&
2100023)
SURVEYOR
ASO.
000
A
MAO
E
Ul70
0E
915)
VOITCNNICAI'
0004
100 &
San. OM)
IDKiiG,
DAIS4001 4105
tnsl .
Bs -
This
page
ay
t
be
repro
ducible
BY:
3611
5 CITY
OFAMERICAN
CANYON
CONSTRUCTION
NOTES:
L
CONTRACTOR
ACMES
10 ASSUME
501EM0 COMPL
EXRFSP019011Y
FOR
ilIt
JOB SEWRMD
THE 0100COURSE
4511101104
OF
M5
PREECi,
MGWR°
SALTY
01 ALL PERSONS
AND PROPERLY:
1341
MS S1AL
SQUIRMEN1
1 A
PPLY
CONTM103Y
ME
NOT
40 LAIRD
TO
NO
REAL
0010
E
HOES
AND
MAT
NE
CWTRACTOR
SL0LL 0640. INDMMFY,
AND
HODTHE
0714 REPRESENTATIVES
HARMLESS
FROM
ANY
34 0 .
Ml
U
A9E11Y, REAL MD/ OR
ALLEGED ,
0COIJJNC1OI
MMTHE
PERFORMANCE
OF
MSPROMS
2CONTRACTOR
SHALL
BE
10O
RF9ORM
E
FOR
ANY
340
ALL DAMAGES
TOENDING
STRUCTURES
AM
01041ES
DLMM
C15TRUCOK
1CONTRACTOR
SHALL
MATIOMIS
TS
LEWIS.
DISTANCES.
MSSASHES
THAT MY MMECT
T4
WON.
FA
SHORED
WNS
C101115
OEFLR
FROM
MOSS
OR
MOM
INDICATED.
ORF
R
APPEARS
THAT ° PLUS , 5TM0ESE
AM FICA/ SPEC/
RCM
AND PROMOS
SPECIAL
CO
NOT AMCUATE0Y
KUL MAI480
M
0 MMBE
E. CON1MRR
SHALL
NOM
REENCNEER
PRIOR
10C0TMNG
MM
ANY
RELATED
3000
N0ALLOMNCE
Ml
BE
MME
M
1S
BONN/
FOR
ANY
SSA
EIPENY
REARING
FROM
FAILURE
CR
1EOECT
INEEMMNINO °
ENNM10S
UNDER
OHICH
VMS
IS
TO
BEPERFORMED.
NOTED
DIMp9ON5
MOTAPE
DEM
SOREVER 4, E
A
SET
OF
SPED &
WR
NTS
N0
A
SILT SPLOOF
FLCATONS
WILL
0E
KEPT
AT
ALL
T8E5
AT
R
JOB
STE
ON
MOH
CHAALL
SES VARUOR
TONS
N
WO54 , ME
INCLUDING
ALL EMSTNG
UTUTE5,
ARE
TO
REREC0100
AND/ OR
CORRECTS
MC
DAY
SVBMT1ED
0 THE
0114 ENGINEER
MEN
THE W054
TO
0 OCHE
ISCOYP1E110
1CONTRACTOR
0 EMEM
AM
D
ECK LOCATORS
OF
0011MG
101015
PRD8
CONSTRUCTION. 0 6. CGV1RAC10R
IWSHM. I
MY
ML ER
PUBLIC
PRIVATE
CO
MUTT
PSES
46 HOURS
M
OOR
0 COW0IW3FM
MOOF
M
ADJACENT
EM0
S1c
0A1tt
LINES
ENCR0A01
UNLESS
W1
MEM1
SPUMES 7. OHERMSL SNARCONTRACTOR
L
CONTACT
R
D
RYS °
RECTOR
OF
PIM4C
MSS,
DR
HSDEMMME,
0 ARGNGE
A
PRE -
CON
ONCE
FOR
TE
APPOSE
OF 08
RENEW
RECORDERS
AND
LIMY PROCURES.
8. PRIOR
0 TE
STMT
OCONSTRUCTOR
CONTRACTOR
SHALL
NOSY
34W7310010
SERER
ALERT
BON - 2044) 842-
FOR
THE LOCATES
OF
0001) 4M
SC
MITT 9. ORES. MAMMALL
ALS
M
M.
0 RAMS®
AND NSOALLEO
BY
R
CONTRACTOR
0TRR
UNLESS
IES : H0T: 0.
I0. COITRACIOR
SHALL
C0001NA1E
ALL NECESSARY
MUTT
RELOCATIONS, REFRIED, MN °R
E
ARMCO/TE
MUTT
COMPARES
11. CONTRACTOR
SHALL
NOTIFY
THE DIRECTOR
Of EON
PUBI1
S
AT
LEAST
72 HORS
N
ADVANCE
Cr COMENQMENT
OF
MY
PART
OF
NE
MOB(
12. PR11
TO001YENO1EHl
O
ART CMNIRUCIIO4
MTVI ES
CONTRACTOR
SHALL
LOUIE.
RY EMANATION
F451RO
WATER
FACTURES
0 ASCMTAN NqVaTCN
MR20N1AL
POSITION.
D
COMMIS ,
OELO
ESE
ERSMOMS
MALL
MITT
AN & STERRA'
0901
ACCEPTABLE
TO
R
01405
01000104
OF
81010
10545, CONTRMIO11 SHALLR
PROSE
RECORD
RAMC.
PER
CRY
OFAMERICAN
CANYON
R
000444
11S
CALTRANS
GENERAL
NOTES
1. ONSRRAll
CII0
COIFING
SNM0
10 THEY
M
ANS S1M 0N0
CALTRANS
DETAILS
MD
SPECIFICATION,
DATED
24ALLY
1 R
STMEA *)
DEEMS
AND SECYCATMRS
0 R
PTY
OF
AMERICAN
CANTOR
DATED
1995
NE
COR
OT NSOF STANDW
ARD
PLUM
FOR PURE
MEW
CONSTRUCTOR
W
IPREERE
A0E.
2. RE
EN0EER
AML
PRONOE
5T* MNG
ESEM0
U9H
GRADE
SOWAS
ED
FOR
M
R
PROJECT
SPErnw° O4S 1RCWIRACOR
SHALL
NOTIFY
THE ENGNSCM
R
M
HOURS
MICR
10REDEREO
5 9010440
030 4NS1AICn0 STAW M.N CO1. SHAL
IRAGTCR
L
KEEP
THE
NAPA
COUNTY
SERIF.
404E# CM
CANTON
OSTKERE
T,
AAD MINER MOT ORET
LY EXCAVATIO
REGAROMG
NSBARRICADES,
AND 5. DEIOIR5,
CONSACTER
TALL
LEAVE
E0DI0MCY
TFLE 00E
NUMBERS
RN
THE UEPARi0ETH6
MOVE
AND RE00506.
04CII
SHALL
IEEP ER1T0
STREETS
FREE MOM
S0DIRT
DEBRIS
DRNO
ALL
PHASES (
I
7. CONSTRUCTORRCONTRACTOR
91AA.
ROSE
OM
COMERS
Al 116ALL
0 MDR
TOOB1AING
TRIER
FROM
R
RE
N134µ1)1
RCONMAGTR
SNAIL
OBTAIN
HMSA
O
REAM
METER
FRCS
CMR
POIPBA
WATER
SEREE
CO. PMY (
DR
0 114 WATER
OMSM.
RESOURCES
WERE
APPROPRIATE).
6 THE CONTRACTOR
SMALL
MAINTAIN
AO=
PUGTO
S
OFMOMS
A0O BU0ES5
ALONG
THE
STREETS
0 REPASTBE
N00TR0U1
THE
UR
OF
R
C00RMT.
ALL MEETS
SHALL
0 ALLY
OPEN
0 IHR0R01
TRARTC
BETWEEN
THE HOURS
OF ]
30 PM .
340
7: 00 9. MA
111E 041RACECR
9011
NOTIFY
UN0WB0N0
ALS
STTSE
O (
S. A) U.
900 -
fl -
2600.
HOR49
S
M60R
10 START
OF
S
OWER
ORD40U1) 1
OF 4PROA0N15
50 MAT
MIXES
MAT
N
ROMEO
AND YARN
LINES
ED.
10 CONTRME
ACTOR
YALE
BE
480090
O
PAY ACOIT0 ANY
AL
PSIS
F1NSPECMN
OF
ANT
SRN
PERFORMED
01010
O
R
GMT
SM1N610R
NONMM
S
5340
FEE
WLL
0 NACCORDANCE
MO
TH
111E
LARST
PUBLIC
MORE
SPERM
849ECil04
RE
PDX?
40NAND
0fMEM$
F1
INSPECTIONS
SERSES FLU
DETERMINED
OR
0 11. 3414.R
ANY DAMAGE
TO
NE
EMEND
800011)1
REDONE
SM
LAMSCWINO
ARM
FEN05
WALLS
SMEARS
M0
OTHER
PAA4ENi
SURFACES,
SHALL
BE
S
PARED
ATCONTRACTORS
EXPENSE
12. E51
COMPACn1
40 VE
IL
0 000111001
ALL
STREET
WORN
0 MET
N AT
OR' PMn1
N* 00000
asTO
ST00AR0. S
10 R
IN11A1
TEST
AND
1E
RETEST
HI/
0 PERMED
BY
R
CRY (
24 HORS RESNOME
TON.
ACITIEALL
NA
TE50G
TILL
0 AT
RWN1RACT15
EXPEND .
14,
ALL
KLAN
RADII
AM
CURVE
RATA
NE
10 FME
OF
WFB
1 TOCONTROL
ONES
KIER &
WRIGHT
GENER
AL NOTES I. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL
BERESPONSIBLE
FOR % METING
THE
100100
N5
OF
THE EXISTING
SIOM DRAINS, SEWERS
AND WATER
PRIOR
TOCOMMENCING
HIE
160RK .
NOTIFY
THE ENGINEER
IF
ACTUAL
6 DIFFERENT
FROM
PLANS
2. CONSTRUCTOR
CONTRACTOR
AGREES
THAT
INACCORDANCE
MNGENERALLY
ACCEPTED
CONSTRUCTION
PRACTICES
00101RUC1EN
CONTRACTOR
Mt
BEREWIRED
10 ASSUME
SOLE
AND COMPLETE
RESP00BLIP .'
1CW
SITE
FORCON4TONS
DURING
RECOURSE
Of
CONSTRUCTOR
a
111E
PRO 1C1, INCLUDING
SAFETY
OF
A
LL
PERSONS
AND PRORRTl11HAT
1 REQU 345 RE/ STALL
BE
MADE
TO 1MT APPLY
CONTINUOUSLY
ANO
NOT
BE
1 .
1111E0
10 NORMAL
MIRNN0
HOURS,
AND
COSTE01MN
CWMACTOR
FURTHER
AGREES
0 DEFEND,
INDEMNIFY
ROD
0E511
PROFESSORS. NOHARMLESS
FROM
ANY
AND
ALL UABUTY,
REAL
ORALLEGED,
NCONNECTOR
VON REPERFIMANCE
OF
WON
ON
111E PROJECT.
EIPEOTNG
MMLRY
ARISING
FROM
ME
SEM
fE01GE4NCE
OF
DESKS
PROFEAYOVAL,
1 10PDRAPHY
MOM ON
480
PLANS
RETNE0EN75
APPR00ATE
00040010 AS
OF
SEPTEMBER
2011
4. CON1RAC10R
SHALL
REPLACE
0R
REPAIR,
AiCONTRACTORS
OEN EXPENSE,
ALL DAMAGED,
REMOVED,
OR0110R5MSE
OSIURDED
WALLS,
FENCES,
SERVICES,
UTILITIES.
189405DAENI5
OF
FEATURES
0 W
ennNOSE
TD
HEIR (
SIGNAL
COMMON MHER4ER
SHORN
ON
111E
PLANS
1 NOT,
PROVIDED SUCH
RERAN
ORREPLSZEMENT
S
CAUSED
BYCONTRACT
WOOF
OPERATORS 5. LRUUIIOESD CHANGES
AND
05E&
MEENGINEER
PREPARING
11ESE
PLAN
NU.
NOT
0 RESPONSIBLE
F1,
0R
HUMP
FOR,
UNAUTIORZED
CHANGES
TOORUSES
OF'
ESE PLANS
ALL CHANGES
10 ME
PLANS
MUST
BEN
WRITING
AND
NUM
BEAPPROVED
BT
THE PREPARE
OF
THESE
PLANS .
S.
LOCATORS
Cr
EXISTING
UNDERGROUND
FAOUTES
AND UTILITIES
SHORN
ARE APPROXIMATE
AND
ARE
BASED
ON
FEN
SURVE
Y
AND/ OR
AVAILABLE
U1E4TY
COMPANY
MPOTIATO
N
1T
IS
THE CONTRACTOR' S
M5P15RRUTY
10 VERIFY
THE ACTUAL
LOCATION
OF
CRUDES
PRIOR
10 NE001MENCEMQ4T
OFWORK
A5REWIRED,
PHYSICAL
VERIFICATION
OF
URUTY
LOCATION
SILL.
81PERFORMED
BY
POT HOLING
OR
HAND
DGONG
AND CAREER
SUBSURFACE
PROBING
WCONFORMANCE
111111 ARTICLE
6 OF
THE
CAL/ OSHA
CONSTRUCTION
SAFETY
ORDE
R
ANT
D: 4A10N5
FROM
LOCATRS
SNOWS
ON
THE
PLANS
SNAIL
DEBROUGHT
TO
THE ENGINEERS
ATTENTION
BEFORE
STARTING
CWS0RUC10N. 7. CON5180010N
CONTRACTORS
SHALL
MUFFLE
AND
SHOD INTAKES
AND 00011515, SHROUD
0RSHIELD
SPACE
TOOLS,
AND
USE ELECTRIC
PO/ ERE°
RER RA
THAT
OESEI- POMAEO
caisincnai
EWPMENT (
AS
FEASIB LE). B. 481STATIONARY
NOSE -
GENERATING
EQUIPMENT
SOIL
8E
LOCATED
S
FAR
AWAY
S
NIMBLE
FROM
110004ORNG
PROPERTY
LAM.
9. ALLCONSTRUCTION
EWIPMENT
SHALL
DEMANTANS
AND OPERATED
ACCORDING
10 MANUFACORER' S
UNNIENANCE
SCHEDULES
AND 4E0DARE100TONS
TO ' MARIE
N0SE
A
ND
EXHAUST
EMMONS (
PARDO/ 1. AR
NITROGEN
000E5). 10. R
DEVELOPER
SHALL
RESPOBE
NSIBLE
FOR SECURNG
AND
GOSLING
NTH
APPROPMAR
FERMIS
FROM
HE
BAY
MLA
AIR
W
WRY
NANA0EMENT
DISTRICT
F
INN
ANY 60110910, 11
OR
PROCESSES
THAT
COLD
RESULT
14EMISSIONS
OFC01ES&
TOOC
OR (
SCRODS
E
WS0N5 .
11. 111E CONTRACTOR
ISREWIRED
TO
NIKE
A
RESTING
LABORATORY
10PERFORM
COMPACTOR
TESTSME
1051 RESULTS
SHALL
BE
MORI
0 TO
TIE
0TYs
CON011) 16
01 ENGINEER
PRIOR
0 ANY
OFF- STE
PAWNG.
12GRAON6
CONTRACTOR
SHALL
MAINTAIN
A
WATER
MUGS
ON
SI110 DIMHG ALL
CRANK
ACTHIY
TOWATER
GRADE
MATERIAL
AM)
CONTROL
DUST.
CONTRACTOR
SHALL
COVER
S10CIP1ED
ORT
WARN PLASTIC
AND MEAN0H1
PLASTIC
TOTE
GROUND.
ALL GRADING,
EARN- 90VING
1 DOAYAON &
MI
I
CEASE
SHEN
ENDS
IX
CFER
20 NPR.
CULTURAL
RESOURCE
NO
TES:
1. R
PPO1C1
SPONSOR
101
SIRE
A
GUM
I00 M0U
E0C05T
10 MONITOR
All EXMOOR
MIX
ACTNRES
ING GRADING
AND TRENCHING
ACIMMS,
MD
ME
SHARE
NE
SPONSOR
APPROPRIATE
EXCAVATION
LEVELS
AMCONDUCT
SHOT
NECKS
OF
ALL EXCAVATED
MAIE0MS
AND
0' EN
EI0AVARON
AREAS
RAR1PEG1OWT
TILL
3450
BRIEF
PROJECT
PERSONNEL
AM
61010001NM
WORKERS
ON
ME 001
001
FO
R
SIDING
M0
7E005C119FSGURCES
AT
ME
511E
PREPOK TAMAIEMNS
T
05WJBE
THE APPURTENANCE
Of
FORMAL
RSG
lRCES
AND APPRISE
PERSONNEL
OF
RPROCEDURES
0 FOLL
OW
N
SO
HREDSTEM
ARE
FOUND.
2 P
M 0SEMOGE
AL
REB0R
0S
ARE UNCOVERED,
WORK
AT
11E
RARE
DEDISCOVERY
SHALL
BE
HALTED
MEDIATES
FOR
A
PERKO
NOT
10 EAO48
FOP
PEENS
M0
AOUAIMED
ARM: MOD
T
9 (EV
MD
ALUATE
R
EEO. PREHISTOR
IC
ARCHIE0.
OACAL
SERE N0
0AT1B
INCLUDE:
OBSES
S
AND
OUR1
HAD
410 GIPPED
S10NE
TOOLS; (*
NDNG
AND YA91G
IMPLEMENTS
SOS
S
DABS
AND
IW05TOE5-
MDMORTARS
AR*)
PESTIE;
AND LOCALLY
DARKENED
IROCEN
SO. LS
NNIA
MIC
501E
OF
MEPREW0101
USX!)
BONS
P
ULS FRAGNENK
Of
BORE
AND
FPE */
110110
1110N0S
IF
NE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
AREDEIFA41NE0
BY
TH
EARCHAEOLOGIST
0 0
9144
0. NT,
ME
PME
C1 ¢
0X51
ML
AFTER
DOH9 ,
11ATI1
MN
NAPA
COUNTY.
C05N
UCi
A
Pu6UCLY
ACCESSIBLE
RISME
DISPLAY
RUT
D0006Ni5
THE R0
AT
NE
R
IGEO1
STE
1 E
HUMAN
RE9AL45
Affr MCCUNICNO
WRING
PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION.
NEPRO1015
MOM?
MD/ OR
RSHIPLOTEES
SHALL
NOSY
NE
NAPA
COUNTY
DOO
MS
GHEE
69E DA14
Y.
UPON
DEIIANAON
BY
R
MOW
070114' 50.
N
AT
THE ROAMS
ARE NAME
AMRCSS 90CORD
ER
SHALL
COERCE
R
CMPOANIA
NAME
SMEAR
HERITAGE
LUNI590N.
PURSUANT
10 SBDWSCS( C)
OF
SECTION
705415
Of
NE
HEALTH
34 0
SAFETY
WOE
AND
THE COPS
COOA11A1OR
0 ROAN
AFFARS
NOTES -
GEOTECHI NCAL REPORT
1. MEPROLES
0001000ACA1
REPORT
PREPARED
8TCpRER51DM
EARTH
CROW
DATED
000ODO
SNORED
BE
USED
AND REFERRED
TO
FORMCOR & A
RECOMWEN11015
NOT PROSE
N
ME$
NOES.
2. STE PREPARATION,
AREAS TO
BEDEVELOPED
MLR
DECLEARED
CP
W
TAR040-
AND Mk
CLUDING IN
THAT
LEFT
BY
MEREMOVAL
OFOBSOLETE
00400ORES .
1PEES
ANDRUBS
THAT
ML
NOT
BE
PART
OF
THE DEPOSED
OEWLCMN1
SHWLD
0 REUSED
AND MDR
PRIMARY
ROOT
01019
ORUBSE&
CLEARED
AND
GASSED 01101AL
SHOVED
Y
REMOVED
FROM
IRE
STE
AND
DIMMED
OF
IN
A0) JRDAVCE
NTH COUNTY
MERIN
MARMOT
O41OELIN6
1 VOSS
CREATED
DEWING
0EAR5G
SHOULD
WE 6ADKFAIED
NMI ENMFRED
FEL
ASRECOMMENDED
4. SIWPRNG
AREAS
TO
BE
GRADE
MOULD
EE
D
APPED
Cr
THE UPPER
FE
W
INCHES
OF
SOL
CONTMHNC
MANIC
MATTER, SOIL 40N1A01G
MORE
MAN TREE
PERCENT
BY
WORT
ORGANIC
MATTER
SSW
BECONRIERFD
CROAK
SADOAL
Mess,
MORD
OXIDE
ABOUT
3 0
6 R
OCS
BELO
W
EMS1G
GRADE
INVEGETATED
ALES.
TIE
RENAL
STRIPPING
DE
PTHS
DEMO
BEDEIEMANEO
BYREPRE5IUME
0`
THE EF01E0
MICAL
ENCBMOR
R
THE
REED AIR
M
ME
Of S1RPFNG
ME
S0PRN6
SHORED
REREMOVED
FROM
THE
STE
0R
6 SOME
STOCKPILED
FOR
RE -
USE
S
TO5011
INLANDSCAPING .
5. AT
ALL
ROES,
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
EYGYATONS
SHARD
CONFOR
M
TO
RREGULATORS
OF
THE
DATE
OFCA4FORINA
DEP
ARTMENT
OF
INBUSRBM
MIAT0N5
CRAMS
OFNQUSIRAL
SAGO
1 DOER
STRICTER
WLERNRO
RE0AAT15
B.
ALL
ELL MATERIALS
SEWN
RE
FREE
OFPERISHABLE
MATTER
M0
RUCK$
OR
LUMPS
O
AR
B
INCES
W
0AA1E4
AND
MST 0
APPROVED
Br
THE 00R0HMCAL
ENOMER
PRIOR
0 U$.
A
R
IN
NER 6
INCES
OF
FILL BENEATH
THE
OML
RO
AREA
1048
CON56T
OF
NON- EPARSA,
ODDS
0MALAR
BA
Y
HARM
AN
8 -
VALUE
OF
AT
LEAST
50 AND
M
MORE
THAN
10 PERCENT
PASSE
TM
N0.
200
SEA,
MOH
S
A
OAS%
2AGGREGATE
BAY .
10W
06E 4
R
ON- 5TE
SCRS
GENERALLY
5UITA &
F
E1
USES
GENERAL
FILL
BUT
MILL
NOT
GE
SOMME
FOR
HISS
NON- EMM
N
ELL UREA
THEY
ARE CHEMICALLY
TREATED .
11 .
R
GENERAL,
6P11W
RILL,
IF
NEEDED
5NOA0
0 N00MC
MN
A
910511017
INDEX (
PI)
OF
15 OR
L*SS
AND
NOT COMA
REC14B0
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
WERE
IT
WI
BE
USED
WARN
THE M000
A
MA
THEGE01E01MCATSERER
SHO110
APPROVE
I
WTRTW
MTERIA1
MDR
0 DY
S
CO
MPACT RLL
THE GRAVID
CONTRACTOR
ISRESPO4MIE
FOR SUBSID
E,
AI
LEAST
5 OAK
R
ADVANCE
OF
113MENDED
USE,
5 MP1ES
OF
NEPR00YO
SPORT
MAXXAM
FOR LABORATORY
RESTING
440
APPROVAL
6R
THE
0RENGINEER
72. APROAEV
FILL MATERIAL 514IRD
BE
PLACED
N
8- 3001
ORS.
UNIFORMLY
MCST40- 00NDI104N
TO
TEAR
OPTN1 M0
PROPERLY
IMPACTED.
FuPLAli1MFN1,
MOISTURE
CQ0IIOVRG,
AND
CCM/ ACT)
N
100. 0
BE
WACCOR0M4
O
WTI
THE
000100
RC41.
EN5NEERS
064M0
0ATOM 10 .
ALL STOCNRE
TILL
INWMMG
1105E
R
ACED
TOESTROUS/ 1
WE
9A
SAO
DRAINAGE
SIRE
N
BE
O
NPAC1W
0 AT
TEASE
80PERCENT
MUTE
COMPACTIO
N
ORPERM
O01E0
MCM
SOMERS
REC016ENDAIDNS 15
EWANS
A
RII- S
USED
AS
ELL
S
NOWS
01MOISTURE -
111111015 02,
10 AT
LEAST
3 SNOW
1804
W1MUM
PER
1E
GFOIEO
NICAL
OONEEBS
REC 0WMA10NB I8.
R
GOER
S.
OJT
AND
FAL DONS
SNOOD
BE
DESIG
NE D
AND
NNB
RUCIED
AT
SLOPE
DUOERIS
OF
St (
44 RZ04TM
TOVERTICAL)
OROTTER,
UNLESS °
THER ESE
APPROVED
BY
THE 001E0MCAL
ROP IER
IN
SPECP
ED
AREAL
GRADING
NOTES
1. ALL GRADING
SHALL
0 DONE
INACCORDANCE
MOTH
RECMM0DANONS
N
R
00TE1NCAL
340
FOUNDATION
MESTIC
TE
R
POSE
D
FOR
MS
STE
2. CONTRACTOR
SHALL
OERIM E
TES
OW
EARN
41044
3 M0
BAY
16S
BID
ACCO
1RGLT . 3.
TOP
OF
034
ELEVATION
IS
50. 34
41E
R
C. A.
PAWL
AND
SPOT
ELEVA1W6
ARE
10 FN9E
0 SURFACE (
MUSS
ONERMBE
NOM).
4. C0PAC10N
TO
0 DETERMINED
U0NG
A511
01557.
LATEST
ED
00N
LABORATORY
1601090SU
ES&
1. STONED
CRAN
PONE
M
PS
111E PUBIC
CR
PRIVATE
STREET
RIOOO
OF
MY
SHALL
RE
RCP CLASS
III
OR
BETTER
UNLESS
0T
IRS%
NOTED,
DENS
E
SHALL
BE
PER
TIE
114
OF
0 014.# Cµ
CANTON
01010AM9
S
ON -
91E
STORM
MOWN
PPE
DUAL
8E:
10 '
DIALER
S
AD
SMALLER
MR
01100
0104490
MN
RUBBER
CASKETS
MEMO
ASV
PAn .
114
0AUEIER
0 RES00
35 PA,
CLAM
M
RCP
OR
BIDE
KR
HOPE
SMMU4ACT
PEO
BY
IWECORMN
WARR
1 017
JONES
MEETM0
0534
4440
NA
45114
05212.
15. 111ROAN
24'
DIMETRS:
PPE
TO
BE
CLARE
IN
010
OR
ODE
SEAL
HO
PES
9E011W
ABOVE.
PIPES
LOOK
THAN
24'
N
0 NE1ER
STALL
BE
CUSS
11 RP
TRESS
OTKJM
S
NOTED.
NO
MATERIAL
SISS90T1
SHALL
0 AL
ONES
FOR SCREE
PORN
PPE (
OP).
7. ALL MIRY
STRUCTURES
310. 000.
BAT
MTSATED
0 MAR KUS
0T1
BASINS
WATER
VALES
FIRE HYDRANTS.
14DM
ONE
ARM MOI
RE
VALES
AND
POE
BOXES,
NAT
CE
NTS
R
RIBUC
00 41 -
OF -
WAY ESESENK
OR
AREAS
AMMO
8T
MONK
1 THIS PROECT
SHALL
0 ADJUSTED
TO
CRAB
BY
RECONTRACTOR
OR
R
REEPECTIE
LOTUS
COMPANY
F1
3491
RC1DAC11
S
RSPNSMIE
TO
AFFECT =
MOON.
E
148E TYPES, 10GT0S
SME5
340/ 1
DEPTS
O
EMSING
U11D4RR01NT
unuIES
AS
9MEM
1 TREYS
RPR06Nl1
PLANS
WERE
OBTAINER
FO4
SWIMS
O
0011NG
R
9011Y. 11
NE
CONTRACTOR
SOUMWEO
THAT
ONLY ACTA.
4040411
061 REPEAL
R
IMES,
EXTENT.
SIZES
LOCATIONS
M0
CUSS
OF
904
010ER10ND
UTURES,
A
REMO/ EA&
EFFO RT
NS
BEEN MADE
10 LOCATE
AND DELINEATE
A.
MOM
UMER10N0
110100)
HDWER,
R
045NEER
CM
NOT
ASSURE
RESP158NEY
FOR
R
C0PU
TENE55
ORACORSY
OF
11ER
OEIAT
AON
OF
SCH
1DERM
OUM
URINES
WITCH
MAY
0 EN03044
0E0,
BUT
ARE
NOT
D
EW
1 RY
1AIPN. S
9. CO
NTRACTOR
AWL
UNCOVER
AND DEPOSE
ALLMSC
MUTT
ARD SEWER
LEES
WERE
1014
ARE
0 0
10500.
MOW
OR
BELOW,
BY
THE
NEW FRCWIS
0NG
21511120
00 N
ORDER
10 VMS
R
GRADE
AM
0 ASSURE
MAT
TE0
15 salo0
11WENHARCE
PIPE
SHALL
NOT
SE
STRUNG
NOR
VENOMS
COMENCED
UNTIL
ALL
CROSS/ ES
MW
BEEN
ERM
ED
FOR CLEARANCE.
IF
R
COMPACTOR
EMS
0 FOLLOW
MSPROCEDURE
NE
FM
BE
SOLELY
RES 0154LE
FOR
ANY EOM
NE
M
OR
RA
ON
REQUIRE
PMD2MICA106
0 R
DESIGN
AENECESSARY.
14 RONTRACII
SHALL
SET
N5 MD
1 MOPE 144001
AT
LEAST
19EE
GRAD
SEAS
0 O
GRADE. BEY IF
THE SINES
DD
NOT PRONE
A
UMFON
GRADE,
NINNY
R
ENCNEER
M00ARLT
480
HAVE
THEGRAPES
1ECKE0
PRO
ME
101° 00
1 PL0O
MM
OFCOMES.
11. AOJUSIM
N15
0 V
OLDIM
PMELEVA1015
OR
PARSING
LOT
ISMS
TO
ACHES
EARTNWRKBALANCE
SLALL
0 MME
SLY
N
lw
APPROVAL
OF
R
ENGINEER.
12 ALL
AIRY.
1 -
SR
MO
R
MEPUB(
RIGHT -
04. 111411
SHALL
COWER
0 R
0114
OFAHWCM
CANTON
STANDARDS
AM00110UM1S
EROSION AND
SEDI
MENT
CO
FA0A
1. 00
AND SEDMEM
COMO
KASJRE$
2 AFTER
TIEDIMMR0tg00 $
E
ON
ORAN
AS
SOON
AS
OM
ON
11115 PRACTICAL)
D
RDCO
PL
AN
ROL
TM
SHE
1 SOUS
TIEOI- 91E
STORM
CRAMS
NOT
BE
SHALL
CONSTRUCT
AEI
40* 11
SEE
ERT
BA
A
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
NNE:
100
ADDRESS
Da
1FAERCNE:
34 0
5 THECONTRACTOR
D
ULL
PLACE
Y- 6 '
R
RE
AL
tom
MID
50 FELT MG)
AT
ONTO
RRIS
POOLE &
OSHALL
BE
SHOVED
CASTO
6. A
LL
ER030N
CONTRA
M
ASM% SHAU
DE
SURGES
TO
MS
EROSION
A10STM ENT
ONLY MN
R
APPROVAL
OF
0f
AT
THE
7. ALL
PAW(
A
REAS
SH
NI
RE
KEPT CLEAR
OF
MN1MN
W
50 S
0 MYMM
SE0WEN1- LA
R
ALL EMDEN
CONTROL
FA0UTE5
TARSI
BE
DAY.9. SEDRENT
BAS
IS
SHALL
BE
CLEANED
OR /
INDICATED
ON
IRE
PLANS.
I0
BORROW
AREAS
AND TEMPORARY
510CKPRES
LG0R
05 10
M5016FMT0
OF
R
CITY
II.
ALL
OITN0
Ell
DOPES
ARE
TO
BE
11 INLETS
HACH
ANL
N01
U5W
N
CO
RAINC* NN
BF
C
OMM.
OR01HERMSE
MI
STED
TO
OR
STAEBI
gp.
UTILITY
NOTES
BA06E0
N0
AND
60 40001 Ox
FOR
All
00TECIOR01
DOWER .
C
ONTRACTOR
0 SEMI
ALL EXISTING
CONSWUC4ON
PRIOR
10 ANY
500
MINK
WSTALL
1 1
SHALL
DEGM
AT
R
DROS
NECESSARY
MOST
ENIS
01E
MARE
WNOIMTIM
FAA5
0 BEM
AT
THE
SILL
PROCEED
AT
HIS
OWN
PMM0
SE
ALL
MEM
1 3411
AND
SEVER
SYSTEM
SFSDA05
01 0
RE
ONREME4T1
GENERAL
611MCTOR
WAIL
WRDMAIE
PP
S
CROSSING
ELECTRICAL
LMCS
CROSSING
ELECTR
ON.
LNE &
FOR
01A1O
M1ERW5
AND
TYPES
SEE
E
WATER
UNES
SH
ALL
5E
It
MIMS
MOH
7. ASBESTOS
coma (
ADP.
ME
SHALL
B
1MN01G
M0MOSLL
SAIL
COMPLY
COMPLY
MN
ALL APPUCASE
SAFETY
DI
M,
3 OF
VEER
9 ALL
BE
OAC 0IIED
DUST
ABATE
MENT
NOTES:
ME
CB
HROCON
CONTRACTOR
IS
S
CORED
5 PROEM
SHALL
SCUM
MEF01MAN0.
I.
WATER
ALL
ACT
ON
CONSRMCTI
MEAL
2. COVER
ALL OWLS
HOLNG
SOIL.
Sµ4
M4MMN
AT
LUST
1140
FEET
OF
1R
GE
R
LOAD
AND
TIE
T1
O
R
1 PAN .
AIRY
WATER
SSE
SAES
DMLY.
MOSS
ROMOS,
P
ARSEREAS
AM
4. sato ,
DAY (
PREFERABLY
WM
ALTER
AREAS
ATC061RUC1Dx
SAE;
5. SM
EP
STREETS
O
NLY (
PRERRA& Y
MM
10 SWIM
IN
RUC
S1E15
6. HWO
YED
ORWRY (
91- 11,0)
SOIL
PREMISS
GRADED
AREAS
RACIE
F1
7. 0X0.00,
CORER,
ALTER
TE0
TREY
0 OAT.
SAP(,
ETCk
B
UST
TRAM
SPEEDS
ON
UNPAVED
ROME
This
Page
malyot
be
reproducible
814:
3612
VIM
u .
f`'
nrdN.
w •
P
a O.
CITY
AMERICAN
CANYON
VAB0.[ VS
ON
M.
MrsA
inte., 11./ C
tt, r
MY
MtCOMMON
au ,
n555. 555
m,".. 4
n
am
NOW.. %
ame 5. 01
5555554...,
nem:ere. 25550r5 .55ratree
CITY
OFAMERICAN
CANYOSSN6 ..
F]{PANA0*
ME OB
51515
MIA
a
m.
0. 44
100.
0100. ,.. ..
vn
w
e. wv..
amnwe
c6r
cots .
r4
nor
rn
arur
056
5.,eaur.. .. .
o- reA. o
r ..,
M. I5
al ,..
41. 1./
M
C
MOM
P.
6FMI"
ra
Ma t.
M- 6/ 410. 11
1 r•
M..
MILL
M
UV..
CITY
OFAMERICAN
CA
NYON
if" ` 1^
nalt
com m. k
Msr
If
Am.
OP
rm
almIr. CITY
OF
A/ IRRICAN
CANYON
WB . SE
d
s
v66wsr
1. 5115W
wow
NE
111555 *
50F
0000
STA
6D•W
Bo- EE00+ 0E
1601133001
1001304104041000) 100
3EPPoIL
tr-+
a•
DN
um
0- 30
51 50.
1 SIMW
41NE5
NEW
4 0i6FM .
w
0 600UI
9R1. N0
MLL
EM® D4
BYNFOOSW0
5000E
ODOM
r.
6g0AO
N
UAMMN
NA155
MP
0,
10EE6. 55515505
N17. 5
M0
4 P11104001
0 51, 413
MC
SUM
OF *
6 *
MU
6 5
m16D1
Y-•
RP. DX
ON
01N10. C
541009
NUS,
MOT
BE
031E0 5.
10 BL.
UM
OB
N10. 50
WTN3.
5. 101E
11F• N
DC
MA
POLL
R
P4403
1. 4
A
AM
00 0* 13
G51
SE
OYr% NR3,
NOT A90R L.
B
11. 1W
1M[
DVS
OF
NE
Ig6
BOLL
W4
0610
PROW
NWT
FEN 0A
N
MONO
tNE
Af4,
WILDLIFE
FRIENDLY"
STRAW
WATTLE
SEDIMENT
TRAP/ FILTER NOT
TO
SCALE
r .
r .
CITY
07'
A
INLET
This
page
may
not
be
reproducible
BY:
3613
SWm IP_ 9-AIS831 9\Xi31- AI. 1013\Z:\ KE
L
A4 At2BIO. 2108-7- COVEROr99-
z
rowlo tl
75 i
g
m
v
i
Q
0 L
SECTIONS CROSS TYPICAL a =r1 WRIGHT KIER+ q3
g
442P.
J
BY A
CI,
2021 2' SUBBemNOU2"
Al - S89M CITY
08/7
2021
i•'') t
W
29 HIGHWAY AT ROAD KELLY S.
PLANS IMPROVEMENT STREET
AMERICAN
C
CALIFORNIA ANYON,
Canyon Collier 28SP
1lrermge . Road
G9AS53 M On) Phone:
mB
w
BO
DA
A
A
A
3614
9531- Al OW1'
0 .
NEl1VOAY 5019:1. 01 0e - 7 - R9 SO. IP9-5631-
a
ronula co
75 t
4i
O
m
3 is'
1 g
0 nA
WRIGHT KIER+
0011+TO 00 1 +STA ROAD - KELLY SOUTH a
9i
PlPajt \
IF .. 1
it
NO.
REVISION
9Y
09 CI : p
IP:LI,AE-M
2021 07E09/ SO95orm - CITY p
AT ROAD KELLY S. g 13
HIGHWA
p F 29 Y
STREET p
rt PLANS IMPROVEMENT 850
tl
l9 ma : krUnyonRwO
saaR9 ulz<
p
AMERICAN CANYO
CALIFORNIA N,
uvamue < n
91ss: M,
ma, n9Nl. waa, a.
0 A nn`.
3615
s61Ow-96a1- At] 6\I-M35VO1S\ Z: 1OenmJo AN 4k55 2106-2- MEurasg H o
s a o a
m
m
STRIPING AND SIGNING
WRIGHTKIER+
a
p ,
y\
6. 1wE
SUM MY 0
O,
262, a/O2,
GO A
Y
wc
onmaozi AL- um
KELLY S. vi
RO
29 HIGHWAY AT AD P ay' I> A a
o PLANS IMPROVEMENT STREET g = a
AMERIC
AN
CA
CALIFORNIA NYON,
I21150 lrmmq
N
Can
IBYpmm:' yonRab
mmBO-)
yp +.+,
0 A
3616
0uI• 219-7-9a*KElly. souma-91301-9,W1- AM. Vm1. moo.A4 6959:
a
i n
n o
n
e
PLAN CONTROL EROSION WRIGHT KIER+ 6. y "";
REVISI
ON
la t Su6MITEAL CITY p
19=1313, 07,L-U9Mm, Y=C„ p
m 29 HIGHWAY AT ROAD KELLY S. p
b 1
e
AM
SSOColl "" PLANS IMPROVEMENT ERICASTREOET A
0f' 19'"`*" M`^ np
O
3617
EXHIBIT C
2022 ESTIMATED CITY COST TO DELIVER PROJECT
Anticipated City Cost to Deliver
Off -site Improvements South Kelly Road ( City) $ 535, 000.
Off -site Improvements Highway 29 ( Caltrans) $ 297, 035.0 Anticipated Construction Cost subtotal $ 832, 035.0
Final Design/ Caltrans Encroachment/ City Administration ( 10%) $ Construction Management ( 15%) $
Construction Contingency ( 20%) $
Soft Cost Subtotal $
Grand Total $
83, 203. 50
124. 805. 2
166, 407. 00
374, 415. 7
1, 206, 450. 75
NLP' s83% Share 1, 001, 354. 12
3618
EXHIBIT C
ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
Project No. A13631- 9 (within City Right -of -Way)
City ofAmerican Canyon
A. GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 SITE PREPARATION / MOBILIZATION LS 1 25, 000. 25, 000. 2 EARTHWORK (CUT) CY 750 30. 00 22, 500. 0
3 SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL LS 1 25, 000. 25, 000. 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL / STAGING LS 1 40, 000. 40, 000.
GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING
B. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
112, 500. 0 SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ( X" AC / X" AB) SF 18500 10. 00 185, 000. 2 2" ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC) GRIND AND OVERLAY SF 15020 3. 00 45, 060. 3 CURB & GUTTER PER AMERICAN CANYON STANDARD DWG. # 3. 07, TYPE A LF 1080 20. 00 21, 600. 0 4 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK (4" CONC/ 4" AB) SF 8530 8. 00 68, 240. 0 5 DRIVEWAYS / CONCRETE PAVING ( 6" CONCRETE OVER 4" AB) SF 1400 10. 00 14, 000. 6 ACCESSIBLE RAMPS PER CALTRANS A88A CASE A EA 1 2, 000. 2, 000.
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
C. STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
335, 900. 0 SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 12" RCP STORM DRAIN LINE LF 45 70. 00 3, 150. 0
2 CURB INLET EA 1 6, 500. 0 6, 500. 0
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
D. WATER
9, 650. 0 SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 RELOCATE FIRE HYDRANT EA 1 6, 000. 6, 000.
2 RELOCATE WATER METER EA 2 4, 000. _ 8, 000.
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
E. TRAFFIC SIGNALS, STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
14, 000. SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 OTHER MISC. TRAFFIC SIGN/ POLE INSTALLATION PER SIGNING PLAN EA 8 200. 00 1, 600. 0 2 PAVEMENT ARROW MARKINGS ( TYPE IV) IN THERMOPLASTIC EA 11 150. 00 1, 650. 0 3 STOP/ YEILD LEGEND IN THERMOPLASTIC EA 4 350. 00 1, 400. 0 4 12" WHITE THERMOPLASTIC CROSSWALK LF 290 4. 00 1,60. 0 5 DETAIL 38 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 460 3. 00 1, 380. 0
5 DETAIL 39 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 210 3. 00 630. 00
6 DETAIL 39A IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 180 2. 50 450. 00
7 DETAIL 32 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 900 2. 50 2,50. 0
8 DETAIL 22 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 300 3. 00 900. 00
9 DETAIL 9 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 690 3. 00 2, 070.
SIGNALS, STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
F. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
13, 490. 0 SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 STREET MONUMENT EA 1 1, 000. 1, 000.
2 ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE EA 1 1, 200. 0 1, 200. 0
3 RELOCATE ELECTRICAL BOX EA 3 2, 000. 6, 000.
4 ADJUST WATERVALVE TO GRADE SF 3 600. 00 1, 800. 0
5 RELOCATE STREET LIGHT EA 1 3, 000. 3, 000.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 13, 000. SUB TOTAL
3619
EXHIBIT C
ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
Project No. A13631- 9 (within City Right -of -Way)
City of American Canyon
G. LANDSCAPE
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREAS SF 1980 6. 50 12, 870. 0
LANDSCAPE
H. DEMOLITION
12, 870. 0 SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LF 255 6. 00 1, 530. 0
2 REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT SF 1120 3. 50 3, 920. 0
3 REMOVE EXISTING STRIPING LF 420 2. 00 840. 00
4 REMOVE SIGN/ POLE AND FOUNDATION EA 1 100. 00 100. 00 5 REMOVE EXISTING FENCE/ GATE AND INSTALL AT RIGHT OF WAY LF 860 20. 00 17, 200. 0
DEMOLITION
NOTE:
ESTIMATE IS BY ON 1/4/ 21 PLOT SET
23, 590. 0 SUB TOTAL
535, 000. TOTAL
53,00. 0 10% CONTINGENCY
588,00. 0 GRAND TOTAL
3620
EXHIBIT C
ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
Project No. A13631- 9 (within Caltrans Right- of- way)
City of American Canyon
A. GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 SITE PREPARATION / MOBILIZATION LS 1 20, 000. 20, 000. 2 EARTHWORK ( CUT) CY 650 20. 00 13, 000.
3 SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL LS 1 25, 000. 25, 000. 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL / STAGING ( INCLUDING K -RAILS) LS 1 50, 000. 50, 000. 5 GUARD RAIL LS 1 3, 000. 3, 000.
GENERAL ITEMS / EARTHWORK / STAGING
B. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
111, 000. SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 FULL DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT ( X" AC /X" AB) SF 13000 12. 00 156, 000.
SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
C. STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
156, 000. SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 OTHER MISC. TRAFFIC SIGN/ POST INSTALLATION PER SIGNING PLAN EA 2 200. 00 400. 00 2 PAVEMENT ARROW MARKINGS ( IV) IN THERMOPLASTIC EA 6 200. 00 1, 200. 0 3 DETAIL 25 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 1420 3. 50 4, 970. 0
4 DETAIL 38 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 1150 3. 50 4, 025.0
5 RESTRIPE EXISTING DETAIL 25 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 210 3. 00 630. 00 6 RESTRIPE EXISTING DETAIL 38 IN THERMOPLASTIC LF 220 3. 00 660. 00
SIGNALS, STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
C. ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS
11, 885. 00 SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
1 LOOPS EA 2 5, 000. 10, 000.
ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS
D. DEMOLITION
10, 000. SUB TOTAL
ITEM NO.
1 DESCRIPTION
SAWCUT AND REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT
UNITS
SF
QUANTITY
1630
UNIT PRICE
5. 00
AMOUNT
8, 150. 0
DEMOLITION 8, 150. 0 SUB TOTAL
297, 035.0 TOTAL
29, 703. 50 10% CONTINGENCY
326, 738. 50 GRAND TOTAL
3621
September 28, 2021
Orchard Partners, LLC
3697 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Suite 200
Lafayette, CA 94539
Attention: Mr. Ernie Knodel
EXHIBIT C
DESILVA71GATES CONSTRUCTION
11555 Dublin Boulevard
P. O. Box 2909
Dublin, California 94568- 2909
925/ 829- 9220
www. desilvagates. com
CONTRACTORS LICENSE NO. 704195 A
Subject: Scope of Work Summary and Proposal for S. Kelly / Hwy 29 Improvements project located in American Canyon, CA.
DeSilva Gates Estimate # 2107048
Dear Mr. Knodel,
DeSilva Gates Construction is pleased to provide for your review the attached proposal for the S.
Kelly Road and Hwy 29 street Improvements project in American Canyon. This Proposal is based solely on Unapproved South Kelly Road Street Improvement Plans and the Hwy 29 Post Mile 2. 3 to Post Mile 5. 0 Street Improvement Plans both dated February 2021 and both prepared by Kier & Wright.
The following Qualifications govern our Proposal and are considered as included in any future Contract Agreement reached between Orchard Partners, LLC and DeSilva Gates Construction DGC) for this project.
SPECIFIC INCLUSIONS:
1. Includes equipment mobilizations in and out: One ( 1) each Mobilization for each phase of work.
2. USA site and pothole improvements as needed to protect any new or existing utilities.
3. We reserve the right to complete our own site topography if awarded the job in order to compare the existing topographic elevations to those provided by the engineer' s plans for bidding purposes. If DGC decides to build a model of the site for utilizing a GPS system, we request all files and other information needed from the engineer to be given to DGC at no additional cost. If variations in existing grades are found upon review of the DeSilva Gates Construction survey, we reserve the right to discuss the discrepancies with the Owner and Engineer, and to make any final quantity adjustments to the bid and contract.
4. Install one each Construction Entrances and remove (See alternates); rumble plates are not included.
5. Includes traffic control plan for both Hwy 29 and S. Kelly.
6. Includes 4 each Changeable Message boards; one for each leg of the Hwy 29 and S.
Kelley intersection. Two months of rental is included.
7. Includes installation and removal of Krail adjacent to the S. Kelly and Hwy 29 improvements. Also, included are three ( 3) each ABSORB 350 arrays at the end of each length of the krail.
8. Export an anticipated +/- 2, 920 cy of "Clean" material offsite. Quantities are based on Engineer' splan topo, prior to DGC performing their own topographic survey to confirm site elevations.
1 Page 19 of 23
3622
EXHIBIT C
9. Install and modify Storm Drain per the plans and the attached bid form.
10. Finish grade site areas from back of walk to back of walk including sidewalks, curb and gutter and asphalt concrete paving areas.
11. Furnish and install Recycled CL II AB per plans and the attached bid form.
12. Furnish and install site concrete ( C&G, Sidewalk) per the plans and attached bid form.
Includes Bioswale curbs.
13. Back up curbs and walks with native material.
14. Furnish and install asphalt concrete per the plans and the attached bid form. Proposal is based on installing the entire paving section during the same paving mobilization.
Includes lowering existing water valves prior to the grind and overlay and raise to grade after paving. Grind and Overlay is variable thickness; asphalt overlay based on an average of 3."
15. Includes bioswale improvements; excavation and offhaul of 135 cy, furnish and install 100 If of4" perforated PVC pipe, 12" CL2 Permeable and 18" Bioswale soil. Does not include any irrigation or planting.
16. Work 5 each 8 hour " NIGHT" shifts as required; if work can be performed behind Krail without impeding traffic night shifts will not be used.
17. Site sanitary for DGC crews / subcontractors.
18. Includes dust control during the actual performance of work while actively working onsite; "off -hours and or weekends" dust control is not included.
19. Cleanup of generated debris after completion
ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS / CLARIFICATIONS:
1. All soil or soil rock mixtures to be exported from the site shall be free of deleterious materials and are assumed to be suitable for unrestricted re -use on residential or commercial sites. Owner to provide all necessary soil sampling and analysis requested by soil re -use site.
2. No price protection for the oil used in asphalt concrete, prime coat, and fog seals can be obtained or extended on this project. Today' s F. O. Brefinery cost of asphalt oil is $625. 00 per ton. Any increases in the price of asphalt oil between now and the placement of asphalt concrete pavement may result in additional costs that are to be negotiated prior to performing the asphalt concrete paving work.
3. Construction water was bid from the existing local governing Water Agency at fire hydrants adjacent to the site. Cost of water, all hook- ups and obtaining temporary hydrant meters to be paid by DGC. (No other source of construction water is included in our unit prices. Hauling water from offsite sources excluded. Assumes no drought restrictions for obtaining water from existing hydrants or blow -offs on the project).
4. Offhaul is based on dumpsite / receiving site availability after a weather event.
5. The future/ potntial impacts ofAB5 are unknown at this time. All impacts to this Proposal due to the effects ofAB5 are excluded from this Proposal.
6. Alternate No. 1 & 2 Construction Entrance. Includes installation and remove of one each Construction Entrance.
7. Alternate No. 3 Temp Strip for Krail. Includes restriping as required prior to installation of Krail.
2 Page 20 of 23
3623
EXHIBIT C
SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS
1. Removal of surface or buried debris, tree trimming, arborist cost, or handling of any neighbor' spersonal property (fences, landscape, debris, irrigation, etc.); MBTA survey; any other above or below ground demolition, relocation, salvage or removal; debris picking, or removal not shown on the plans.
2. Locating, testing, identifying, handling, removing, transporting or any associated disposal fees for hazardous, toxic or contaminated material whether naturally occurring or manmade.
3. Removing, replacing, handling or processing of over optimum, unsuitable material.
4. Signal Modifications.
5. Removal, replacement or modification of existing headwall at the southeast comer intersection of S. Kelly and Devlin Road.
6. Air, dust or vibration monitoring.
7. Work in inclement weather or in over optimum moisture conditions.
8. Amending of native soils or import of topsoil.
9. SC -70 prime oil and SS - 1 fog seal.
10. SWPPP or Erosion Control installation or removal, site winterization, access roads; QSD or QSP testing, monitoring plans or implementation.
11. OCIP Credits.
12. Irrigation or landscaping.
13. Repairs to existing roadways due to construction traffic.
14. Survey, obtaining or cost of permits including but not limited to grading permit, haul route permit, bonds, fees, plans, staking, layout, engineering, compaction or material analysis testing or inspection.
15. Joint trench, electrical, irrigation or landscaping.
16. SWPPP or Erosion Control installation or removal, site winterization, access roads; QSD or QSP testing, monitoring plans or implementation.
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
1. One initial move -in per phase of work and one continuous operation each move -in.
2. Any phasing of work will result in additional costs due to reduction in production and additional move -ins.
3. Quantities and pricing are subject to review of final signed and approved plans along with any topographic discrepancies which may occur after the site is re -surveyed prior to starting the earthwork.
4. Any work requested by the Owner/ Client to be performed in inclement weather or over optimum moisture conditions, will result in additional costs and will be billed as Time and Material.
5. DeSilva Gates Construction' sprice for erosion control will be for the construction of only those erosion control facilities and SWPPP devices shown on the plans, which facilities have been designed for the Owner by third parties. DGC' ssole responsibility as to the erosion control and SWPPP is to furnish and install the facilities shown on the plans in a workmanlike manner. Owner will be fully responsible for, and DGC assumes no responsibility for the design, effectiveness or adequacy of the erosion control facilities and SWPPP. Any and all work required to remove, repair, maintain, replace, augment or modify the erosion control facilities and SWPPP will be performed on a Time and 3 Page 21 of 23
3624
EXHIBIT C
Material basis at the written direction of the Owner. All losses ( including without limitation, all fines and/ or citations) whatsoever relating in any manner to the erosion control and SWPPP will be the sole responsibility of Pulte, unless the losses are solely attributable to the contractor' sfailure to install the facilities in a workmanlike manner.
6. All Inclusions, Exclusions and Conditions are to be incorporated as an Exhibit to any contract reached between the two parties.
7. All excavated material encountered onsite is assumed to be acceptable as engineered fill.
No special handling, re -handling, or select material stockpiling has been figured into our bid proposal prices for earthwork.
8. There will be no repairs ofdamage to work performed and installed by others, at our expense, without written approval by DeSilva Gates " prior" to any damage repairs.
9. If the job is operated with any non- union subcontractor' sonsite, a separate gate may be required for the use of DGC employees and its Subcontractors.
10. This proposal is based upon the ( Owner and/ or General Contractor) and DeSi Iva Gates Construction reaching mutual agreement in the Terms and Conditions of a Contract for this project.
11 This proposal remains in effect for thirty ( 30) days from receipt.
We look forward to working with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to call us with any questions or comments you may have in regards to the attached Bid Proposal.
Sincerely,
DeSilvaeGates Con
i J
Troy Snyii
Estir iator
ction, L. P.
4 Page 22 of 23
3625
EXHIBIT C
09/ 28/021
2107048
Troy Snyder
Biditem Description
2 13: 50
S. KELLY RD & HWY 29
BID TOTALS
SOUTH KELLY ROAD / HWY 29
MOBILIZATION/ PROJECT STARTUP/ SUPERVISION
KRAIL ( SET & REMOVE)
Ouantity
1. 000
2, 500. 000
Units Unit Price Bid Total
LS 63, 500. 0 63, 500. 0
LF 55. 00 137, 500. 0
SUBTOTAL 201, 000.
SOUTH KELLY RD IMPROVEMENTS
1 EXCAVATION & OFFHAUL - CLEAN
2 12" RCP CL3
3 CB 2424
4 24" TWIN STORM DRAIN
5 CONNECT 24" TO EXISTING HEADWALL
6 CONNECT 12" RCP TO NEW 24" RCP ( 12X24)
7 F&I 22. 5" CL2 AB - STREET
8 F&I4" CL2 AB - SIDEWALK / DRIVEWAY
9 C>YPE A (PER SD 3. 07)
10 ADA CURB RAMP (CT TYPE A)
11 BIO CURB & GU I I ER
12 BIO VERTICAL WALL
13 GRIND & OVERLAY ( VARIABLE)
14 F&17.5" AC - STREET
15 ADJUST EXISTING WATER VALVES
16 REM CONFLICTING & INSTALL THERMO STRIP & MARK
17 BIOSWALES - EXC/ I2" CL2 PERM/ 18" BIO SOIL
1, 505. 000
53. 000
1. 000
20. 000
2. 000
1. 000
16, 670. 000
2. 515. 000
930. 00
1, 056.00
88. 000
117. 000
16, 695. 000
16, 370. 000
4. 000
1. 000
1, 200. 000
CY 48. 00 72, 240. 0
LF 295. 00 15, 635. 00
EA 7, 200. 0 7, 200. 0
LF 800. 00 16. 000.
EA 4, 900. 0 9, 800. 0
EA 4. 700. 0 4. 700. 0
SF 9. 50 158. 365. 00
SF 1. 80 4, 527. 00
LF 44. 00 40, 920. 0
SF I1. 00 11, 616. 00
LF 167. 00 14, 696. 00
LF 132. 00 15. 444. 00
SF 4.5 74, 292. 75
SF 8. 95 146, 511.0
EA 3, 900. 0 15, 600. 0
LS 19, 509. 25 19, 509. 25
SF 28. 00 33, 600. 0
SUBTOTAL S. KELLY IMPROVEMENTS 660,56. 50
1 2
3 4
HWY 29 IMPROVEMENTS ( TURN POCKETS)
EXCAVATION & OFFHAUL - CLEAN
22. 5" CL2 AB - STREET
F&I7.5" AC - STREET
REM CONFLICTING & INSTALL THERMO STRIP & MARK
1, 280. 000
13, 030.00
13. 030.00
1. 000
CY 48. 00 61, 440. 0
SF 9, 50 123, 785. 00
SF 8. 95 116, 618. 50
LS 21, 000. 21. 000.
SUBTOTAL HWY 29 ( TURN POCKETS) 322, 843. 50
BASE BID 1.84, 500. 0
1 2
2 ALTERNATES ! ALLOWANCE
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
REMOVE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
TEMP STRIP FOR KRAIL
1. 000 EA 5, 100. 0 5, 100. 0
1. 000 EA 4. 800. 0 4, 800. 00
1. 000 LS 10, 600. 0 10, 600. 0
1 3626
EXHIBIT D
AMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
AMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Amended CUP Condition 16. a/ Amended MM TRANS- ld
The project applicant shall make a fair share payment to the City to support the City' s implementation of the following improvements to SR -29. This scope is based on improvements that have already been constructed, the project' s reduced trip generation, and
the project' s
reduced extent of development as documented in the 2022 transportation impact study.
1) At the intersection of SR -29 at South Kelly Road:
Southbound approach: construct 1 new right -turn lane
Eastbound approach: replace existing left -turn lane and through -right lane with 1 new left -turn lane, 1 new left -through lane, and 1 new right -turn lane. 2) At the intersection of South Kelly Road and Devlin Road:
Westbound approach: construct 1 new left -turn lane
3) South Kelly Road, between Devlin Road and SR -29 intersections:
Westbound lane: construct new 2nd westbound lane
Center Lane: construct 1 new two- way left -turn lane
Amended CUP Conditions 16. e.; 17/ Amended MM TRANS -la and MM -TRANS -lb.
The project applicant shall establish a Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) program, subject to review and approval by the City. The intent of the TDM program is to ensure that traffic volumes generated by the Project do not exceed that which would occur from warehouse - only uses. Notwithstanding its intent, the applicant shall implement this mitigation measure regardless of the mix of uses ( warehouse -only or warehouse/ industrial/ office) that is eventually built.
To ensure its enforceability, the project applicant shall incorporate the TDM program into the CC& Rs for the Napa Logistics Park. The CC& Rs shall require the Association to monitor each Occupant' scompliance with the TDM program and to allocate to an Owner or Owners any fines imposed by the City in connection with an Occupant' s violation ofthe TDM
program.
The applicant has already fully complied with this condition and mitigation measure.
The applicant submitted, and the City approved, a Transportation Demand Management program for the Project, entitled " Napa Logistics Park Transportation Demand Management ( TDM) Strategies and Monitoring," prepared by Fehr & Peers and dated October 2020. The applicant incorporated the TDM program into the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and Grant of Easements for Napa Logistics Park (recorded on September 12, 2017 as Instrument No. 2017- 0020645 3627
AMENDED 1MPROVEMENTS
in the Official Records of the County), as subsequently amended. Section 3. 14 of the CC& Rs requires the Association to monitor each Occupant' scompliance with the TDM Program and to allocate to an Owner or Owners any fines imposed by the City in connection with an Occupant' sviolation of the TDM Program.) 3628
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2
FirstCarbon Solutions
M.9 - Napa Sewer Pump Station Close Out Letter
3629
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3630
2850 Collier Canyon Road
Livermore, CA 94551
925.245.8788
WWW.KIERWRIGHT.COM
October 10, 2022
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
Attn: Building Department
4381 Broadway Street
Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
RE: Permit # EN21-0023 – New Green Island Road Sewer Pump Station To Whom it May Concern:
I, John Adam Mahoney, civil engineer of record for the above-mentioned project, hereby certify that the constructed site improvements comply with those drawings stamped and signed by me and approved by the City of American Canyon.
Sincerely,
KIER & WRIGHT
John Adam Mahoney, PE, PLS
RCE # 62365
ASSOCIATE
[email protected],
(925) 245-8788
10/10/2022
3631
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3632
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2
FirstCarbon Solutions
M.10 - GIR Pump Station Acceptance
3633
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3634
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON TAKING THE FOLLOWING ACTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NAPA LOGISTICS PARK PHASE 2 PROJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF THE
NEW GREEN ISLAND ROAD SEWER PUMP STATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAPA LOGISTICS PARK PHASE 2 PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2015, The Planning Commission approved the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Conditional Use Permit (Resolution No. 2015-09) to develop the 173 acres with up to 2,271,000 square feet of warehouse, distribution, e-commerce, manufacturing, and accessory retail/office space uses. Per CUP Condition #16b, the project is required to decommission the existing 18-inch sanitary force main within the project site boundaries and install new gravity sanitary sewer main from the Green Island Road Pump Station; and
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map for the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project to subdivide the 173 acres parcel into four lots, public rights-of-way, and one remainder parcel on APN 057-090-083 (Resolution No. 2018-06). Per Map Condition 39b, the project is conditioned to design and construct offsite public gravity sewer and pump station to replace the existing Green Island Pump Station; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 2018, the City of American Canyon and DWF IV NLP II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, entered into a Subdivision Improvement and Reimbursement Agreement for the development of Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 (Napa County Official Records 2018-0024204); and WHEREAS, The City of American Canyon Public Works Department approved the City of American Canyon New Green Island Road Sewer Pump Station Improvement Plan (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the project engineer, submitted a letter certifying the improvements and grading associated with the project have been constructed in substantial conformance with the approved plans and any subsequent revisions (Exhibit B); and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the project engineer submitted the Project Record Drawings (Exhibit C).
WHEREAS, The New Green Island Road Sewer Pump Station associated with the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 Project have been completed to the City’s satisfaction. Therefore, it is appropriate to accept them into the City’s system for operation and maintenance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby accepts all the public improvements constructed per the approved plans.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 065B7B86-2CEF-459B-B1AC-3E0CAFC72A7D Exhibit D 3635
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 18
th day of October, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Joseph, Oro, Washington, Vice Mayor Aboudamous, and Mayor Garcia NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
________________________________
Leon Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, Interim City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney Attachments:
Exhibit A: Approved City of American Canyon New Green Island Road Sewer Pump Station Improvement Plan
Exhibit B: Project Engineer Letter
Exhibit C: Project Record Drawings.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 065B7B86-2CEF-459B-B1AC-3E0CAFC72A7D 3636
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix N:
Buzz Oates Letter
3637
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3638
3639
3640
3641
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3642
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix O:
Rare Plant Survey Report 2022
3643
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3644
2022
PROTOCOL-LEVEL
SPECIAL-STATUS NATIVE PLANT SURVEYS
AT THE
GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT,
NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for: Prepared by:
HUFFMAN-BROADWAY GROUP, INC.
523 4th Street
San Rafael, CA 94901
Contact: Robert Perrera
(415) 385-4106
HELM BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING
4600 Karchner Road
Sheridan, CA 95681
Contact: Dr. Brent Helm
(530) 633-0220
November 2022
3645
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 4 2022
PROTOCOL-LEVEL
SPECIAL-STATUS NATIVE PLANT SURVEYS
AT THE
GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT,
NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
Helm Biological Consulting (HBC), a division of Tansley Team, Inc., was contracted by HuffmanBroadway Group (HBG), Inc. to conduct botanical surveys for the presence of special-status plant species with the potential to occur at the Giovannoni Logistics Project (hereafter “Project”), Napa County, California.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Project consists of roughly 208 acres and is situated west of the Calistoga Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad; north of Green Island Road and the Santa Rosa Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad; and South of Devin Road, Middleton, Napa County, California (Figure 1).
DEFINITIONS
Several terms relating to biological resources used in the report are described briefly below.
COMMUNITY
A community is an assemblage of populations of plants, animals, bacteria, and fungi that live in an environment and interact with one another, forming a distinctive living system with its own composition, structure, environmental relationships, development, and functions (Whittaker 1975).
SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITY
Sensitive natural communities are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special-status plants or their habitat (CDFW 2018). A sensitive community has particularly high ecological value or functions and is considered important because its degradation or destruction could threaten populations of dependent plant and wildlife species and significantly reduce the regional distribution and viability of the community. 3646
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Napa, County of Solano, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA
County Boundary
Regional Location
37 Petaluma
San Rafael
Napa
Vacaville
Fairfield
Concord
Vallejo
Sonoma
Marin
Solano
Napa
Contra Costa
Figure 1. Location of Giovannoni Logistics Center Project ¯
0 3 5
Miles
Contra Costa
?
Project
Site
0 0.1 0.2
Miles
Prepared by:
Date: 7/29/2021
Data sources:
- ESRI World Topographic Map 2021
Railroad
Railroad
Green Island Rd
Project Site (~208 acres)
80 680
780
3647
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 6 As the number and extent of sensitive natural communities continue to diminish, the endangerment status of dependent special-status (i.e., rare, threatened, or endangered) species could become more precarious, and populations of currently stable species (i.e., non special-status species) could become rare. Loss of sensitive natural communities can also eliminate or reduce important ecosystem functions, such as water filtration by wetlands and bank stabilization by riparian forests or wetlands.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) and the California Native Plant Society’s Vegetation Program use a rank calculator to rank Natural Communities using standardized quantitative rarity and threat parameters and compute weighted scores for rarity and threats. This evaluation is done at both the Global (full natural range within and outside of California) and State (within California) levels resulting in a single G (global) and S (state) rank ranging from 1 (very rare and threatened) to 5 (demonstrably secure). The definitions of global and state rarities are the same for 1 through 5 and listed below:
1: critically imperiled; at very high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences (five or fewer known populations), very steep declines, very severe threats, or other factors
2: imperiled; at high risk of extinction or elimination due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences (six to 20 extant populations), steep declines, severe threats, or other factors
3: vulnerable; at moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences (21 to 100 extant populations), recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors
4: apparently secure; at fairly low risk of extinction or elimination due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences (100 to 1,000 known extant populations) but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors
5: secure; at very low risk or extinction or elimination due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences (1,000+ extant populations], and little to no concern from declines or threats
Natural Communities with ranks of S1-S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents. (CDFW 2022b).
Loss or disturbance of these sensitive communities may constitute significant adverse impact as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This definition applies to certain natural communities because of their relative scarcity and ecological values, and the vulnerability of remaining occurrences to elimination.
3648
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 7 HABITAT
Habitat is the place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and grows.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
For the purposes of this document, special status plants include all those that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal endangered Species Act (ESA) or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 C.F.R., § 17.12).
• Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 et seq.). In CESA, “endangered species” means a native species or subspecies of plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease (Fish & Game Code, § 2062). “Threatened species” means a native species or subspecies of plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by CESA (Fish & Game Code, § 2067). “Candidate species” means a native species or subspecies of plant that the California Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the California Fish and Game Commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list (Fish & Game Code, § 2068).
• Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish & Game Code, § 1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish & Game Code, § 1901). • Meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA Guidelines section 15380, subdivisions (b) and (d), which may include:
Plants tracked by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 or 2; and
Plants that may warrant consideration on the basis of declining trends, recent taxonomic information, or other factors. This includes plants tracked by the CNDDB as CRPR 3 or 4.
3649
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 8 • Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. [c]), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include plants that are at the outer limits of their known geographic range or plants occurring on an atypical soil type.
The remainder of this report discusses the methods and results of the 2022 special-status native plant surveys at the Project.
3650
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 9 METHODS
In an effort to determine if the Project supports special-status plants, and in support of CEQA and agency requirements, HBC conducted botanical surveys during the spring, summer and fall of 2022. These surveys utilized CDFW’s protocols identified in “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities” dated March 20, 2018. The method included a pre-field survey and a field survey, both described below.
PRE-FIELD SURVEY
Prior to conducting field surveys, a computer search of the CNDDB and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants was conducted to determine whether any special-status plants had been reported onsite or within a 10-mile radius of the Project (CDFW 2022a and CNPS 2022). This search was also used to compile a list of specialstatus plants that would be targeted during field surveys.
In addition, the following resources were compiled and reviewed:
• US Geological Survey topographic maps (USGS 2022)
• Existing project documents provided by HBG (i.e., Biological Resource Analysis [Monk & Associates, Inc. 2018])
• US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2022)
• Project descriptions and initial project designs provided by HBG and/or Buzz Oates
FIELD SURVEY
Special-status plant species identified during the pre-survey investigation as having the potential to occur on the study site were targeted during field surveys. Field surveys for special-status plants incorporated floristic survey methods, as recommended by CDFW (2018). Floristic survey methods require identification of all plant species located onsite. Each species encountered was identified to the extent necessary to determine if it had any legally protected status. Floristic surveys were conducted to ensure that special-status plant species were not inadvertently overlooked because they were not targeted for surveys. Botanical field surveys were conducted by Dr. Brent Helm on April 6, 2022, May 8, 2022, June 17, 2022, July 1, 2022, and September 19, 2022. Dr. Helm walked meandering transects throughout the Project to ensure all habitats were 3651
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 10 adequately sampled. Plants were identified using keys in The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al 2012) and recorded in field notes.
In addition, any milkweed species (Asclepias ssp.) encountered were mapped and their populations counted/estimated. Milkweed is critical for the survival of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Caterpillars of this iconic butterfly species feed exclusively on the leaves of milkweeds. On December 15, 2020, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced the proposed listing of the monarch as “Warranted, but Precluded”. This means that, while the USFWS has determined the Monarch meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species, there are currently not enough resources (e.g., funding, personnel) to list the species presently, although listing could occur in the future. The monarch is also considered a “Conservation Priority” under CESA.
Several reference sites with known special-status plants targeted for field surveys were visited to:
1. Determine whether those special-status plants were identifiable at the times of year the botanical field surveys took place; and
2. To obtain a visual image of the special-status plants, associated habitat, and associated natural communities.
Reference sites included:
Little Egbert Tract for Suisun Marsh aster, Mason's lilaeopsis and Delta tule pea. Sacramento Utilities Municipal District’s Rancho Seco Conservation Bank lands for legenere and dwarf downingia.
Gentry Logistics Project, Suisun for Contra Costa goldfields, Delta tule pea, saline clover, and Suisun Marsh aster.
3652
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 11 RESULTS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
HISTORIC CONDITIONS
Historically, the Project laid roughly midway between the foothills of the Sulfur Springs Mountains and the tidal marshes of the Napa River and was part of the watershed for an unnamed tributary (dubbed “South Fork” for the purposes of this discussion) of Fagan Slough. The multiple tributaries, of which Fagan Slough was one, was appropriately named - Brazos (“Arms” in Spanish) given to the cluster of tidal channels in this region. However, given the Site’s, elevation it was probably just above the tidal influence of the Napa River. Prior to the turn of the century, the South Fork of the Fagan Slough onsite was orientated in a west-east direction. The headwaters of this drainage originated in the foothills to the east of the Project. However, by the early 1900’s, most of the upper portion of the South Fork had been diverted and channelized. During a similar time period, a substantial ditch (orientated in a north-south direction) was excavated in an attempt to drain a large wetland (situated along the northern edge of the Santa Rosa Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad) into the South Fork onsite. Unfortunately with the offsite portions of the South Fork diverted or removed, the upper portion of the North Fork onsite received reduced flows.
Further hydrologic inputs to this drainage were reduced from the construction of several ditches, most orientated in an east-west fashion along the northern boundary of the Project. The overall effect of these ditches has reduced the resident time of surface water onsite.
Additionally, the disking that has occurred onsite tended to “smear” the wetlands across the landscape which increased the ponding surface area while decreasing the ponding depth and duration. Disking also decreases soil compaction; therefore, increasing the soils ability to absorb water, thus delaying the onset of ponding and decreasing ponding duration within the wetlands.
In conclusion, most of the disturbances to the site occurred long before historical aerial photographs and topographic maps could have documented the changes. The railroads, numerous roads, channels, and ditches had occurred prior to or just after the turn of the century.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
CLIMATE
The climate at the Project is typical of the northern portion of the Bay Area, with an average low temperature in January of 38.5 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) and average high temperature in July of
83.3 oF. Rainfall averages 24.2 inches per year, most of which falls during the winter months. On average, there are 265 sunny days per year at the Project (Bestplaces 2022). 3653
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 12 TOPOGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY
The Project consist of a relatively flat piece of ground sloping from east to west with the highest elevation at roughly 60 feet (ft) above mean sea level (msl) located in the southeast corner and lowest elevation in the northwest corner of roughly 25 ft msl.
The Project occurs within the Tulucay Creek-Frontal San Pablo Bay Estuaries watershed, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC10) 1805000204 (Figure 2).
Additionally, most of the Project occurs within the Tulucay Creek-Frontal San Pablo Bay Estuaries subwatershed (HUC12: 180500020402), while a small portion of the Project along the southern boundary occurs in the American Canyon Creek-Frontal San Pablo Bay Estuaries (HUC12:
180500020401) (Figure 2). The Napa River occurs roughly 1.8 miles to the west and roughly 1.3 miles to the southwest of the Project.
Direct inception of rainfall occurs within the numerous depressional areas consisting of seasonally inundated wetlands (vernal pools and seasonal wetlands). However, ditches have been historically excavated in an attempt to drain many of the larger onsite wetlands (See Historic Conditions section above for more details). Most of the ditches are orientated to drain to the north where they intercept remnant segments, or channelized portions thereof, of the South Fork of Fagan Slough/Creek. Additional hydrologic surface inputs to the remaining channels of Fagan Slough are derived from upslope but offsite watersheds that have been diverted into ditches which convey storm water and irrigation runoff to the northeast corner of the site via a culvert situated under the Calistoga Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Other hydrological inputs may be derived from irrigation and storm water runoff occurring within the large industrial areas located to the south of the Site.
SOILS
According to the Web Soil Survey (USDA NRCS 2022), three soil map units are present onsite (Table 1 and Figure 3).
3654
The County of Napa, Earthstar Geographics
Figure 2. Watershed
Project Site (~208 acres)
Watershed
American Canyon Creek-Frontal San Pablo Bay
Estuaries (HUC12: 180500020401)
Tulucay Creek-Frontal San Pablo Bay Estuaries
(HUC12: 180500020402)
Tulucay Creek-Frontal San Pablo Bay Estuaries
(HUC10: 1805000204)
0 2 4
Miles ¯
Prepared by:
Date: 7/29/2021
Data sources:
- ESRI World Imagery Map 2021
- USDA-NRCS, USGS, EPA Watershed
Boundary and National Hydrology
Dataset 2021
3655
The County of Napa, Maxar
Regional Location
37 Petaluma
San Rafael
Napa
Vacaville
Fairfield
Concord
Vallejo
Sonoma
Marin
Solano
Napa
Contra Costa
Figure 3. Soils
¯
0 3 5
Miles
Contra Costa
?
Project
Site Prepared by:
Date: 7/29/2021
Data sources:
- ESRI World Imagery Map 2021
- NRCS Web Soil Survey 2021
80 680
780
0 0.1 0.2
Miles
Project Site (~208 acres)
Soils
Clear Lake clay, drained, 0
to 2 percent slopes, MLRA
14 Haire clay loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent
slopes
County Boundary
3656
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 15 Table 1. Hydric Soil Conditions, Percent of Components and Geographic Position of Soil Series an Associated Inclusions Mapped by NRCS at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Napa County, California Soil Series Inclusions
Name
Hydric
Soil Percent
Geomorphic
Position Name
Hydric
soil Percent
Geomorphic
Position
116 - Clear Lake
clay, drained, 0
to 2 percent
slopes, MLRA
14 Yes 90 Basin floors
Unnamed ? 5 Alluvial flats
Campbell No 3
Floodplains, Toe
of alluvial fans,
Basin margins
Sunnyvale No 2 Level flood
plains and basins
146 - Haire
loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
No 85
Terraces,
Alluvial fans,
Footslopes
Clear Lake Yes 5 Alluvial fans
148 - Haire clay
loam, 2 to 9
percent slopes
No 85
Terraces,
Alluvial fans,
Footslopes
Clear Lake Yes 5 Alluvial fans
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
The combination of the Project’s climate, hydrology, soils and disturbance regime (draining and disking) supports community types typical of the North Bay Area. The majority of the site consists of annual grasslands with scattered seasonally inundated wetlands; the wetlands consist of vernal pools, seasonal pools, seasonal swales, and ditches (See Exhibit A for Confirmed Aquatic Resources Delineation Map).
A description of each of the two community/habitat types including dominant vegetation is provided below.
Annual Grassland. Due to the current ungrazed condition of the Site, the annual grassland habitat consists of mostly thatchy nonnative annual grass species including: medusa-head grass (Elymus caput-medusae), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), wild oat (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum).
Subdominant grasses include Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), and annual bluegrass (Poa annua), especially when this habitat transitions to the wetlands onsite. Forbs are present, but generally are more abundant along the site’s edges or where the grassland shifts to wetland. These forbs include field mustard (Brassica rapa), broadleaf filaree (Erodium bothrys), wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), wild mustards (Raphanus sativa and R. raphanistrum)), and yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis). 3657
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 16 Seasonal Wetlands
Vernal Pool. Vernal pools are seasonally flooded landscape depressions where water ponds because of limitations to surface or subsurface drainage. Surface drainage is prevented by a depressed or concave topography. Soil layers impervious to the downward infiltration of water inhibit subsurface drainage resulting in swallow ponding during the wet-season. Vernal pools support distinct vegetation adapted to periodic or continuous inundation during the wet season, and the absence of either ponded water or wet soil during the dry season.
Vernal pools are considered sensitive natural communities by USFWS and CDFW and their occurrences are tracked by CNDDB.
Vernal pools are lentic habitats which pond water rather than conveying it (lotic) such as swales, ditches, and ephemeral drainages. The adjective “vernal” refers to its occurrence in the spring”.
However, the term “vernal” is used in this report to denote the presence of two or more vernal habitat indicator plants (Downingia ssp., Lasthenia ssp., Eryngium ssp., Plagiobothrys ssp., Psilocarpus ssp., etc.). In contrast, the term “seasonal” refers to those wetlands that are seasonally inundated but do not support the presence of two or more vernal habitat indicator plants.
Vernal pools occurring onsite support plant species typical of a combination of the Santa Rosa Region and the Solano-Colusa Region (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998). Vernal pool basins are dominated by small stipitate popcorn flower (Plagiobotrys stipitatus var. micranthus) and annual semaphoregrass (Pleuropogon californicus). Other subdominant species included: water pygmyweed (Crassula aquatica), common spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima), Jepson’s button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum), and hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolia).
Other plant species which occur to a lesser extent onsite include water-starwort (Callitriche marginata), Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), and annual blue grass (Poa annua).
Seasonal Pool. Seasonal pools are shallow to deep topographic depressions underlain by soils with slow water permeability that promote ponding or soil saturation during the wet season. It is presumed that most of the seasonal pools onsite were historically vernal pools that have had their hydroregimes altered (either increased or decreased) due to human activities (e.g., disking, draining, ground water pumping, irrigation runoff, etc.).
The vegetation within seasonal pools is similar to vernal pools described above, except they lack the presence of two or more vernal habitat plant indicators. Seasonal wetlands support a number of plant species adapted to periodic inundation during the growing season. Typical seasonal wetland plant species include Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), rabbit's foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), ditch beard grass (Polypogon interruptus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), 3658
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 17 curly dock (Rumex cripus), Baltic rush (Juncus balticusssp. ater), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), toad rush (Juncus bufonius var. bufonius), and umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis).
Seasonal Swale. Swales are broad, shallow (< 1 ft deep), seasonally inundated areas that primarily convey water during and shortly after rain events. Surface runoff collects in swales, wetting and saturating the soil for short periods. Swales are typically vegetated and have poorly defined channels that lack a distinct bed and bank.
Swale vegetation is a transitional community that is wetter than the surrounding annual grassland but drier than an ephemeral drainage. Similar to pool habitats, there are two types of swales onsite depending on the presence or absence of vernal habitat plant indicators. Vernal swales have plant compositions similar to vernal pools, whereas seasonal swales have plant species compositions more similar to seasonal pools. The major difference between swales and pools is the hydrologic regime. Swales generally convey water whereas pools pond it. Some of the swales are more incised at the northwest corner of the site, where the historic meanders of the South Fork of Fagan Slough were located (see Historic Condition section above).
The seasonal swales onsite are dominated in wetter areas by plant species associated with emergent marsh habitat which are characterized by a predominance of perennial monocots (a subclass of herbaceous seed plants with a single stem/leaf structure) that grow in permanently or semipermanently flooded (or saturated) soils that emerge from the water. The plants associated with this habitat include Baltic rush (Juncus balticus ssp. ater), Mexican rush (J. mexicanus), common spike rush (Eleocharis macrostachya), and umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis). Some of the deeper areas are dominated entirely by Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) with patches of broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia),
Ditch. Ditch habitats onsite are human excavated channels for the purposes of surface water conveyance offsite. These habitats are general “V” or “U” shaped in cross-section and are 1-3 feet wide and general 1-2 feet in depth. The smaller ditches generally occur in the southern portion of the Project and are oriented in a north-south direction, thus draining the larger wetlands and terminating into the west-east orientated larger ditches or swales located in the northern portion of the Project. The larger ditches flow surface water from the east to the west.
Vegetation within the ditch habitat is dependent on the hydrologic regime. The larger deeper ditches have similar vegetation composition to the seasonal swale habitat described above.
Similarly, the small and medium size ditches have vegetation similar to the annual grassland and swale habitats, respectively.
3659
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 18 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
The search of the CNNDB and CNPS On-line Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants did not reveal any special-plant species occurring onsite (CNPS 2022). However, 35 special-status plants are known to occur within a 10-mile radius of the Project (Figure 4). However, of these 35 plants only 20 were associated with habitats that are known to occur onsite (Appendix A). The remaining 15 plants were not considered to have potential to occur onsite since they inhabit plant communities (i.e., chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal brackish or saltwater marsh and swamps, coastal scrub, coast bluff shrub, and lower montane coniferous forest) that are not present onsite.
No special-status plant species were observed onsite. In general, most of the plants listed in Appendix A are not likely to occur onsite. Only a few have low potential for future occurrence. A list of all vascular plant species observed onsite during field surveys is included in Appendix B.
Representative photographs of habitat onsite are included in Appendix C.
SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES/HABITATS
WATERS OF THE U.S. AND STATE, INCLUDING WETLANDS
In general, any Waters of the U.S. and State, including wetlands, such as the vernal pool, seasonal pool, seasonal swale, and ditch habitats occurring on site are considered sensitive habitats.
VERNAL POOLS
The equivalent to vernal pool habitat onsite, would be Sawyer et al. (2009) Lasthenia glaberrima - Pleuropogon californicus association under the Lasthenia glaberrima alliance, which has a global and state rarity ranking of 2 (G2 and S2) and therefore is considered a sensitive natural community regardless of its wetland status.
3660
23 13, 18
16 7
34 15
32 6, 15 & 18
22 14
34 20
14 36
7, 17
24 2
35 35
25 35
33 31
25 28
28 32
25 29
25 32
28 14
14 12
25 16
19 14
27 34
11 26
32 17
11 33
25 25
5 9
16 24
35 33
24 19
19 13
11 29
36 28
28 17
25 10
36 8
27 13
11 32
13 30
16 4
4 21
7 28
5 32
29 1
3 13
35 5
11 16
Sonoma Napa
Mount George
Fairfield
North
Sears Point
Cordelia
Fairfield
South
Cuttings
Wharf
Petaluma
Point Mare Island Vine Hill
Benicia
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY
MARIN COUNTY
NAPA COUNTY
SOLANO COUNTY
SONOMA COUNTY
Legend
Project Site
10-mile Buffer
Topo Map Boundaries
County Boundaries
CNDDB Special Status Plant Occurrences
1 - Agrostis hendersonii (Henderson's bent grass)
2 - Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum (Franciscan onion) 3 - Amorpha californica var. napensis (Napa false indigo) 4 - Astragalus tener var. tener (alkali milk-vetch)
5 - Balsamorhiza macrolepis (big-scale balsamroot)
6 - Blepharizonia plumosa (big tarplant)
7 - Brodiaea leptandra (narrow-anthered brodiaea)
8 - Carex lyngbyei (Lyngbye's sedge)
9 - Castilleja affinis var. neglecta (Tiburon paintbrush) 10 - Ceanothus confusus (Rincon Ridge ceanothus)
11 - Ceanothus purpureus (holly-leaved ceanothus)
12 - Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii (Congdon's tarplant) 13 - Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi (pappose tarplant)
14 - Chloropyron molle ssp. molle (soft salty bird's-beak) 15 - Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi (Bolander's water-hemlock) 16 - Downingia pusilla (dwarf downingia)
17 - Erigeron greenei (Greene's narrow-leaved daisy)
18 - Eryngium jepsonii (Jepson's coyote-thistle)
19 - Extriplex joaquinana (San Joaquin spearscale)
20 - Fritillaria liliacea (fragrant fritillary)
21 - Helianthella castanea (Diablo helianthella)
22 - Hesperolinon breweri (Brewer's western flax)
23 - Isocoma arguta (Carquinez goldenbush)
24 - Lasthenia conjugens (Contra Costa goldfields)
25 - Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii (Delta tule pea)
26 - Legenere limosa (legenere)
27 - Leptosiphon jepsonii (Jepson's leptosiphon)
28 - Lilaeopsis masonii (Mason's lilaeopsis)
29 - Polygonum marinense (Marin knotweed)
30 - Rhynchospora californica (California beaked-rush)
31 - Senecio aphanactis (chaparral ragwort)
32 - Symphyotrichum lentum (Suisun Marsh aster)
33 - Trichostema ruygtii (Napa bluecurls)
34 - Trifolium amoenum (two-fork clover)
35 - Trifolium hydrophilum (saline clover)
36 - Viburnum ellipticum (oval-leaved viburnum)
0 1 2 0.5 Miles
Figure 4. CNDDB Map
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
Solano County, California
Source: CNDDB updated
Oct 2022; CAL FIRE California
County Boundaries;
USGS TNM 2021;
ESRI Light Grey Basemap
3661
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 20 DISCUSSION
To date, there has been three years of protocol-level special-status native plant surveys conducted onsite. No special-status species were observed during any of these surveys. Monk & Associates completed their surveys in 2017, where HBC conducted their surveys in 2021 and 2022. Looking at the list of vascular plant species observed at the Project for all three years (Appendix A), they have been a total of 150 plant species observed onsite. The differences between the three years are not so much the total plant species (species richness) observed per year, but rather the change in species. For example, many of the marsh plants such as the rushes (Juncus phaecephalus and J. xiphiodes), broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia), and common tule (Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis) observed by Monk & Associates (2018) have not been observed on site since.
Although the Project site management and maintenance has not changed, (Livaich pers. comm.) the site’s climate has.
The year Monk & Associates conducted their survey was a very above-average annual rainfall year. The National Weather Service station at Napa State Hospital (NWS 2022) received 45 inches of rain from October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 (rainy season). This total made for the third wettest raining season in records dating back to 1892. In contrast, the 2020-2021 rainy season had less than 8.5 inches of rainfall (Table 2). The second year of HBC plant surveys onsite followed a below-average rainfall rainy season (20.86 inches) but was closer to the average of
25.49 then the two preceding years (Table 2).
Average 2021-2022 2020-2021 2019-2020
October 1.34 6.64 0 0
November 2.74 1.6 0.7 0.98
December 5.37 8.11 1.81 4.54
January 5.13 0.36 2.65 1.51
February 4.63 0.25 1.18 0.01
March 3.17 1.01 1.85 0.59
April 1.77 2.33 0 0.58
May 0.98 0.13 0.07 0.51
June 0.24 0.38 0 0
July 0 0 0 0
August 0 0.05 0 0.03
September 0.12 0 0 0.01
Totals 25.49 20.86 8.26 8.76
Month
Table 1. Rainfall Totals (in inches) per Month for the Last Three Rainy-seasons (October through September) for
Carneros, Napa County, California
Rainy-Season Year
3662
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 21 LITERATURE CITED
Baldwin, B. G, D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R, Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken. ed. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
BestPlaces. 2022. Climate in American Canyon, California. https://www.bestplaces.net/ climate/city/california/american_canyon
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special-status native plants populations and sensitive natural communities. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency. Dated March 20, 2018. 12 pp. _____. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2022a. RareFind 5. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Website accessed April 2022. _____. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP). 2022b. Natural Communities. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. Website accessed November 2022.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. https://rareplants.cnps.org/. Website accessed April 2022.
Keeler-Wolf, T., D. R. Elam, K. Lewis, and S. A. Flint. 1998. California vernal pool assessment preliminary report. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 159 pp.
Livaich, J. Vice President, Planning and Preconstruction Services for Buzz Oates Construction, Inc. Email conversation received by Brent Helm on November 11, 2022.
Monk & Associates, Inc. 2018. Biological Resources Analysis Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project, City of American Canyon, California. 69 pp. Dated: October 15, 2018.
National Weather Service. 2022. Past Precipitation for Napa State Hospital weather station, California. https://www.weather.gov/unr/precipitation-past. Website accessed: November 2022.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. 1300 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. Get Maps TopoView – National Geologic Map Database. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#4/40.00/-100.00 3663
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 22 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Website accessed July 2022.
University of California Integrated Pest Management System (UCIPM). 2022. Weather, models & degree-days. Weather data from Napa (Carneros) weather monitoring station. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/WEATHER/SITES/napa.html
Whittaker, R. H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan. 3664
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 EXHIBIT A.
AQUATIC RESOURCE DELINEATION MAP
3665
3666
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 APPENDIX A.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES ORIGINALLY TARGETED
FOR SURVEYS AT THE
GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT
3667
Fed
List
State
List
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Ca
Rare
Plant
Rank
Agrostis hendersonii Henderson's bent grass Poaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G2Q S2 3.2 Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools
Not likely. This species is a wetland dependent and
generally associated with fairly pristine vernal pool
habitats, which are not present onsite.
Allium
peninsulare var. francisc
anum
Franciscan onion Alliaceae
perennial
bulbiferous
herb
(Apr) MayJun None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
Clay soils (volcanic or
serpentine) in Cismontane
woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland
Not likely. Although clay soils (Clear Lake)occur
onsite, this species is general associated with
volcanic or serpentine derived soils which are not
present onsite.
Amorpha californica var.
napensis Napa false indigo Fabaceae
perennial
deciduous
shrub
Apr-Jul None None G4T2 S2 1B.2
Broad-leafed upland forest,
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland,
None. No suitable habitat (forest, woodland,
chaparral) present on site.
Astragalus
tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch Fabaceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G2T1 S1 1B.2 Playas, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools Not Likely. No Astragalus species were observed
onsite. This species generally occurs in alkaline soils which are not present onsite.
Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland
Not Likely. No Balsamorhiza species were observed
onsite. This species is perennial and would have
been present and visible during surveys.
Blepharizonia plumosa big tarplant Asteraceae annual herb Jul-Oct None None G1G2 S1S2 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, usually on clay
Low. Although no Blepharizonia species were
observed onsite, low quality habitat (disturbed and
thatchy annual grassland) habitat occurs onsite.
Brodiaea leptandra narrow-anthered
brodiaea Themidaceae
perennial
bulbiferous
herb
May-Jul None None G3? S3? 1B.2
Broad-leafed upland forest,
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Valley and
foothill grassland
Low. Although no Brodiaea species were observed
onsite, low quality habitat (disturbed and thatchy
annual grassland) habitat occurs onsite.
Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's sedge Cyperaceae
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Apr-Aug None None G5 S3 2B.2 Marshes and swamps
Not Likely. No Carex species were observed onsite.
This species is perennial and would have been
present and visible during surveys.
Castilleja
affinis var. neglecta Tiburon paintbrush Orobanchaceae
perennial herb
(hemiparasitic
)
Apr-Jun FE ST G4G5T1
T2 S1S2 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland
Not Likely. This species has a very limited
distribution and is associated with serpentine soils
which are not present onsite.
Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge
ceanothus Rhamnaceae
perennial
evergreen
shrub
Feb-Jun None None G1 S1 1B.1
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland. Usually on volcanic
or serpentine soils.
None. No Ceanothus species observed on site. This
species is a perennial shrub and would have been
visible during surveys, if present.
General Habitat
Appendix A. Special-Status Plant Species Originally Targeted for Surveys at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Special-Status Listings and Ranks
Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Lifeform
Blooming
Period Potential To Occur Onsite
3668
Fed
List
State
List
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Ca
Rare
Plant
Rank General Habitat
Appendix A. Special-Status Plant Species Originally Targeted for Surveys at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Special-Status Listings and Ranks
Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Lifeform
Blooming
Period Potential To Occur Onsite
Ceanothus purpureus holly-leaved ceanothus Rhamnaceae
perennial
evergreen
shrub
Feb-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, rocky volcanic
soils.
None. No Ceanothus species observed on site. This
species is a perennial shrub and would have been
visible during surveys, if present.
Centromadia
parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant Asteraceae annual herb May-Oct (Nov) None None G3T1T2 S1S2 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2020/2021 wet-season.
Centromadia
parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant Asteraceae annual herb May-Nov None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal prairie,
Marshes and swamps,
Meadows and seeps, Valley
and foothill grassland
Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2020/2021 wet-season.
Chloropyron molle ssp.
molle soft salty bird's-beak Orobanchaceae
annual herb
(hemiparasitic
)
Jun-Nov FE CR G2T1 S1 1B.2 Coastal salt marshes and
swamps
None. No suitable habitat (salt marsh) present on
site.
Cicuta maculata var.
bolanderi
Bolander's waterhemlock Apiaceae perennial herb Jul-Sep None None G5T4T5 S2? 2B.1 Marshes and swamps Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2020/2021 wet-season.
Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia Campanulaceae annual herb Mar-May None None GU S2 2B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools
Not Likely. This species is wetland dependent and
generally associated with deep and fairly pristine
vernal pool habitats, which are not present onsite.
Erigeron greenei Greene's narrowleaved daisy Asteraceae perennial herb May-Sep None None G3 S3 1B.2 Chaparral. Serpentinite or volcanic soils.
None. No suitable habitat (serpentine chaparral)
present on site.
Eryngium jepsonii Jepson's coyote-thistle Apiaceae perennial herb Apr-Aug None None G2 S2 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools
Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2020/2021 wet-season.
Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct None None G2 S2 1B.2 Chenopod scrub, Meadows
and seeps, Playas, Valley and
foothill grassland
Not Likely. No Extriplex species were observed
onsite. This species generally occurs in alkaline soils which are not present onsite.
Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary Liliaceae
perennial
bulbiferous
herb
Feb-Apr None None G2 S2 1B.2
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland
Low. No Fritillaria species were observed onsite.
Although low quality habitat (disturbed thatchy
annual grassland) exist onsite.
Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
riparian woodland
None. No Isocoma species were observed onsite.
This species is a perennial shrub and would have
been visible during surveys, if present. It generally
occurs in rocky chaparral/oak woodland habitat
which is not present on site.
3669
Fed
List
State
List
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Ca
Rare
Plant
Rank General Habitat
Appendix A. Special-Status Plant Species Originally Targeted for Surveys at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Special-Status Listings and Ranks
Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Lifeform
Blooming
Period Potential To Occur Onsite
Hesperolinon breweri Brewer's western flax Linaceae annual herb May-Jul None None G2 S2 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. Usually on
serpentine.
None. No suitable habitat (serpentine chaparral and
grassland) present on site.
Isocoma arguta Carquinez goldenbush Asteraceae perennial shrub Aug-Dec None None G1 S1 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland None. No Isocoma species were observed onsite.
This species is a perennial shrub and would have
been visible during surveys, if present.
Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jun FE None G1 S1 1B.1 Vernal pools within
Cismontane woodland, Playas,
Valley and foothill grassland
Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2021/2022 wet-season.
Lathyrus
jepsonii var. jepsonii Delta tule pea Fabaceae perennial herb May-Jul (AugSep) None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 Marshes and swamps None. This species is generally associated with tidal
influenced perennial waterways. This species was
present and highly visible at the chosen Reference
Site. Therefore, this species would have been
observed onsite, if present.
Legenere limosa legenere Campanulaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.1 Vernal pools Not likely. This species is a wetland dependent and
generally associated with fairly deep and pristine
vernal pool habitats, which are not present onsite.
Leptosiphon jepsonii Jepson's leptosiphon Polemoniaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2G3 S2S3 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Valley and foothill
grassland
Low. No Leptosiphon species were observed onsite.
Although low quality habitat (disturbed annual
grassland) exists onsite.
Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis Apiaceae
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
Apr-Nov None SR G2 S2 1B.1 Mudflats within marshes and
swamps, Riparian scrub
None. This species is generally associated with tidal
influenced perennial waterways. This species was
present and highly visible at the chosen Reference
Site. Therefore, this species would have been
observed onsite, if present.
Polygonum marinense Marin knotweed Polygonaceae annual herb (Apr)MayAug(Oct) None None G2Q S2 3.1 Coastal salt marshes and brackish swamps
None. No suitable habitat (salt marsh) present on
site.
Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush Cyperaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
May-Jul None None G1 S1 1B.1
Bogs and fens, seeps,
freshwater marshes and
swamps, lower montane
coniferous forest.
Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2021/2022 wet-season.
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort Asteraceae annual herb Jan-Apr(May) None None G3 S2 2B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub.
None. No suitable habitat (chaparral, scrub) present
on site.
Symphyotrichum lentum Suisun Marsh aster Asteraceae
perennial
rhizomatous
herb
(Apr) MayNov None None G2 S2 1B.2 Marshes and swamps
None. This species is generally associated with tidal
influenced perennial waterways. This species was
present and highly visible at the chosen Reference
Site. Therefore, this species would have been
observed onsite, if present.
3670
Fed
List
State
List
Global
Rank
State
Rank
Ca
Rare
Plant
Rank General Habitat
Appendix A. Special-Status Plant Species Originally Targeted for Surveys at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Special-Status Listings and Ranks
Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Lifeform
Blooming
Period Potential To Occur Onsite
Trichostema ruygtii Napa bluecurls Lamiaceae annual herb Jun-Oct None None G1G2 S1S2 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Valley and
foothill grassland, Vernal
pools
Not likely. No Trichostema species were observed
onsite. Although low quality habitat (disturbed
annual grassland and vernal pools) exist onsite.
Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun FE None G1 S1 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Valley and foothill grassland
Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2021/2022 wet-season.
Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G2 S2 1B.2 Marshes and swamps, Valley
and foothill grassland, Vernal
pools
Low. This species is wetland dependent and its
presence could be affected by the below annual
rainfall that occurred in 2021/2022 wet-season.
Federal
FE
State
SR
ST
Global Rank
G1
G2
G3
G5
GU
G#G#
G#T#
?
Q
State Rank
S1
S2
S3
S#S#
?
Imperiled — At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.
Definition
Description
Vulnerable — At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.
Secure — Common; widespread and abundant.
Unrankable — Currently unrankable due to a lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends.
Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of a taxon or community.
Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community.
Qualifier: Inexact or Uncertain — A question mark represents a rank qualifier, denoting an inexact or uncertain numeric rank.
Definition
Listed as rare under California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listed as threatened under the CESA
Definition
Federally Endangered (listed as Endangered under Federal Endangered Species Act [ESA]) Critically Imperiled — Critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state.
Imperiled — Imperiled in the state because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state.
Vulnerable — Vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation.
Infraspecific Taxon — The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) are indicated by a "T-rank" following the species' Global Rank. Rules for assigning T-ranks follow the same principles as those for Global Ranks. However, a T-rank cannot imply the subspecies or variety is more abundant than the species. With the subspecies, the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, whereas the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies or variety.
Qualifier: Inexact Numeric Rank — A question mark represents a rank qualifier, denoting an inexact or uncertain numeric rank.
Qualifier: Questionable Taxonomy — The distinctiveness of this entity as a taxon or community at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon or type in another taxon or type, with the resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank.
Critically Imperiled — At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. 3671
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 APPENDIX B.
LIST OF ALL VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
3672
Scientific Name Common Name 2016** 2021 2022
Agoseris grandiflora Bigflower agoseris X
Agrostis stolonifera* Creeping bent grass X
Alisma lanceolatum Lance-leaf water-plantain X
Amaranthus albus* Pigweed amaranth X X
Anthemis cotula* Mayweed X X X
Atriplex prostrata* Fat-hen X
Avena barbata* Slender oats X X X
Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush X X
Bellardia trixago Mediterranean linseed X
Brassica rapa* Field mustard X X X
Briza minor* Little quaking grass X X X
Bromus diandrus* Ripgut grass X X X
Bromus hordeaceus* Soft brome X X X
Calendula arvensis Field-marigold X
Callitriche marginata California water starwort X X X
Capsella bursa-pastoris* Shepherd's purse X
Cardamine californica Bitter cress X
Carduus pycnocephalus ssp. pycnocephalus Italian thistle X X X Castelleja attenuata Valley tassels X X
Castelleja exerta subsp. exerta Purple owl's- clover X
Centaurea calitrapa* Purple starthistle X
Centaurea solstitialis* Yellow starthistle X X
Centromadia pungens Common spikeweed X X
Cerastium arvense ssp. strictum* Meadow chickweed X
Cerastium glomeratum* Mouse-ear chickweed X X
Chenopodium album* Lamb's quarters X
Chichorium intybus* Chicory X X X
Cirsium vulgare* Bull thistle X X X
Claytonia perfoliata ssp. perfoliata Miner's lettuce X X X Convolvulus arvensis* Field bindweed X X X
Cotula coronopifolia* Brass buttons X X X
Crassula aquatica Water pygmy-weed X X X
Croton setiger Turkey-mullein X X
Crypsis schoenoides* Swampgrass, swamp timothy X X
Cuscuta sp. Dodder X
Cynara cardunculus* Artichoke thistle X X
Cynodon dactylon* Bermuda grass X X
Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge X X X
Deinandra corymbosa Coast tarweed X
Dichelostemma capitatum subsp. capitatum Blue dicks X X Downingia concolor var. concolor Spotted throat downingia X X Eleocharis macrostachya Common spike rush X X X
List of Vascular Plants Observed in the Project
Appendix A. Vascular Plant Species Observed at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Napa County, California
Observations
3673
Scientific Name Common Name 2016** 2021 2022
List of Vascular Plants Observed in the Project
Appendix A. Vascular Plant Species Observed at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Napa County, California
Observations
Elymus caput-medusae * Medusa-head grass X X X
Elymus multisetus Big squirreltail X
Elymus triticoides Beardless wild rye X X
Epilobium brachycarpum Tall annual willow herb X X
Epilobium ciliatum Slender willow herb X X X
Erigeron canadensis Canadian horseweed X X
Erodium botrys* Broadleaf filaree X X X
Erodium cicutarium* Red-stem filaree X X X
Erodium moschatum* White-stem filaree X X
Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum Jepson's button celery X X X Euphorbia maculata* Spotted spurge X
Euphorbia oblongata* Eggleaf spurge X
Festuca arundinacea* Tall festuca X X
Festuca bromoides* Six-weeks grass X X X
Festuca perennis* Italian ryegrass X X X
Foeniculum vulgare* Fennel X X X
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash X X
Galium aparine Bedstraw X X X
Geranium dissectum* Cut-leave geranium X X X
Glyceria declinata* Waxy manna grass X X
Gnaphalium palustre Lowland cudweed X X
Helminthotheca echioides* Prickly ox-tongue X X X
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia White hayfield tarweed X X X Heterotheca grandiflora Telegraph weed X
Hirschfeldia incana* Short-pod mustard X X
Hordeum brachyantherum ssp. brachyantherum Meadow barley X X X Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum* Mediterranean barley X X X Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* Hare barley X X X
Juncus balticus ssp. ater Baltic rush X X X
Juncus bufonius var. bufonius Toad rush X X X
Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush X X X
Juncus phaecephalus Brown-headed rush X
Juncus xiphiodes Iris-leaved rush X
Kickxia elantine* Sharp-leaved fluellin X
Lactuca serriola* Prickly wild lettuce X X X
Lamium amplexicaule* Giraffes head X
Lasthenia glaberrima Smooth goldfields X X X
Leontodon saxatilis ssp. longirostris* Hairy hawkbit X X X Lepidium latifolium* Perennial peppergrass X X X
Leymus triticoides Creeping wildrye X X
Linum bienne* Flax X
Lotus corniculatus* Birds' foot trefoil X X X
3674
Scientific Name Common Name 2016** 2021 2022
List of Vascular Plants Observed in the Project
Appendix A. Vascular Plant Species Observed at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Napa County, California
Observations
Lupinus bicolor Miniature lupine X
Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel X X X
Lythrum hyssopifolia* Hyssop loosestrife X X X
Malva parviflora* Cheeseweed X X X
Medicago polymorpha* Bur clover X X
Microseris douglasii subsp. douglasii Douglas' microseris X Nasturtium officinale* Watercress X
Parentucellia viscosa* Yellow parentucellia X X
Paspalum dilatatum* Dallis grass X X
Periderida kelloggii Kellogg's yampah X X X
Phalaris aquatica* Harding grass X X X
Phalaris minor* Little seed canarygrass X X
Phalaris paradoxa* Hood canarygrass X X X
Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. stipitatus Popcorn flower X X X Plagiobothrys undulatus Coast allocarya X X
Plantago lanceolata* Narrow leaf plantain X X X
Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus Annual semaphoregrass X X X Poa annua* Annual bluegrass X X X
Polygonum aviculare* Common knotweed X X X
Polypogon interruptus* Ditch beard grass X X X
Polypogon monspeliensis* Rabbit's footgrass X X
Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum* Jersey cudweed X X X
Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus Woolly marbles X X X Ranunculus muricatus* Spiny-fruit butter cup X X X
Ranunculus pusillus Low buttercup X
Raphanus raphanistrum* Jointed charlock X X X
Raphanus sativa* Wild mustard X X X
Rhaponticum repens* Russian knapweed X
Rubus armeniacus* Himalayan berry X X X
Rumex acetosella* Sheep sorrel X X X
Rumex crispus* Curly dock X X X
Rumex pulcher* Fiddle dock X X X
Salsola tragus* Russian tumbleweed X X
Senecio vulgaris* Common groundsel X X X
Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis Common tule X
Silene gallica* Windmill-pink X X
Sisymbrium altissimum* Tumble mustard X
Sisyrinchium bellum Western blue-eyed grass X X
Sonchus asper ssp. asper* Prickly sow thistle X X X
Sonchus oleraceus* Common sow thistle X X X
Sorghum halepense* Johnsongrass X
Stachys albens White-stem hedge-nettle X X
3675
Scientific Name Common Name 2016** 2021 2022
List of Vascular Plants Observed in the Project
Appendix A. Vascular Plant Species Observed at the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, Napa County, California
Observations
Stellaria media* Common chick-weed X
Taraxacum officinale* Common dandelion X
Taraxia ovata Sun cup X
Tragopogon porrifolius* Purple salsify X
Trifolium variegatum White-tipped clover X
Trifolium ciliolatum Foothill clover X
Trifolium dubium* Shamrock clover X X X
Trifolium fragiferum* Strawberry clover X
Trifolium hirtum* Rose clover X X X
Trifolium incarnatum* Crimson clover X
Trifolium repens* White clover X
Trifolium subterraneum* Subterranean clover X X X
Triglochin scilloides Flowering quillwort X X X
Triphysaria versicolor ssp. faucibarbata Yellow owl's clover X X X Triteleia laxa Common triteleia X
Typha angustifolia* Narrow leaf cattail X X
Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail X
Veronica anagalis-aquatica* Water speedwell X X X
Veronica peregrina spp. xalapensis Purslane speedwell X X X Vicia sativa* Common vetch X X
Vicia villosa ssp. villosa* Winter vetch X X
Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur X X
Zeltnera muehlenbergii Muehlenberg's centaury X X X
* = non native Total Plants Species 111 100 118
** = Obseved by Monk & Associates (2018)
3676
2022 Rare Plant Surveys Ph: (530) 633-0220
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Fax: (530) 633-0230 APPENDIX C.
REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
3677
The drainage portion of wetland 88 (W 88) located in
the northeast corner of the Project. Photograph taken
by Dr. Helm on April 6, 2022 facing west.
The drainage portion of wetland 88 (W 88) located in
the northeast corner of the Project. Photograph taken
by Dr. Helm on September 19, 2022 facing west.
Overview of annual grassland habitat. Photograph
taken by Dr. Helm on April 6, 2022 facing south from
the northeast corner of the Project.
A depression within wetland 88 (W 88) located in the
northeast corner of the Project. Photograph taken by
Dr. Helm on April 6, 2022 facing west.
Devlin Road improvements including a new bridge
located to the northwest corner of the Project.
Photograph taken by Dr. Helm on September 19,
2022 facing west.
Himalayan blackberry patch located to the northeast
portion of the Project. Photograph taken by Dr. Helm
on September 19, 2022 facing southwest.
3678
Spotted throat downingia. Photograph taken by Dr.
Helm on April 6, 2022.
Purple salsify. One of many new species
occurring onsite. Photograph taken by Dr. Helm
on April 6, 2022.
3679
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3680
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix P:
Public Notices
3681
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3700
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Final EIR–Volume 2
FirstCarbon Solutions
Appendix Q:
Final Water Supply Assessment and Addendum
3701
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3702
Integrated Surface and Ground Water Hydrology • Wetland and Channel Restoration • Water Quality • Erosion and Sedimentation • Storm Water and Floodplain Management 800 Bancroft Way • Suite 101 • Berkeley, CA 94710 • (510) 704-1000 931 Mission Street • Santa Cruz, CA 95060 • (831) 457-9900 12020 Donner Pass Road • Unit B1 • Truckee, CA 96161 • (530) 550-9776 www.balancehydro.com • email: [email protected]
February 7, 2023
Mr. Joe Livaich
Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 900
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Giovannoni WSA analysis within the context of the recently released 2020 UWMP for the City of American Canyon
Dear Joe Livaich:
In early 2021, Balance was contracted to complete a water supply assessment (‘WSA’) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center (‘Project’) in the City of American Canyon in Napa County, California. The draft document was submitted to the client in September 2021, and that version was included as an appendix to the Project Draft EIR submitted in the spring of 2022. A final version of the WSA was prepared in December 2022 in preparation for City Council approval; that version was predominantly unchanged from the earlier draft version, with only some formatting and minor editorial revisions.
As is typical for WSA documents, the study relied heavily on analyses contained within the Urban Water Management Plan (‘UWMP’) of the proposed water supplier, in this case the City of American Canyon.
When the WSA was initially prepared, the most recent UWMP available from the City was the 2015 version, so the system-wide supply and demand numbers used for context in the WSA came from that analysis. The WSA concluded that adequate water supply will be available to meet anticipated systemwide demand (including that of the Project) under all planning scenarios within the planning period through 2040.
In September 2022, the American Canyon City Council passed a resolution approving, as an additional appendix to the 2015 UWMP, a ‘Demonstration of Reduced Delta Reliance’ in compliance with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act of 2009. This appendix (which also appears as Appendix A in the 2020 UWMP) is largely a documentation exercise, showing the degree to which the City would increase regional self-reliance in their water supply, reducing demands on water imports from the Delta.
The City expects to increase regional self-reliance through water-use efficiency improvements, increases in recycled water use, and reduction in system losses.
The Final 2020 UWMP for American Canyon was released on January 18, 2023. This planning update included revised projections of City-wide available supply and demand, based on updated water usage and availability numbers, revised planning guidance contained within the 2020 UWMP Guidebook (issued by DWR in March 2021), and adjusted estimates of population and other growth within the City. 3703
Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Joe Livaich
February 7, 2023
220230 Giovannoni WSA 202 UWMP context letter_Final.docx In general, these updates resulted in decreases in both supply and demand, when compared year-to-year to the projections contained within the 2015 UWMP. Normal-year supply was estimated to be 20 to 30 percent less than that estimated in 2015, and demand was estimated to be about 20 percent less. More specific to the Project, Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (‘C/I/I’) demand was projected to be about 30 percent less than that projected in the 2015 UWMP. The 2020 UWMP concluded that there were potential water supply shortages under all dry- and multi-dry-year scenarios, whereas the 2015 projected shortages under only the 2035 and 2040 single-dry-year scenarios. However, both UWMPs concluded that these supply constraints can be resolved through the purchase of “supplemental imported water through existing agreements through the planning horizon (2045) for all water year scenarios” (2020 UWMP, pg. 1-2).
As detailed in the WSA, the Project is anticipated to use up to 24 acre-feet per year (‘afy’) of potable water and 82 afy of recycled water (after full development of the project site). The updated projections of C/I/I demand in the 2020 UWMP, while less than that projected in 2015, could still accommodate the increase in potable demand associated with the project. As shown in the excerpt of Table 4-2 from the 2020 UWMP below, C/I/I demand is expected to increase by 68 afy over each 5-year planning increment1
, about 2.8 times the anticipated potable demand of the project2. 1 For context, the projected C/I/I demand increases in the 2015 UWMP were about 90 afy for each 5-year planning increment.
2 For the purposes of this assessment, potable demand is the limiting factor; the City has ample recycled water supply, and benefits from maximized use of recycled water. See Section 4.3 in the Project WSA for additional discussion.
3704
Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Joe Livaich
February 7, 2023
220230 Giovannoni WSA 202 UWMP context letter_Final.docx In summary, the Water Supply Assessment for the Giovannoni Logistics Center was prepared in 2021, using the most recent Urban Water Management Plan for the City available at that time. That document concluded that supply was available to meet the projected Project and City-wide demand under all yeartype scenarios through the planning period. The 2020 UWMP, while projecting lower demand and even less available supply than that projected in the 2015 UWMP, still concluded that available additional supply can be purchased to overcome potential drought-scenario shortfalls through the 2045 planning period. The 2020 UWMP analysis included more than enough projected increase in C/I/I demand to accommodate the Project’s anticipated potable water usage. Thus, even though a formal update of the WSA is not required (the analysis was completed long before the 2020 UWMP was published), we would not expect the conclusions of the WSA to change under the 2020 UWMP analysis. We conclude that the Project WSA is consistent with Water Code section 10910—the City has sufficient water to serve the Project, in addition to the City’s existing and planned future uses (including agricultural and manufacturing uses) during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years during the next 20-year time period.
We hope that this letter helps provide context for the Project relative to the most recent planning scenarios for the City of American Canyon. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further information on this matter.
Sincerely,
BALANCE HYDROLOGICS, Inc.
Scott Brown, P.G.
Principal Geomorphologist/Geologist
3705
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. i
December 6, 2022
A REPORT PREPARED FOR:
Buzz Oates Construction, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 900
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 379-8874
[email protected]
by
Denise Tu, E.I.T.
Fluvial Geomorphologist/Engineer
Scott Brown, P.G.
Principal Hydrologist/Geologist
© 2022 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Project Assignment: 220230
800 Bancroft Way, Suite 101 ~ Berkeley, California 94710-2800 ~ (510) 704-1000 ~ [email protected] 3706
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT ii Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
< This page intentionally left blank >
3707
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
3708
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 34
5 ZERO WATER FOOTPRINT POLICY 35
5.1 Project ZWF Compliance 35
5.2 City-wide Compliance 35
6 LIMITATIONS 36
7 REFERENCES 37
3709
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 3710
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. 3711
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.”
3712
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.
3713
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 4 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
Figure 1-1 Project Location
3714
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.
3715
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 6 Balance Hydrologics, Inc. Figure 1-2 Proposed Project 3716
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
3717
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 8 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
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 year3. 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 or water deliveries, and the capacity within the City’s own system to store the Article 21 purchased water.
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.
3718
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 9
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 diversion of water [under the appropriative pre-SWP contract] for any reason 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
3719
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 10 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
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).
3720
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 3721
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.
3722
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.
3723
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 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. 3724
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 15
from similar Buzz Oates developments in Fairfield to project anticipated potable water 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.
3725
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. 3726
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
3727
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. 3728
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.
3729
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.
3730
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 3731
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
3732
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 2030 14 .
Single-dry-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.
3733
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.
3734
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 3735
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 2040 2020 2025 2030 2035
Table
8 Comparison of potable and recycled water supply and demand under various year-type scenarios. 3736
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.
3737
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).
3738
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.
3739
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. 3740
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 conditions 19.
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.
3741
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. 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.
3742
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT Balance Hydrologics, Inc. 33
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 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 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. 3743
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT 34 Balance Hydrologics, Inc.
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 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. 3744
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. 3745
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. 3746
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.
3747
APPENDICES
3748
APPENDIX A
Potable water demand estimates by CBG Engineers
3749
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 3750
APPENDIX B
Suisun Logistics Center Potable Water Demand
Estimates by RAK Engineers
3751
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 3752
3753
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3754
NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON
CEQA Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
City of American Canyon, Napa County, California
(SCH #2021010104)
March 21, 2023
ATTACHMENT 1.EXHIBIT D
3755
3756
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Table of Contents Table of Contents
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations...............................................1
1.1 - Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 - Statement of Findings ....................................................................................................... 1
1.3 - Project Summary ............................................................................................................... 2
1.4 - Background........................................................................................................................ 5
1.5 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant or Less Than Significant........ 9
1.6 - Potential Environmental Effects Which Can Be Mitigated Below a Level of Significance................................................................................................................. 45
1.7 - Impacts Identified in the Draft EIR as Being Significant and Unavoidable Even After the Incorporation of All Feasible Mitigation Measures.............................................. 93
1.8 - Findings Regarding Alternatives.................................................................................... 102
1.9 - Findings Regarding Cumulative Impacts........................................................................ 110
1.10 - Findings Regarding Growth Inducement..................................................................... 110
1.11 - Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes........................... 111
1.12 - Findings Regarding Circulation .................................................................................... 112
1.13 - Statement of Overriding Considerations..................................................................... 113 3757
3758
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 - Introduction
The State Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provide:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (hereinafter referred to as “finding (1)”); (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (hereinafter referred to as “finding (2)”); or (c) Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (hereinafter referred to as “finding (3)”).
The required findings shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (Guidelines § 15091).
The Final EIR incorporates the Draft EIR. References herein to the “EIR” are to the collective documentation contained in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. All acronyms used within this document shall have the same meaning as defined in the Draft EIR.
1.2 - Statement of Findings
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA has been prepared by the City of American Canyon (Lead Agency). The EIR for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project) identifies significant effects on the environment, which may occur as a result of the proposed project.
Section 1.5. sets forth potential environmental effects of the proposed project for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts.
Section 1.6 sets forth potential environmental effects of the proposed project which are not significant because of the proposed project’s design or feasible mitigation to below a level of significance.
3759
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 Section 1.7 discloses environmental impacts that remain significant and unavoidable even with incorporation of feasible mitigation.
Section 1.8 summarizes alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR and makes findings with respect to the feasibility of alternatives and whether the alternatives would lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project.
The following sets forth all significant effects of the proposed project and with respect to each effect, makes one or more findings set forth in Section 1.1, Introduction, and provides facts in support of such findings.
The EIR provides additional facts in support of the findings herein. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment A) are incorporated by reference in these findings, and the findings in Sections 1.6 and 1.7 refer to individual mitigation measures as appropriate. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
1.3 - Project Summary
1.3.1 - Project Description
The applicant, Buzz Oates LLC, proposes to develop a 2.4-million-square-foot logistics center on approximately 163 acres of an approximately 208-acre project site. The remaining 44.8 acres would be preserved as open space/Wetland Preserve.
The applicant has developed design-level site plans for Phase 1 of the proposed project, which includes a 94.7-acre area east of Devlin Road. This area will support two high-cube warehouse buildings. One building would be rail-served by the adjacent Napa Branch Line. Each building would provide docks, grade level roll-up doors, and trailer parking stalls. The facility would be enclosed with a secure perimeter and access would be restricted to authorized users.
Phase 2 of the proposed project would occur on a 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road. This area is conceptually proposed for the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse. Phase 2 would commence once Phase 1 is completed. Accordingly, the EIR evaluates Phase 1 at a project level and Phase 2 at a program level of analysis.
3760
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Table 1: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Summary
Phase Acres Building/Square Feet End Use/Characteristics 1 (Project Level)
94.7 A/627,976 High-Cube Warehouse/36 feet clear height B/469,512 High-Cube Warehouse/36 feet clear height
Subtotal: 1,097,488 —
2 (Program Level) 113.1 1.3 million High-Cube Warehouse Total 208 2.4 million —
Notes:
Total values are rounded
Source: RMW Architecture Interiors 2020.
Devlin Road Extension
As a separate City project, Devlin Road was extended approximately 3,000 linear feet from Green Island Road to Middleton Way (Napa Logistics Park), closing a gap in the City’s roadway network. The extension was contemplated by the City of American Canyon General Plan Circulation Element. The extended roadway provides one lane in each direction. Driveway access to the proposed project would be taken from Devlin Road and Green Island Road.
The Napa Valley Vine Trail follows the Devlin Road extension.
Green Island Road Improvements
As a separate City project, Green Island Road would be improved. The roadway would be widened, and half width improvements would be installed along the project frontage. The new Green Island Road / Devlin Road intersection would provide turn lanes.
Open Space Preservation
The applicant would permanently preserve approximately 44.8 acres of the project site as open space. This area coincides with the northern portion of the project site where No Name Creek meanders. This would create a contiguous open space area with the adjoining 37-acre Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve.
Storm Drainage
The proposed project would provide 110,766 square feet (2.6 acres) of storm drainage retention onsite including bioswales and basins.
Utilities
Water
The City of American Canyon would provide potable water and recycled water service to the proposed project. Potable and recycled water infrastructure was installed within Devlin Road. Service laterals would extend from the Devlin Road water lines to project buildings. 3761
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 Wastewater
The City of American Canyon would provide wastewater collection and treatment service to the proposed project. Sewer infrastructure was installed within Devlin Road. Service laterals would extend from the Devlin Road sewer line to project buildings.
Electricity and Natural Gas
Marin Clean Energy would procure, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would deliver electricity to the proposed project. PG&E would procure and deliver natural gas to the proposed project. Electric and natural gas infrastructure was installed within Devlin Road. Service laterals would extend from the Devlin Road facilities to project buildings. However, the project will not utilize natural gas as a design feature.
1.3.2 - Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the proposed project is to develop industrially-zoned, undeveloped land within the American Canyon city limits to its highest and best use.
The objectives of the proposed project are to:
1. Promote economic growth in American Canyon by attracting new industries.
2. Promote development that generates net positive tax revenues for the City by generating more in new tax revenues than are consumed by City expenditures on services provided to the development.
3. Create new employment opportunities for residents of Napa County and the surrounding region.
4. Develop compatible land uses near the Napa County Airport in the interests of avoiding interference with aviation operations.
5. Improve American Canyon’s jobs-housing ratio by adding new employment opportunities.
6. Continue the orderly development of the Devlin Road corridor with a well-designed project.
7. Further the goals and policies of the City of American Canyon General Plan by developing land contemplated to support urban development to its highest and best use.
8. Preserve the most biologically sensitive portions of the project site as open space.
9. Install circulation improvements along Green Island Road and Devlin Road that provide efficient ingress and egress to the proposed project while also ensuring these facilities operate at acceptable levels.
10.Promote public safety by incorporating security measures into the project design.
11.Mitigate impacts on the environment through implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
3762
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
1.3.3 - Required Approvals
Discretionary approvals and permits are required by the City of American Canyon for implementation of the proposed project. The project application would require the following discretionary approvals and actions, including:
• Use Permit
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Design Permits
• Lot Line Adjustment
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required to implement the proposed project, including issuance of grading and building permits.
1.4 - Background
The City of American Canyon released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for public review from January 12, 2021, to February 10, 2021 (30-day review period). The NOP and copies of comments received are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was initially circulated for a 45-day public review period between Friday, May 20, 2022, and 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 5, 2022. Subsequently, the City provided an updated Appendix A (NOP comment letters) and an updated Appendix C (additional supporting biological resource studies), and extended the public comment period by 15 days to July 20, 2022, to allow public agencies and interested parties a total of 62 days to review and submit comments on the Draft EIR. During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, was available for review at the City of American Canyon offices and the American Canyon Library. In addition, the Draft EIR was posted on the City of American Canyon website at https://bit.ly/3MxXX2k during the public review period.
On February 2, 2021, a scoping meeting was held virtually through Zoom. The meeting was held at 3:00 p.m. during which individuals and organizations/agency representatives were invited to provide oral comments on the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project.
On May 20, 2022, the City released the Draft EIR for public comment for an anticipated 45-day review period to end at 4:00 PM Tuesday, July 5, 2022. The City subsequently provided an updated Appendix A (NOP comment letters) and an updated Appendix C (additional supporting biological resource studies) and extended the public comment period by 15 days to July 20, 2022, to allow public agencies and interested parties a total of 62 days to review and submit comments on the Draft EIR.
On October 31, 2022, the City issued a document entitled, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, which included, among other information, responses to all significant environmental issues raised in timely comments on the Final EIR.
On November 17, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to evaluate the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project and the proposed Final EIR and determined that 3763
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, written and oral testimony given at meetings, recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR as adequate to address environmental impacts associated with the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
On December 1, 2022, Community Development Director Brent Cooper and the City Council received by email a letter from Hallie Kutak, Staff Attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), in which Ms. Kutak stated that, on February 9, 2021, April 25, 2022, and May 12, 2022, CBD had requested that the City provide CBD with notice of availability of the Draft EIR, but that CBD had never received such notice. Ms. Kutak suggested that “[a]t a minimum, the City should postpone the City Council’s hearing to consider and approve the project for at least 45 days from the date of this letter” (i.e., until January 15, 2023).
On December 2, 2022, City Attorney William D. Ross responded to the letter from Ms. Kutak, confirming that the City had inadvertently failed to provide the notice requested by CBD, and stating that City staff would therefore recommend to the City Council that CBD be given until January 16, 2023, to submit to the City comments on the Draft EIR, and that City Council delay its consideration of the merits of the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project then scheduled for December 6, 2022, until February 21, 2023.
On December 6, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to evaluate the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project and Final EIR but, rather than take action on the Project that evening, chose to continue the public hearing to February 21, 2023, in order to allow CBD the opportunity to comment on the proposed draft EIR until January 16, 2023, consistent with the suggestion made by Ms. Kutak in her letter. Because CBD had not received proper notice of the availability of the Draft EIR, but no other party was known to be in a similar situation, the City Council did not extend the same opportunity for additional time to comment on the Draft EIR to any other organization, individual, or agency.
On February 10, 2023, the City issued Volume 2 of the Final EIR for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, which augmented but did not replace or supersede the ostensible “Final EIR” previously issued by the City on October 31, 2022, which was now recharacterized as Volume 1 of the Final EIR.
Volume 2 responded to all significant environmental issues raised in CBD’s comments on the Draft EIR, and also responded to additional correspondence the City had received between November 2022 and mid-January 2023 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Napa/Solano Residents for Responsible Development, Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, Raptors Are The Solution (RATS), and Napa Solano Audubon Society.
On February 21, 2023, shortly before the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed project, the City received written correspondence from the City of Vallejo, which contended, among other things, that the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the proposed project was inadequate and that, as a result, the water supply analysis in the Final EIR was also inadequate. 3764
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Later that evening (February 21, 2023), the City Council held and completed the public hearing on the proposed project, but continued its deliberations and any action on the proposed project until March 21, 2023, in order to allow City staff adequate time to review the recent correspondence from the City of Vallejo and to ascertain whether it contained any legal or factual merit.
Shortly after the February 21, 2023, public hearing, William D. Ross, City Attorney for American Canyon, contacted American Canyon’s water attorneys at the firm of Somach, Simmons & Dunn (Somach) and asked them to review the City of Vallejo correspondence and report back to him their reactions to the legal and factual arguments contained therein.
On March 10, 2023, attorneys Alexis K. Stevens and Kelley M. Taber of the Somach law firm provided to Mr. Ross a detailed legal memorandum addressing, point by point, the contentions made by Vallejo in its correspondence of February 21, 2023. The letter concluded that, notwithstanding the contentions made by the City of Vallejo, the WSA for the Project was legally adequate and was factually accurate in concluding that the City of American Canyon has ample water to supply the Project along with other planned development during single dry and multiple dry year scenarios during a 20-year planning period.
On March 21, 2023, the City Council resumed its deliberation on the Project, setting the stage for certification of the Final EIR and related Project approvals, including these Findings.
For purposes of these Findings, the “EIR” shall consist of the Draft EIR, all appendices attached to the Draft EIR, and the two-volume Final EIR.
The City Council of the City of American Canyon has considered all oral and written comments regarding environmental issues in the two-volume Final EIR and determined, based on all of the evidence presented, including but not limited to the EIR, written and oral testimony given at public meetings and hearings in connection therewith, and the submission of comments from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, as well as all other relevant information in the administrative record, the following environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures; or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
The City of American Canyon concludes that implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, as discussed above, the City of American Canyon is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Accordingly, the City of American Canyon hereby makes these required findings, as set forth in this document (“Findings”). These Findings summarize the environmental determinations about the project’s significant impacts before and after mitigation, and summarize the project’s individual and cumulative impacts. These Findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact. Instead, they provide a summary description of each significant impact and the applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR and adopted by the City of American Canyon, and state the conclusions regarding the 3765
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 significance of each impact after incorporation of the identified mitigation measures. A comprehensive explanation of these environmental impact conclusions can be found in the EIR, as supplemented and explained in staff reports and materials presented by the project applicant, City of American Canyon staff and various project consultants, and other relevant materials in the administrative record.
The EIR contains substantial evidence to support all conclusions presented in these Findings.
As reflected in public comments, there is disagreement among various parties regarding particular conclusions in the EIR. Relevant case law interpreting the CEQA statute and Guidelines provides the standards for treating disagreement among experts in the context of an EIR, as follows: Where evidence and opinions conflict on an issue concerning the environment, and the Lead Agency knows of these controversies in advance, the EIR and/or related findings must acknowledge the controversies, summarize the conflicting opinions of the experts, and include sufficient information on the controversy. In making a decision on a project where there is disagreement among experts, the Lead Agency is not obligated to select the viewpoint that purports to be the most environmentally sensitive. Instead, decision-makers are vested with the discretion to weigh expert opinion and choose which they intend to rely on and are not required to resolve a dispute among experts. In their proceedings, decision-makers must consider comments received concerning the adequacy of the EIR and address any objections raised in these comments. However, decisionmakers are not obligated to follow any directives, recommendations, or suggestions presented in comments on an EIR, and can certify an EIR without needing to resolve disagreements among experts.
In making its decision to certify the EIR and approve the proposed project, the City of American Canyon recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinion exists with respect to certain environmental issues, particularly with respect to air quality impacts. As noted in the record of proceedings for the proposed project, the air quality analysis is based, in part, on technical inputs into the CalEEMod modeling that reflect the best professional judgment of the air quality specialists at First Carbon Solutions who prepared the air quality analysis. This analysis was then reviewed by City of American Canyon planners with expertise in CEQA and environmental analysis. CalEEMod allows modelers to alter default assumptions in order to best reflect the circumstances and attributes of the particular projects being analyzed. The Lead Agency has acquired a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the EIR; as well as by its review of the information provided by the experts who prepared the EIR; the Lead Agency's other consultants and its staff; along with testimony, letters, reports, and other relevant materials in the administrative record, as well as its own experience and expertise in these matters. The materials reviewed by the Lead Agency include conflicting expert opinions and conflicting statements of facts, as well as other comments on the environmental issues set forth in the EIR. This comprehensive review has enabled the Lead Agency to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues, and the Lead Agency has made determinations of significant effects based on substantial evidence, not public controversy or speculation. Accordingly, the Lead Agency hereby certifies that its Findings and determinations are based on all of the evidence contained in the EIR, as well as the evidence and other information 3766
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in the record addressing the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and hereby elects to rely on the analysis and evidence set forth in the EIR.
The EIR is incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the proposed project in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
1.5 - Potential Environmental Effects Which are Not Significant or Less Than Significant
The City of American Canyon has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Draft and Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings. The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of American Canyon and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the proposed project.
Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002.1 and Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR focused its analysis on potentially significant impacts, and limited discussion of other impacts for which it can be seen with certainty there is no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as “no impact” or a “less than significant” impact and for which no mitigation is necessary. Based on its independent judgment and the entire administrative record before it, the City of American Canyon has determined that the following potential environmental effects will not be significant and no mitigation is necessary for the reasons stated below.
1.5.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Potential Effect
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (Draft EIR Page 3.1-4–5).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-5). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Neither the City of American Canyon nor the Napa County General Plan identifies the project site as a scenic vista or scenic resource. Additionally, the project site does not contain any scenic vistas or features associated with scenic vistas (e.g., ridgelines, peaks, overlooks), and none are visible from the project site.
The project site is located in a portion of the City of American Canyon that is generally not visible from park and recreational areas, community gathering facilities, or residential areas. There are no prominent long-distance views of the project site, and, as such, the proposed project would not have the potential to obstruct views from high vantage points or sensitive viewpoints of the City. 3767
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 Potential Effect
Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings (Draft EIR Page 3.1-5–6).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 3.1-6). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
The Phase 1 warehouses would be similar in appearance to the structures in the neighboring Napa Logistics Park and the Green Island Business Park. Additionally, an approximately 44.8-acre open space area containing No Name Creek and wetlands would be permanently preserved within the northern portion of the site. These are the most significant aesthetic features on the project site.
Phase 2
Though no design-level plans have been prepared at the time of this writing, it is expected that the Phase 2 buildings would be similar in appearance to the Phase 1 buildings.
The development of the proposed project would change the visual character of the project site; however, it would be compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the City of American Canyon General Plan land use designation of “Industrial” for the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the visual quality of the project area or its surroundings.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the applicable geographic area, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to light and glare. (Draft EIR, Page 4-3–4).
Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-4). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative aesthetics, light, and glare analysis is the 0.25-mile radius surrounding the project site. This is the area within view of the project site and, therefore, the area most likely to experience cumulative changes in visual character or experience cumulative light and glare impacts.
Several of the projects listed in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR are immediately adjacent to or within
0.25mile of the project site.
The project site and the surrounding area have long been planned to accommodate large industrial and warehouse uses and are isolated and separate from the residential areas of the City. The existing surrounding uses are large industrial uses. Although the development of the proposed project would fundamentally change the visual character of the project site, it would be compatible with 3768
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations surrounding industrial uses and would be consistent with the City of American Canyon General Plan land use designation for the project site. Because the proposed project would preserve approximately 44.8 acres of the project site that contain No Name Creek and associated wetlands, this area would continue to provide a visual buffer between the industrial uses and the undeveloped marsh area near the Napa River. The project site would feature attractive landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Design Permits would be required from the City to approve the specific building and site design on each lot, including building height. Furthermore, due to its location, the proposed project would not degrade any views of a scenic vista such as the Napa River or Sulphur Springs Hills. Other past projects, present projects under construction, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the surrounding area would be subject to similar landscaping and design requirements.
The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable developments near the project site have contributed to—and would continue to contribute to—ambient light and glare in the project vicinity. The proposed project would install new sources of light and glare on the project site from exterior building lighting, security lighting, and lights and glare associated with vehicles accessing the project site. Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-3 requires new exterior lighting fixtures to employ full cut-off fixtures to direct light downward and eliminate spillage. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments in the project vicinity that involve the installation of new exterior lighting fixtures have been and would be required to implement similar standard measures to prevent light spillage.
1.5.2 - Air Quality
Potential Effect
Impact AIR-3: The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Draft EIR Page 3.2-59–63).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 3.2-63). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations if it causes or contributes significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels. The closest sensitive receptors include a single-family residence located approximately 200 feet south of the project site, as well as Calvary Baptist Christian Academy (Draft EIR Page 3.2-15 –16). Localized emissions are typically evaluated in terms of air concentration rather than mass so they can be more readily correlated to potential health effects. A construction and operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the proposed project (Draft EIR, Appendix B).
Construction and Operation
Construction and Operational Related Diesel Particulate Matter The proposed project could accommodate the construction and operation of 2.4 million square feet of cold storage space and the subsequent operation of TRUs in addition to truck and passenger vehicle activities. Therefore, the HRA analyzes the cold storage project scenario as a conservative assessment.
3769
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 The proposed project would develop Phase 1, which would become operational immediately following the completion of construction activities. As Phase 1 would become operational, Phase 2 of the proposed project would begin construction, resulting in an overlap of construction and operational emissions. The HRA analyzes the proposed project’s Phase 1 construction diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions for the first year, Phase 1 operational and Phase 2 construction DPM emissions for the second year, and Phase 1 and 2 operational DPM emissions for the remainder of the 30-year exposure duration, consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. The HRA also analyzes the proposed project’s Phase 1 construction DPM emissions for the first year; Phase 1 operational and Phase 2 construction DPM emissions for the second year; Phase 1 and 2 operational DPM emissions of school receptor exposure at the Calvary Baptist Christian Academy; and the proposed project’s operational DPM emission concentrations for the remainder of the 13-year exposure duration for a K-12 school, consistent with the BAAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Guidelines. As shown in Table 3.2-14 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant health impacts to the maximally impacted residential or school receptors under the cold storage scenario.
Community Health Risk Assessment
A community HRA was conducted in accordance with BAAQMD recommendations. The cumulative health risk values were determined by adding the health risk values from refined modeling of the proposed project to the screening-level health risk values from each individual stationary and mobile source within a 1,000-foot radius of the site. The HRA concluded that the main source of a cumulative community health risk within 1,000 feet of the project site are the existing sources.
Health risks to nearby sensitive receptors would not exceed the BAAQMD community health risk significance thresholds. As the proposed project did not result in an exceedance of project-level BAAQMD significance thresholds, the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant impact and the proposed project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspot
The proposed project would not generate sufficient vehicle traffic during project operation to substantiate creating a CO hotspot.
Cumulative
Additionally, the proposed project’s health risk impacts and PM2.5 concentration at sensitive receptors are below BAAQMD cumulative impact thresholds and the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potentially significant cumulative impact.
Potential Effect
Impact AIR-4: The proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Draft EIR Pages 3.2-63—64) Findings: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR Page 3.2-64). No mitigation is necessary. 3770
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Findings
Construction
During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily and intermittently generate odors. Additionally, noxious odors would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction equipment. It is anticipated that by the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites, they would be diluted to well below any air quality or odor concern level.
Operation
The types of uses that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. Specific uses of the proposed project’s buildings have not been determined; however, it is not anticipated that a Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) or solid waste transfer station would be accommodated. Food manufacturing plants and chemical manufacturing have odor screening distances of one mile and two miles, respectively, from the facility to sensitive receptors (Draft EIR, Table 3.2-8). Sensitive receptors surrounding the project site within these screening distances are generally to the south and consist of school and residential land uses. The future tenants propose the land use for distribution and/or sortation facilities, thus implementation of the proposed project would not create or expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors.
The proposed project would not result in any localized construction fugitive dust impacts or any CO hotspots or project-level health risk impacts to sensitive receptors or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to any potential significant cumulative significant impact related to localized criteria pollutant impacts from fugitive dust, CO, or objectionable odors.
1.5.3 - Biological
Potential Effect
Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Draft EIR Pages 3.3- 39–40).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.2-40). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phases 1 and 2
No trees are present on the project site and, therefore, no tree removal would occur. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies related to protection of natural resources.
All work for the proposed project would take place consistent with biological requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the City of American Canyon. Studies of sensitive biological resources have been either conducted by Huffman Broadway Group (HBG) as part of the Biological 3771
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 14 Resources Report or were conducted by other consultants and independently reviewed and incorporated into the Biological Resources Report, consistent with General Plan Policy 8.2.1. The proposed project results in impacts to palustrine emergent wetlands and vernal pool wetlands and the applicant has prepared a conceptual plan to mitigate for these wetlands consistent with General Plan Policy 8.3.1.a, which requires the development plan to consider the nature of existing biological resources and all reasonable measures to avoid significant impacts, including retention of sufficient natural open space and undeveloped buffer zones; General Plan Policy 8.3.1.h, which requires in summary developments shall mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the United States, wetlands, and riparian habitats by replacement on an in-kind basis and such replacement should occur on the original development site, whenever possible, and; General Plan Policy 8.4.3, which encourages activities that improve the biological value and integrity of the City’s natural resources through vegetation restoration, control of alien plants and animals, and landscape buffering. The wetland mitigation would be accomplished through establishment of an approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve within the project site to include preserving 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acres of vernal pools and establishment/creation of an additional approximately
3.56 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools to compensate in-kind for permanent impacts to seasonal wetlands from the proposed project.
1.5.4 - Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Potential Effect
Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Guidelines §15064.5 (Draft EIR Page 3.4-20—21).
Findings: No impact (Draft EIR Page 3.4-21). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Historic resources in this context refer to the built environment, mainly buildings and structures over 45 years in age that may be eligible for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. Records search results, conducted at the NWIC, identified one historic resource (P-28-001439) located within the project site and three historic resources (P-28-000384, P-28-002466 and NAP-HRI-001) located within the 0.5- mile records search radius. Historic resource P-28-001439 was evaluated relative to the four CRHR eligibility criteria and found to be ineligible to meet any of the criteria for historic and/or architectural significance required for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or at the local level. No additional historic resources were encountered during the pedestrian field survey and evaluation.
1.5.5 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potential Effect
Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Draft EIR Pages 3.6-62—69).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.6-68). No mitigation is necessary. 3772
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Findings
The following discusses project consistency with applicable plans adopted to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2017 Scoping Plan, MTC/Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Plan Bay Area 2040, and the City of American Canyon Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan (EECAP).
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
The principal State plan and policy for GHG emission reduction targets are set forth in Executive Order S-03-05, AB 32, and the subsequent SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 was to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 required the ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes California's approach to reduce GHGs to achieve the 2020 emission target. SB 32 then accelerated the GHG emission reduction goals of AB 32. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update, the most recent update to the ARB Scoping Plan, reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels as set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. It applies to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities, counties, or individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require the City to adopt policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies outlined in the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. As a result, local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other Statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.
Transportation Sector
Trucks
The following State strategies reduce GHG emissions from medium and heavy-duty trucks:
• ARB’s Mobile Source Strategy focuses on reducing GHGs by transitioning to zero and low emission vehicles and from medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks. • ARB’s Sustainable Freight Action Plan establishes a goal to improve freight efficiency by 25 percent by 2030, deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zeroemission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero-emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030.
• ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation requires diesel-fueled trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet PM filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.
• ARB’s Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement (Goods Movement Plan) in California focuses on reducing heavy-duty truck-related emissions and the establishment of emissions standards for trucks, fleet turnover, truck retrofits, and restriction on truck idling.
While the focus of the Goods Movement Plan is to reduce criteria air pollutant and air toxic emissions, the strategies to reduce these pollutants would also generally have a beneficial effect in reducing GHG emissions.
3773
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 The proposed project would be subject to the above trucking and freight regulations which would contribute to controlling heavy-duty truck GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. The proposed project would not conflict with or inhibit these Statewide strategies. Any on-site trucks would be required to comply with ARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) GHG Regulation, which requires SmartWay tractor trailers that include idle-reduction technologies, aerodynamic technologies, and low-rolling resistant tires that would reduce fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions.
Furthermore, truck manufacturers would be required to comply with the ARB Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Rule, which requires manufacturers of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and vans to sell zeroemission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035.
Under the ACT Rule, by 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55 percent of Class 2b to Class 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 to Class 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. As the proposed project would not include any feature or design which would prohibit the implementation of these vehicle emission standards, the proposed project would be consistent with these requirements.
Passenger Vehicles
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and the transportation sector in general include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and changes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (e.g., Pavley I and Pavley California Advanced Clean Cars program). Furthermore, Executive Order N-79-20 would also require that 100 percent of new passenger cars and trucks sold in California be zero-emission by 2035, which would indirectly contribute to the extent of electric vehicle (EV) utilization in the proposed project’s passenger vehicle fleet beyond 2035. The proposed project would not include any feature or design which would prohibit the implementation of these vehicle emission standards and thus would be consistent with these requirements.
Energy Sector
Energy use generated by the proposed project represents the second largest source of emissions after considering mobile source GHG emissions (Draft EIR, Table 3.6-4). As required by MM GHG-1c, the proposed project would meet the Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements of the current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Moreover, the proposed project would be sourcing electricity from on-site generation sources and/or utility providers in the State. As required by MM GHG-1e, any electricity consumed by the proposed project would be from carbon-free sources, such as an on-site photovoltaic system. If the proposed project secures electricity purchases from a utility provider, the proposed project would be required by MM GHG-1e to purchase 100 percent carbonfree electricity through the year 2045, at which time utility providers would be required to supply 100 percent carbon-free electricity for all in-state sales, as required by SB 100. As such, the proposed project would meet the requirements contained in the 2019 California Building Code and would be consistent with the State’s current CALGreen and Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the State’s renewable energy legislation, SB 100.
Other Sources
Other sources of GHG emissions include solid waste disposal, which is associated with landfilling municipal solid waste. The amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere as a fraction of the total amount of methane generated from landfills has declined as more landfills implement mitigation measures and existing systems are operated more efficiently as a result of ARB’s Landfill Methane 3774
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Control Measure. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State’s goals for the recycling and waste sector.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission Plan Bay Area
As part of the implementing framework for Plan Bay Area 2050, local governments have identified planned development areas to focus growth. The project site is within the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area and is in an area with existing infrastructure. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the overall goals and the land use concept plan of Plan Bay Area 2050.
The closest public transit option would be the Vine bus system, operated by the Napa Valley Transportation Authority. The closest Vine stop is the American Canyon City Hall bus stop on NapaVallejo Connector Route 11. The stop is 1.5 miles from the project site. As such, it is not likely that many employees would travel to the project site using public transit.
City of American Canyon Energy Efficient Climate Action Plan The EECAP identifies reduction measures and implementation responsibilities that the City used to achieve the State-recommended GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by the year 2020 to fulfill the requirements of AB 32 and SB 375. The City would impose the requirements of these measures as applicable through local regulations and ordinances. As shown in Table 3.6-6 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project incorporates features that would contribute to the City’s strategy to minimize GHG emissions. With these features, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable measures and implementing actions identified by the City of American Canyon EECAP.
SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update
None of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update measures are applicable to the proposed project (Draft EIR, Table 3.6-6). Thus, the proposed project's implementation would not conflict with the reduction measures proposed in SB 32.
Potential Effect
Impact GHG-4: The proposed project would not conflict with State or local renewable efficiency objectives (Draft EIR Pages 3.6-73—74).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.6-74). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would comply with existing State energy standards and be consistent with the energy efficiency goals and measures contained in the City’s General Plan Natural and Historic and Cultural Resources Element and EECAP.
The proposed project would be designed in accordance with Title 24, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings techniques and practices, ensuring that the proposed project would not result in the use of energy in a wasteful manner. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed to accommodate rooftop photovoltaic electricity generation panel arrays for 3775
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 solar electricity generation and MM GHG-1e would require the proposed project to source its electricity from 100 percent carbon-free sources.
The City’s General Plan Natural and Historic and Cultural Resources Element contains policies related to energy conservation that are relevant to the proposed project, such as Goal 8F to reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy sources and support the development and utilization of new energy sources. Compliance with Title 24 standards would help the project meet this goal, and implementation of MMs GHG-1a through GHG-1e would further serve to reduce project reliance on nonrenewable energy resources. Moreover, the proposed project would be consistent with the energy efficiency measures contained in the EECAP (Draft EIR, Table 3.6-5).
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable planned and approved projects in the vicinity, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to geology, soils, and seismicity. (Draft EIR, Page 4-8–9).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-9). No cumulative mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative geology, soils, and seismicity analysis is the project vicinity.
Adverse effects associated with geologic, soil, and seismic hazards tend to be site specific, because each project site has its own geologic and soils conditions, and each project has its own design characteristics, localized within the area near the project site most affected by project activities (generally within a 0.5-mile radius).
Past, present, and future development projects in the project vicinity have the potential to exacerbate exposure to seismic hazards. The West Napa Fault bisects the project site and, thus, the project site may be susceptible to fault rupture during a seismic event. The project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts is less than significant and does not require additional mitigation.
MM GEO-1a requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a fault investigation study and ensure project plans comply with all required setback requirements.
Additionally, the project site may be subject to strong ground shaking during an earthquake; thus, MM GEO-1b requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a design-level geotechnical study and implement all California Building Standards Code applicable requirements into project plans. Other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects have and may exacerbate exposure to similar potential seismic hazards and would be required to comply with the relevant State and local laws designed to mitigate seismic hazards and mitigation measures imposed under CEQA.
Development activities could lead to increased erosion rates of on-site soils, which could cause unstable ground surfaces and increased sedimentation in nearby streams and drainage channels.
MM HYD-1a requires implementation of standard stormwater pollution prevention measures to ensure earthwork activities do not result in substantial erosion off-site. This mitigation requires compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting 3776
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations program, which requires the preparation and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs for construction activities that disturb more than 1 acre and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that ensure the reduction of pollutants during stormwater discharges, as well as compliance with all applicable water quality requirements. The proposed project would be required to comply with these regulations, as have and would other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects.
The project site contains native soils that have shrink-swell characteristics, which may exacerbate exposure of project structures to expansive soil hazards. MM GEO-1b requires the project applicant to retain a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare a design-level geotechnical study and incorporate all California Building Standards Code applicable requirements into project plans. Other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects could be exposed to expansive soil hazards and, therefore, have been and would be required to implement similar mitigation measures based on State and local regulations and CEQA requirements.
Paleontological resources impacts tend to be localized, because the integrity of any given resource depends on what occurs in the immediate vicinity around that resource, such as disruption of soils; therefore, in addition to the project site itself, the area near the project site would be the area most affected by project activities (generally within a 0.5-mile radius). Given that the proposed project would not have a known, direct impact on any known paleontological resources, cumulative project impacts are less than significant. Construction activities associated with cumulative development projects in the project vicinity may have the potential to encounter undiscovered paleontological resources. These cumulative projects listed in Table 4-1 of the Draft EIR would be required to mitigate for impacts through compliance with applicable federal and State laws governing paleontological resources.
1.5.6 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-1: Buildout of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-11—12).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.7-12). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The construction and operational activities of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
Construction
Potential hazardous materials transported, used, or disposed of during project construction would be limited to commonly used substances such as gasoline, diesel, oil, grease, mechanical fluids, paints, and cleaning solvents. Construction equipment would be serviced by trained technicians and potentially hazardous materials would be stored in secured facilities. Furthermore, the safe handling 3777
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 20 of these commonly used substances is governed by occupational health and safety laws and regulations and construction contract requirements. Therefore, the use of this equipment and these substances during construction would not present any undue risks to the public or the environment.
Operation
No large quantity hazardous materials users are contemplated as end users of the proposed project.
Project end users would be expected to handle small quantities of commonly used hazardous substances, such as cleaning solvents and fuels, as part of daily operations. Given the small quantities involved and the characteristics of use (e.g., routine maintenance and cleaning), their use would not be considered a potential risk to human health or the environment. The use of acutely hazardous materials of any quantity that have the potential to result in releases that could potentially expose substantial numbers of people or the environment to harm is not anticipated by project end uses.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-12—13).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.7-13). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would not be exposed to hazards or hazardous materials from past uses of the project site.
Cortese List
The project site is not listed on the Cortese List, which includes various hazardous materials databases compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5.
Four sites within 0.5 mile of the project site are listed on the Cortese List. All are listed as “Case Closed,” signifying that the regulatory agency with jurisdiction has determined that no further action is necessary. Thus, they do not pose a risk to human health or the environment.
Agricultural Chemicals
The project site does not support cultivated agriculture. Aerial photographs and historic topographical maps indicate that the project site has not supported cultivated agricultural production. Thus, there is no basis to assume presence of agricultural chemicals, including herbicides and pesticides.
Hazardous Building Materials
The project site does not contain any structures. Aerial photographs and historic topographical maps indicate that the project site has not supported structures. Thus, there is no basis to assume presence of hazardous building materials including asbestos, lead, or PCBs. 3778
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Radon
No indoor radon tests performed by the California Department of Health Services in the project site area code, 94503, have indicated indoor radon levels above pCi/l. Moreover, the proposed project proposes slab-on-grade construction, which has a low susceptibility to radon intrusion.
Electromagnetic Fields
There are no high-voltage electrical facilities within 0.5 mile of the project site. As such, the proposed project site would not be exposed to high levels of low-frequency EMFs.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not create aviation safety hazards for persons residing or working within 2 miles of the Napa County Airport. (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-13—15).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Errata). No mitigation is necessary.
The 208-acre project site is located 2,400 feet south of the Napa County Airport and is within Zone D of the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan states that most nonresidential uses are considered “normally acceptable” within Zone D. Schools, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, large shopping malls, amphitheaters, and ponds are identified as “not normally acceptable” within Zone D. In addition, uses that are hazardous to flight are prohibited (i.e., features that attract large numbers of birds and are sources of smoke, glare, distracting lights, or electrical interference). The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) encourages clustering to maximize open land areas and requires limits on building envelopes and building heights on all development plans within 100 feet of approach zones. The proposed project’s end uses are all nonresidential and are acceptable within Zone D. Finally, there are no project attributes that would produce sources of smoke, glare, distracting lights, or electrical interference.
Therefore, the proposed project complies with the applicable safety requirements of Zone D. As such, the proposed project would not create aviation safety hazards for persons residing or working within 2 miles of the Napa County Airport. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.
Potential Effect
Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not impair emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity (Draft EIR Pages 3.7-14—15).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.7-15). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1 would have four driveways on Green Island Road and three driveways on Devlin Road providing vehicular access to the project site. Reciprocal access would be provided between the two Phase 1 buildings. Accordingly, the proposed project would provide two points of emergency access in compliance with California Fire Code requirements. Thus, the proposed project would enhance access by emergency responders and would not impair emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity.
3779
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, approved, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Draft EIR, Page 4-10).
Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-10). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
For most topics the geographic scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials analysis is the project area. Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project area would be most affected by project activities. For the transport of hazardous materials, the geographic scope includes local and regional transportation facilities.
The proposed project would not result in any significant impacts associated with hazardous materials because there is no evidence of contamination from past uses, and any use or storage of hazardous materials during construction or operations would be subject to compliance with regulatory requirements and mitigation measures. As with the proposed project, other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects have been and would continue to be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulatory requirements regarding the transport of hazardous materials, clean up of hazardous materials, and the use and storage of hazardous materials during construction and operation. Additionally, hazardous material impacts tend to be localized to individual project sites.
The proposed project would create a wetland preserve in the northern portion of the project site.
Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of a wildlife management plan to minimize the avian attractant potential of the Wetlands Preserve to avoid creating hazards to aviation. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not create a wildlife attractant hazard for the Napa County Airport, because required compliance with the Napa County ALUCP and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations would ensure that inappropriate land uses do not locate near the airport. Additionally, stormwater and landscaping features of the proposed project and other land uses would include management plans to avoid or reduce the potential for wildlife hazards.
1.5.7 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-2: The proposed project would not deplete the groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge (Draft EIR Pages 3.8-12 –13).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.8-13). No mitigation is necessary. 3780
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Findings
Groundwater Overdraft
The proposed project would not rely on groundwater wells as a water supply source and would not exacerbate groundwater overdraft (to the extent that it exists) or conflict with the provisions of a sustainable groundwater management plan.
Groundwater Recharge
The proposed project would result in an increase in additional pervious surfaces. However, the groundwater recharge potential of the project site is limited due to its relatively low elevation and its proximity to the Napa River where groundwater levels tend to be high and soils in the lowest portions of the site are often saturated.
Potential Effect
Impact HYD-3: The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems (Draft EIR Pages 3.8-13—14).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.8-14). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface coverage on the project site and would create the potential for increased runoff leaving the project site that may create potential flooding conditions in downstream waterways. However, the proposed project would install a storm drainage system designed for a 15-year storm event. Inlets would capture surface runoff and convey it to four basins which would provide 110,766 square feet (2.6 acres) of stormwater retention.
Additionally, in accordance with Section C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (or more recent permit) as required under MM HYD-1b, the proposed project would implement Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management methods into the on-site storm drainage system consisting of rainwater harvesting and use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment.
These measures would serve to slow, reduce, and meter the volume of runoff leaving the project site and ensure that downstream storm drainage facilities are not inundated with project-related stormwater.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable planned and approved projects in the vicinity, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to hydrology and water quality. (Draft EIR, Page 4-11).
Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-11). No mitigation is necessary.
3781
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative hydrology and water quality analysis is the No Name Creek watershed, which generally encompasses the area within 0.5 mile of the project site. Hydrologic and water quality impacts tend to be localized to a watershed; therefore, the area within the No Name Creek watershed would be most affected by project activities.
The proposed project would involve short-term construction and long-term operational activities that would have the potential to degrade water quality in downstream water bodies. These activities are subject to regulatory requirements that would ensure no significant adverse impacts would occur. MM HYD-1a and MM HYD-1b would require implementation of various construction and operational water quality control measures that would prevent the release of pollutants into downstream waterways. These measures include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit and compliance with the Municipal Regional Permit, including implementation of BMPs and LID features.
Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that propose new development have been and would be required to implement similar mitigation measures in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The combined implementation of construction and operation water quality control measures by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would avoid, or reduce to a less than significant level, any related cumulative impacts on downstream waterways including the Napa River.
All other project-related hydrology impacts were found to be less than significant and did not require mitigation (e.g., groundwater and drainage). Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that result in groundwater and drainage impacts have been and would be required to comply with applicable laws and regulations designed to protect groundwater resources and ensure adequate drainage facilities are provided for all projects and include facilities to prevent and reduce runoff from development sites.
1.5.8 - Land Use
Potential Effect
Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not conflict with the applicable provisions of the City of American Canyon General Plan (Draft EIR Pages 3.9-6—48).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.9-48). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
The applicant has developed site design-level plans for Phase 1, the 94.7-acre area east of the Devlin Road extension. This area will support two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet. The Phase 1 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the General Plan. Additionally, Phase 1 would have a 0.26 floor area ratio (FAR) and would be within the General Plan’s allowable FAR of 0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of 0.70 for low labor uses. The 3782
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations proposed high-cube warehouses would have 36 feet clear height and, thus, be within the 40-foot height limit.
Phase 2
Phase 2, the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road, is conceptually proposed for the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse. The Phase 2 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the General Plan. Additionally, Phase 2 would have a 0.26 FAR and would be within the General Plan’s allowable FAR of 0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of
0.70 for low labor uses.
Phases 1 and 2
Table 3.9-2 of the Draft EIR evaluates Phase 1 and Phase 2 consistency with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the City of American Canyon General Plan. As shown in the table, City staff concludes that the proposed project is consistent with all applicable goals, objectives, and policies.
Potential Effect
Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not conflict with the applicable provisions of the American Canyon Municipal Code (Draft EIR Pages 3.9-48—49).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.9-48). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
The applicant has developed site design-level plans for Phase 1, the 94.7-acre area east of the Devlin Road extension. This area will support two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet. The Phase 1 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for the General Industrial zoning district. Additionally, Phase 1 would have a 0.26 FAR and would be within the Zoning Ordinance’s allowable FAR of 0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of 0.70 for low labor uses. The proposed high-cube warehouses would have 36 feet clear height and, thus, be within the 40-foot height limit set by the Zoning Ordinance.
Phase 2
Phase 2, the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road, is conceptually proposed for the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse. The Phase 2 end uses would be consistent with the types of permitted uses set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for the General Industrial zoning district.
Additionally, Phase 2 would have a 0.26 FAR and would be within the General Plan’s allowable FAR of
0.50 for labor-intensive uses and FAR of 0.70 for low labor uses. Impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development, would not result in a cumulatively significant land use impact. (Draft EIR, Page 4-11 –12).
Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-12). No mitigation is necessary.
3783
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 26 Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative land use analysis is the area within 1 mile of the project site.
Existing development in this area is predominantly industrial uses, including the airport. Projects under construction include the Napa Logistics Park Project, which is approved for warehouse and other similar uses. Foreseeable future development in the area includes the Napa Airport Corporate Center and the Devlin Road Transfer Station Construction and Demolition Debris Facility.
The proposed project would be consistent with the American Canyon General Plan, American Canyon Zoning Ordinance, and the Napa County ALUCP because its proposed uses are allowed under these plans. Projects under consideration in the area and reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to be consistent with the General Plan, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and the ALUCP. Additionally, the proposed project and other nearby development would be and have been required to implement wildlife management plans to ensure compatibility with airport operations.
1.5.9 - Noise
Potential Effect
Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (Draft EIR Pages 3.10-22 –23).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.10-23). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
In general, if groundborne vibration levels do not exceed levels considered perceptible, then groundborne noise levels would not be perceptible in most interior environments. Because the City of American Canyon does not have quantitative groundborne vibration thresholds for construction or operation, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) vibration impact criteria are utilized to analyze vibration impacts. A significant impact would occur if existing structures at the project site or in the project vicinity would be exposed to groundborne vibration levels in excess of levels established by the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for the listed type of structure, as shown in Table
3.10-5 of the Draft EIR.
Construction
Large vibratory rollers could be used in the site preparation phase of construction. This equipment produces groundborne vibration levels ranging up to 0.201 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment, the greatest groundborne vibration levels of heavy construction equipment that could be used.
The façade of the commercial building south of the project site on Green Island Road would be located approximately 120 feet from the nearest point on the project site where the heaviest construction equipment would potentially operate. This is the nearest off-site receptor to the project construction footprint where the heaviest construction equipment would operate. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels would range up to 0.008 PPV from operation of the types of equipment that would produce the highest vibration levels. This is well below the FTA’s Construction Vibration Impact Criteria of 0.2 PPV for this type of structure.
3784
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Operation
Implementation of the proposed project would not include any permanent sources that would expose persons in the project vicinity to groundborne vibration levels that could be perceptible without instruments at any existing sensitive land use in the project vicinity.
The Napa Branch Line railroad is located approximately 130 feet east of the nearest proposed façade of the project. Based on FTA vibration screening criteria, potential groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant for the proposed type of structure. There are no other existing significant permanent sources of groundborne vibration in the project vicinity to which the proposed project would be exposed.
Potential Effect
Impact NOI-3: The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Draft EIR Page 3.10-24).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.10-24). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
A significant impact would occur if the proposed project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels for a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The City’s Policy 11.4.1 restricts the development of uses located within the 65 CNEL contour of Napa Airport to industrial, agricultural, or other open space uses. Policy 11.4.2 requires that development in the vicinity of Napa Airport comply with the noise standards contained in the ALUP.
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. However, the Napa County Airport is located approximately 1 mile north of the project site. The project site is located outside of the 55 dBA CNEL airport noise contours (Draft EIR, Exhibit 3.10-2). Though aircraft noise is occasionally audible on the project site from aircraft flyovers, aircraft noise associated with nearby airport activity would not expose people residing or working near the project site to excessive noise levels. These noise levels are considered normally acceptable for new industrial land use development within the City as shown in Exhibit 3.10-1 of the Draft EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development, would not result in a cumulatively significant noise impact. (Draft EIR, Page 4-12).
Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-12). No mitigation is necessary.
3785
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 28 Facts in Support of Findings
The geographic scope of the cumulative noise analysis is the project vicinity, including surrounding sensitive receptors. Noise impacts tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the project site (approximately 0.25 mile) would be the area most affected by project activities. Furthermore, given the properties and the distance between other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects (more than 0.5 mile away), project-related noise would not combine with other sources further away.
The proposed project’s construction noise levels may cause a temporary substantial increase in noise levels at nearby receptors. Mitigation is proposed that would require implementation of construction noise attenuation measures to reduce noise levels. Other projects in the project vicinity that could be under construction at the same time as the proposed project (such as Napa Logistics Park Phase 1 and Napa Corporate Center) could combine to expose nearby sensitive receptors to excessive construction noise from trucks and equipment. However, noise is a localized phenomenon, the properties of noise are not additive, construction activities on these projects may not overlap, and all projects would be subject to the City’s noise ordinance requirements and mitigation measures.
The proposed project’s construction and operational vibration levels would not exceed annoyance thresholds. Because vibration is a highly localized phenomenon, there would be no possibility for vibration associated with the proposed project to combine with vibration from other projects because of their distances from the project site.
As discussed in Section 3.9, Noise, of the Draft EIR, after mitigation the proposed project’s vehicular trips would not make a substantial incremental contribution to ambient noise levels under baselinewith-project and future-with-project conditions. These noise levels account for existing vehicle trips as well as vehicle trips from future projects. Furthermore, the proposed project’s contribution to vehicular noise levels would not exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, which take into account existing noise levels as well as noise from trips associated with other planned or approved projects. Finally, because most of the other projects included within the scope of the transportation analysis are more than 1 mile from the project site, cumulative vehicular trips would be unlikely to add to roadway noise levels in the project vicinity.
1.5.10 - Public Services
Potential Effect
Impact PS-1: The proposed project would not result in a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities that may have physical impacts on the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.11-4 –5).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.11-5). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would be served with fire protection and emergency medical services provided by the American Canyon Fire Protection District. While the proposed project would increase the number of calls for service, the Fire District’s existing facilities are adequate to serve the proposed 3786
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations project and there is no need to develop new or expanded fire protection facilities to serve the project.
The proposed project would take vehicular access from Green Island Road and the Devlin Road extension, which is currently under construction. All access points would be accessible to large emergency vehicles such as fire engines. This would comply with California Fire Code requirements for emergency vehicle accessibility.
The project site is located 3.1 miles from Station 11, via Paoli Loop Road and Green Island Road.
However, emergency responders can avoid Paoli Loop Road by making a left turn directly onto Green Island Road from State Route (SR) 29, reducing the travel distance to 2.2 miles. Assuming a travel speed of 35 miles per hour, response time from Station 11 to the project site would be 3 minutes and 46 seconds. This would be within the Fire District’s 5-minute response time objective. However, congestion on SR-29 may increase travel time such that it exceeds the 5-minute response time objective.
The proposed project would be required to pay a “Fire Mitigation Fee,” a one-time assessment to all new development, and a “Fire Service Fee,” an annual assessment for each parcel. Additionally, the applicant and Fire District have agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the applicant to fund Fire District operational shortfalls in perpetuity through the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD).
Potential Effect
Impact PS-2: The proposed project would not result in a need for new or expanded police protection facilities that may have physical impacts on the environment (Draft EIR Pages 3.11-5—6).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.11-5). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed project would be served with police protection provided by the American Canyon Police Department. The proposed project would be surrounded with a secure perimeter and would only be accessible to authorized users via either a mechanical gate with key card access or a manned security booth, depending on the end user. The proposed project would be expected to be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Security measures including exterior lighting, alarm systems, and video surveillance would be employed to deter and prevent criminal activity. The Police Department will have the opportunity to review and comment on security measures during the plan check review process. For these reasons, the proposed project would be expected to generate minimal calls for service and, therefore, would not create a need for new or expanded police facilities.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable developments, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to police protection, fire protection and emergency medical services (Draft EIR, Page 4-13). 3787
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 30 Findings: Less than significant cumulative impact (Draft EIR, Page 4-13). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The geographic scope of the cumulative fire protection and emergency medical services analysis is the American Canyon Fire Protection District service area, which includes the American Canyon city limits.
The project site is located within 3.1 miles of the nearest fire station and is within an acceptable response time for fire protection (5 minutes or less). As such, the proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded fire protection facilities and would not result in a physical impact on the environment. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with all applicable requirements of the California Fire Code, including provision of adequate emergency access points, and it would be accessible to fire apparatus. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable development projects in the Fire District service area have been and would be reviewed for impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services and have been and would be required to address any potential impact with mitigation. Additionally, the Fire District plans for service needs consistent with existing demands and growth anticipated in the City planning documents.
Police Protection
The geographic scope of the cumulative police protection analysis is the service area of the American Canyon Police Department, which consists of the American Canyon city limits.
The proposed project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the police service area have been and would continue to be reviewed for impacts on police services and also have been and would continue to be required to address any potential impact with mitigation.
Additionally, the Police Department plans for service needs consistent with existing demands and growth anticipated in the City planning documents.
1.5.11 - Transportation
Potential Effect
TRANS-1: The proposed project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities (Draft EIR Pages 3.12- 13–16).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-16). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phases 1 and 2
Existing Plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-related traffic to the Existing volumes, all study intersections are expected to continue operating at Level of Service (LOS) C or better (Draft EIR, Table 3.12-7). 3788
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Future Conditions
Future (2040) AM and PM peak-hour volume projections for SR-29/South Kelly Road were derived from a buildout analysis which is contained in the Napa Junction III Transportation Impact Analysis Report, Omni-Means, LTD, 2011. Under the anticipated Future volumes, the study intersections are expected to operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak hours except for SR-29/South Kelly Road, which is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak hours. Future volumes are shown in Exhibit 3.12-5 of the Draft EIR and operating conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-8 of the Draft EIR.
Because SR-29 is exempt from the City’s LOS standard and Caltrans no longer applies an LOS standard, the LOS F operation is considered acceptable. While there are future plans for SR-29 to have three through lanes in each direction through American Canyon, funding has not been identified for this capacity enhancement. Thus, the two through lanes configuration was used for the analysis.
Furthermore, the future year analysis results for facilities along SR-29 (specifically, the intersection of SR-29/South Kelly Road) is deemed to be more conservative than what was presented for this intersection in the Watson Ranch Specific Plan EIR (September 2018) which indicated LOS C and D operation for the AM and PM peak-hours, respectively.
Future Plus Project Conditions
Upon the addition of project-generated traffic to the anticipated Future volumes, all unsignalized study intersections are expected to operate acceptably. SR-29/South Kelly Road would continue to operate at LOS F during both peak-hours. Future Plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit
3.12-6 of the Draft EIR and operating conditions are summarized in Table 3.12-8 of the Draft EIR.
As discussed above, there are future plans for SR-29 to have three travel lanes in each direction through American Canyon. As required by the City in its Traffic Impact Fee Program, the proposed project would pay a proportional share fee toward the cost of this planned future infrastructure improvement.
Transit
While existing stops are not located within 0.5 mile of the project site, employees could ride a bicycle along Devlin Road to the nearest transit stop at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Devlin Road. This is consistent with the various City of American Canyon General Plan policies that promote transit accessibility.
Bicycles
Access for bicyclists is provided by Class II bike lanes on Devlin Road between Middleton Way and South Kelly Road together with shared use of minor streets. The proposed project would include bicycle lanes along the project’s Devlin Road frontage and a multimodal path along the north side of Green Island Road. Planned Class I and II bicycle facilities on South Kelly Road and Green Island Road, as well as the Napa Valley Vine Trail along Devlin Road, would improve bicycle connectivity near the project site. This is consistent with the various City of American Canyon General Plan policies that promote bicycle mobility.
3789
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 32 Pedestrian
Upon completion of the project, sidewalks will be provided along Devlin Road between Green Island Road to South Kelly Road. The proposed project also includes construction of a multimodal path along Green Island Road, which would be available for use by pedestrians. This is consistent with the various City of American Canyon General Plan policies that promote pedestrian mobility.
Potential Effect
TRANS-2: The proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (Draft EIR Pages 3.12-16–18).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-18). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phases 1 and 2
The impact of a proposed project is determined by the increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) because of the project. Because the City of American Canyon has no established thresholds of significance related to VMT and the Napa County travel demand model is not currently available for use as a source for VMT analysis, the project-related VMT impacts were quantitatively assessed based on guidance provided by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in the publication Transportation Impacts (SB 743) CEQA Guidelines Update and Technical Advisory, 2018.
Based on a review of established policies currently used by the OPR, Sacramento County, and the City of San José, a VMT impact would be identified at an industrial project if the project VMT per employee is higher than the regional average VMT per employee. This focus on employee trips, as opposed to truck traffic associated with the proposed land uses, reflects the focus in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 on VMT associated with automobiles and light trucks.
For this study, the regional average VMT is defined as the nine county Bay Area average. As reported by the City of Vallejo in their CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (dated October 2020), the Nine County Bay Area Average VMT per employee is 23 miles per employee. According to Statewide Travel Demand Model estimates, the proposed project is located within a Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) with a projected VMT per employee of 16.24 miles. Because this per capita VMT rate is lower than the significance threshold of 23 miles, the proposed project would be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact. A more conservative methodology sometimes used by OPR for other employment-based land uses states that a project generating a VMT that is 15 percent or more below the regional average VMT is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Under this methodology the project would be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact since the VMT per employee of 16.24 miles is less than the threshold of 19.55 miles. A summary of the VMT findings is provided in Table 3.12-9 of the Draft EIR.
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 Technical Advisory on VMT prepared by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for office uses, the VMT for the proposed project is actually substantially more than 15 percent below 3790
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 OPRrecommended threshold of 15 percent below the regional average for office projects.
It is also worth noting that, although the VMT analysis in the Draft EIR did not take direct account of medium- and heavy-duty truck trips, a post-Draft EIR technical study performed by a leading transportation consultant 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 and warehousing operations. The conclusion would still be that VMT-related impacts are less than significant.
Appendix J to Volume 1 of the Final EIR is a June 16, 2022, technical memorandum prepared for Joe Livaich of Buzz Oates Construction by Kevin Johnson and David Robinson of Fehr & Peers, a leading transportation consultant, on the subject of “American Canyon Industrial Warehouse Travel Behavior Data.” According to its authors, “[a] primary objective of the analysis in this memorandum is to address whether VMT from such heavy-duty truck trips would be more or less than 15 percent 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 authors concluded that, if the Draft EIR had taken account of medium- and heavy-duty truck trips from logistics operations, the analysis would still have concluded that the proposed project would have less than significant VMT-related impacts.
Potential Effect
TRANS-3: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (Draft EIR Pages 3.12-18 –19).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-19). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1
W-Trans evaluated site access and sight distance for Phase 1 of the proposed project.
Site Access
Vehicular access to Phase 1 would be provided via four driveways on Green Island Road and four driveways on Devlin Road. All driveways and internal roadways would be designed to current City standards to accommodate heavy vehicles, accommodating the access requirements for both emergency and passenger vehicles.
3791
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 34 Sight Distance
Sight distances along Green Island Road from the project driveways were evaluated based on sight distance criteria contained in the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. Based on the posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour (mph), the minimum stopping sight distance required is 300 feet; a review in the field shows that sight distances at the project driveway locations on Green Island Road would be adequate, provided any vegetation or buildings are sited to ensure maintenance of adequate sight lines. The sight lines for driveways on the Devlin Road connection are expected to be adequate based on a review of the site plans.
Phase 2
Phase 2 access would be provided via Green Island Road and Devlin Road. Standard design and engineering practices would dictate that driveways would be aligned with those on the opposite side of both Green Island Road Devlin Road and spaced sufficiently from other driveways and the western Green Island Road railroad grade crossing to avoid conflicting turning movements or the creation of safety hazards.
Potential Effect
TRANS-4: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access (Draft EIR Pages
3.12-19–20).
Findings: Less than significant impact (Draft EIR Page 3.12-20). No mitigation is necessary.
Facts in Support of Findings
Phase 1 and 2
Pursuant to the California Fire Code, a minimum of two points of access would need to be provided to each building. Compliance would ensure that adequate emergency response is provided.
Vehicular access to Phase 1 would be provided via four driveways on Green Island Road and four driveways on Devlin Road. Construction of the Devlin Road extension is expected to be completed by the time Phase 1 is completed. This would provide a parallel north–south route to SR-29, providing an alternative route for emergency response. Vehicular access to Phase 2 would be provided by driveways on Green Island Road and Devlin Road.
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable developments, would not have a cumulatively significant impact related to transportation (Draft EIR,