American Canyon City Council
March 21, 2023

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
City Hall - Council Chambers
4381 Broadway St., Suite 201, American Canyon
March 21, 2023
6:30 PM
Consistent with Government Code Secon 54953 and the American Canyon City Council Resoluon Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, City Council and other public meengs will be conducted both in person at City Hall, 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, and also via Zoom Teleconferencing to promote local, state, and federal guidelines and social distancing recommendaons for the containment of the coronavirus. City officials and members of the public are invited to a5end the meeng either in person or via teleconference. This meeting will be broadcast live to residents on Napa Valley TV, on our website here and on YouTube here.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Oral comments, during the mee(ng: Oral comments can be made in person during Open and Closed Session. A Zoom Webinar has been established for public comments made via zoom, during Open Session only. To give your public comment via zoom, connect via the below Zoom link and use the “raise your hand” tool, or call into the zoom mee-ng at 408-638-0968 and press *9 to “raise your hand” when the item is called. To avoid confusion, all hands raised outside of Public Comment periods will be lowered.

Written comments, via eComments: Please submit wri2en comments through the eComments link, located on the Mee-ngs & Agendas page of our websitehere. Comments will be available to council members in real -me. To allow for review of comments, eComments will close at 3:00 pm on the day of the mee-ng. All comments received will be posted online and become part of the mee-ng record.

Zoom Meeting Link: Click here.

Webinar ID: 852 5117 7763 Passcode: 123456
The above-iden-fied measures exceed all legal requirements for par-cipa-on in public comment, including those imposed by the Ralph M. Brown Act. For more informa-on, please call the Office of the City Clerk at (707) 647-4369 or email [email protected].

AGENDA MATERIALS: City Council agenda materials are published 72 hours prior to the mee-ng and are available to the public via the City’s website at www.cityofamericancanyon.org.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: The City Council will provide materials in appropriate alterna-ve formats to comply with the Americans with Disabili-es Act. Please send a wri2en request to City Clerk at 4381 Broadway, Suite 201, American Canyon, CA 94503 or by email to [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number and brief descrip-on of the requested materials, as well as your preferred alterna-ve format or auxiliary aid, Mayor: Leon Garcia
Vice Mayor: Pierre Washington
Councilmembers: Mariam Aboudamous, Mark Joseph, David Oro CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 21, 2023
1 at least three calendar days before the meeting.
5:30 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION
The Mayor will call the meeng to order and conduct role call. Council will immediately convene into Closed Session a9er hearing any public comment on Closed Session items. At 6:30 p.m. the Council will reconvene into Open Session and then resume Closed Session at the end of the meeting to address outstanding items, if necessary.

CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION

ROLL CALL - CLOSED SESSION

PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
This me is reserved for members of the public to address the City Council on Closed Session Items only. Comments must be made in person and are limited to 3 minutes. Comments for items on the Open Session agenda will be taken when the item is called in Open Session. Comments for Items not on the Closed Session or Open Session agenda will be heard during the Open Session Public Comment period.

MEETING RECESS - COUNCIL TO CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION
5:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

1. Conference with Legal Counsel – An(cipated Li(ga(on Authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2).

Two Matters.

2. Conference with Legal Counsel - Exis(ng Li(ga(on. Pursuant to Government Code Sec(on 54956.9(d)(1):
a. American Canyon I , LLC vs. Napa Unified School District(Napa Superior Court Case No. 22CV001145).
b. City of American Canyon v. City of Vallejo, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2022-00327471).
c. City of American Canyon v. Leon Dale Schmidt , Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001041
6:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION - REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER - COUNCIL TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL - OPEN SESSION

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION/CONFIRMATION OF REPORTABLE ACTION

PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 21, 2023
2 3. Recognizing Fran Lemos as Congressman Thompson's Napa County Woman of the Year

4. Proclamation Acknowledging Ramadan

5. Juneteenth Presentation
Recommendation: Receive a presenta-on from Brenda Knight and the American Canyon Arts Founda-on regarding the City of American Canyon's 2022 Juneteenth Event and discuss upcoming plans for the 2023 Juneteenth Event.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON CLOSED SESSION OR OPEN SESSION AGENDA This me is reserved for members of the public to address the City Council on items that are not on the Closed Session or Open Session agenda and are within the subject ma5er jurisdicon of the City Council. Comments are limited to 3 minutes. Comments for items on the Open Session agenda will be taken when the item is called in Open Session.The City Council is prohibited by law from taking any acon on ma5ers discussed that are not on the agenda, and no adverse conclusions should be drawn if the City Council does not respond to public comment at this time.

AGENDA CHANGES
The Mayor and Council may change the order of the Agenda or request discussion of a Consent Item. A member of the Public may request discussion of a Consent Item by making that request during Public Comment.

CONSENT CALENDAR

6. Minutes of Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting of January 31, 2023.

7. Minutes of March 7, 2023
Recommendation: Approve the minutes for the City Council meeting of March 7, 2023.

8. Report Upon Return from Closed Session
Recommendation: Approve the Report Upon Return from Closed Session from the Regular City Council Meeting of March 7, 2022.

9. Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Levying a Fire Capital Facili(es Fee on New Construction and Development
Recommendation: Waive second reading, read by -tle only, and adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of American Canyon accep-ng the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Levying a Fire Capital Facili-es Fee on New Construc-on and Development to Fund Fire Protection Services.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. 2022 Calendar Year Housing Element Progress Report
Recommendation: Receive and file annual 2022 Calendar Year Housing Element Progress Report

11. Giovannoni Logistics Center Warehouse Project
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 21, 2023
3 Recommendation: Take the following ac-ons related to the Giovannoni Logis-c Center Warehouse Project:

1. Adopt a Resolu-on of the City Council of the City of American Canyon (i) Approving a Water Supply Assessment, (ii) Cer-fying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021010104), (iii) Adop-ng CEQA Findings of Fact, (iv) Adop-ng a Statement of Overriding Considera-ons, and (v) Adop-ng a Mi-ga-on Monitoring and Repor-ng Program for the Giovannoni Logis-cs Center Project located north of Green Island Road and bisected by Devlin Road, APN 057-090-008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (File No. PL 20-0042).

2. Adopt a Resolu-on of the City Council of the City of American Canyon approving the Giovannoni Logis-cs Center Phase 1 Design Permit to allow up to 1,069,904 square feet of High Cube Warehouse Uses on 70.2 acres, located north of Green Island Road and east of Devlin Road, APN 057-090-008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (File No. PL 20- 0042).

3. Adopt a Resolu-on of the City Council of the City of American Canyon approving the Giovannoni Logis-cs Center Tenta-ve Parcel Map to create a Two-Lot Subdivision for up to 1,069,904 square feet of High Cube Warehouse Uses on 70.2 acres, located north of Green Island Road and east of Devlin Road, APN 057-090-008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (File No. PL 20-0043).

BUSINESS

12. Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Recommendation: Receive and file the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and related communications from the City's external auditor for Fiscal Year 2021-22.

MANAGEMENT AND STAFF ORAL REPORTS

13. Maintenance and Utilities Department, Sewer/Wastewater Division Update Recommendation: Receive a Presenta-on on Maintenance and U-li-es Department, Sewer/Wastewater Division Update

MAYOR/COUNCIL COMMENTS, COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The Mayor and Council may comment on ma5ers of public concern and announce ma5ers of public interest; no collective council action will be taken.

14. City Council Committee Report - Councilmember Joseph

15. Future Agenda Items of Note:

March 24, 2023
Council Workshop
April 4, 2023
National Fair Housing Month
Arts in April Month
American Canyon Police Department Annual Report
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 21, 2023
4 Communications Annual Report
April 18, 2023
Volunteer Week
Speed Survey
Utility Rate Study (Informational)
Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule
May 2, 2023
Municipal Clerk Week
Older Americans Month
Mental Health Month
Bike Month
Secondhand Smoke Prohibition
Kids Commerce Business License Fee Waiver
Proposed Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Budget
May 16, 2023
Memorial Day
Public Works Week
National Building Safety Month
Safe Gun Storage Ordinance
Water Presentation
LLAD Draft Engineers Report

ADJOURNMENT

CERTIFICATION
I, Cherri Walton, CMC, Deputy City Clerk for the City of American Canyon, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda of the City Council was posted in compliance with the Brown Act prior to the meeting date. ______________________________________
Cherri Walton, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 21, 2023
5 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

PROCLAMATION
Acknowledging the Muslim Holiday of Ramadan
WHEREAS, Islam is one of the world’s major religions and part of our shared human heritage; and WHEREAS, California’s Muslim community is one of the most diverse in the nation with ethnic and cultural backgrounds that span the globe; and
WHEREAS, Muslims have a long history in the United States, spanning back to the slave trade, in which 10 to 15 percent of the enslaved African woman and men were said to be Muslim; and WHEREAS, Muslims have long served in the nation’s armed forces and fought in all major United States wars, from the American Revolutionary War to modern conflicts today, with some Muslim Americans making the ultimate sacrifice in combat; and
WHEREAS, Muslims have contributed to social movements throughout the history of the United States to work toward justice and fair inclusion for all; and
WHEREAS, From the early days of the pioneers to our present-day leaders, Muslim Americans have played a significant role in the history of this state’s economic, cultural, spiritual, and political development; and
WHEREAS, There are approximately one million Muslim Americans across this state, contributing to its economy, social fabric, and multicultural and pluralistic traditions; and WHEREAS, The Muslim residents of this state, with their hard work and contributions to medicine, science, information technology, education, police, military, and many other fields, have benefited from and enriched the state’s open, tolerant, and economically vibrant environment; and WHEREAS, Ramadan is a holy month of fasting; a time to reflect spiritually, build communally, and aid those in need and marks an annual spiritual renewal for each individual, a reason to celebrate and express gratitude in this month; and
WHEREAS, The observance of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan commences at dusk on March 22, 2023, and continues for one lunar month, from sunrise to sunset each day; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in observance of, and out of respect for the commencement of Ramadan, the American Canyon City Council acknowledges the onset of Ramadan and expresses its deepest respect to Muslims across California and throughout the world on this significant occasion.

Dated: March 21, 2023 __________________________
Leon Garcia, Mayor
6 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 21, 2023

STAFF REPORT

PRESENTATION
ITEM NUMBER: 5.

TITLE
Juneteenth Presentation

RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presenta'on from Brenda Knight and the American Canyon Arts Founda'on regarding the City of American Canyon's 2022 Juneteenth Event and discuss upcoming plans for the 2023 Juneteenth Event.

CONTACT
Alexandra Ikeda, Parks and Recreation Director

COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Community and Sense of Place: "Build on the strength of our local community to develop a clear 'sense of place' and establish our unique identity."

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
15378(b) - The ac'on is not a "Project" subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it does not qualify as a "Project" under Public Resources Code Sec'ons 21065 and 21080 and in Section 15378(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

ATTACHMENTS:

None
7 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

ACTION MINUTES
January 31, 2023
6:30 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING

CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

Present: City Council: Mayor Leon Garcia, Vice Mayor Pierre Washington, Council Member Mariam Aboudamous, Councilmember Mark Joseph, Councilmember David Oro.

Planning Commission: Chair Crystal Mallare, Vice Chair Brando Cruz, Commissioner Eric Altman, Commissioner Davet Mohammed

Absent: Commissioner Andrew Goff
Excused: None

PUBLIC COMMENT - ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Mayor Leon Garcia opened the public comment period. Written comments: none. Oral comments: none. The public comment period was closed.

PUBLIC HEARING

1. 6th Cycle Draft Public Review Housing Element
Council and Commissioners received a staff report and presentation from Community Development Brent Cooper with City Attorney William Ross and consultants Nina Bellucci, Rincon; Ryan Lester, Mintier Harnish.

Mayor Leon Garcia opened the Public Hearing and called for public comments. Written comments: Barry Christian, Californians for Homeownership. Oral comments: none. The public comment period and Public Hearing were closed.

Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution 2023-02 of the Planning Commission of the City of American Canyon, California, recommending the City Council of the City of American Canyon, California adopt a General Plan Amendment Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update 8 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65588 (File No. PL23-0001) made by Commissioner Altman, seconded by Commissioner Mohammed, and CARRIED by a roll call vote.

Ayes: Commissioners Eric Altman, Davet Mohammed, Vice Chair Brando Cruz, Chair Crystal Mallare
Nays: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Andrew Goff
Excused: None
Planning Commission adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 7:55 p.m.

City Council reconvened to open session at 8:09 p.m.

City attorney William reported on the closed session discussion.

Action: Motion to adopt Resolution 2023-06 of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, California adopting a General Plan Amendment Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update pursuant to California Government Code Section 65588 (File No. PL23-0001).

Made by Councilmember Joseph, seconded by Vice-Mayor Washington and CARRIED by a roll call vote.

Ayes: Councilmembers Mariam Aboudamous, Mark Joseph, David Oro, Vice Mayor Pierre Washington, Mayor Leon Garcia
Nays: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
Excused: None

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:13 p.m.

CERTIFICATION
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________
Nicolle Hall, Administrative Technician
9 CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

ACTION MINUTES
March 7, 2023
5:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION

CALL TO ORDER - CLOSED SESSION
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Vice Mayor Pierre Washington.

ROLL CALL - CLOSED SESSION

Present: Councilmember Mark Joseph, Councilmember Mariam Aboudamous, Vice Mayor Pierre Washington
Excused: Councilmember David Oro, Mayor Leon Garcia

PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Vice Mayor Pierre Washington opened Public Comments. Written Comments: None. Oral Comments:

None. The public comment period was closed.

MEETING RECESS - COUNCIL TO CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION
Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:07 p.m.

Mayor Leon Garcia arrived at 5:15 p.m. but recused himself from the Closed Session item heard first. He joined the meeting at 5:26 p.m.
5:00 P.M. - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS

1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1):

City of American Canyon v. City of Vallejo, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2022- 00327471).

American Canyon I, LLC vs. Napa Unified School District (Napa Superior Court Case No. 22CV001145).

In the Matter of Inspection and Order to Abate at 106 Wilson Way (APN: 058-370-002) (Napa Superior Court Case No. 22CV000850).

2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Two Matters. 10 6:30 P.M. OPEN SESSION - REGULAR MEETING

CALL TO ORDER - COUNCIL TO RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
Council returned from Closed Session and the Open Session was called to order at 6:32 p.m.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

ROLL CALL - OPEN SESSION

Present: Councilmember Mark Joseph, Councilmember Mariam Aboudamous, Vice Mayor Pierre Washington, Mayor Leon Garcia
Excused: Councilmember David Oro

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION/CONFIRMATION OF REPORTABLE ACTION City Attorney William Ross provided an oral report upon return from closed session. Closed session commenced at 5:07 p.m. called to order by Vice Mayor Pierre Washington. Mayor Garcia joined at 5:26 pm and Closed Session concluded at 6:15 p.m. A written report will be provided.

PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

3. Proclamation - March 2023, American Red Cross Month
The Proclamation was received by Pam Chappelle.

4. Proclamation - March 2023, National Women's History Month The Proclamation was received by Beth Goff with all the women in the room.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - ITEMS NOT ON CLOSED SESSION OR OPEN SESSION AGENDA Mayor Garcia called for public comments. Written comments: none. Oral comments: William Baker was called to speak; Clarence Mamaril was called to speak; Justin Hamilton Hole was called to speak; Beth Marcus was called to speak. Fran Lemos was called to speak. The public comments period was closed.

AGENDA CHANGES
There were no changes to the agenda.

CONSENT CALENDAR
Action: Motion to adopt CONSENT CALENDAR made by Councilmember Mark Joseph, seconded by Vice Mayor Pierre Washington, and CARRIED by roll call vote.

Ayes: Councilmember Mark Joseph, Councilmember Mariam Aboudamous, Vice Mayor Pierre Washington, Mayor Leon Garcia
Nays: None
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
11 5. Minutes of Regular City Council Meeting on February 21, 2023 Action: Approved the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of February 7, 2023.

6. Report Upon Return from Closed Session
Action: Approved the Report Upon Return from Closed Session from the Regular City Council Meeting of February 21, 2022.

7. Measure T Equivalent Fund Certification
Action: Adopted Resolution 2023-20 approving certification of Equivalent Fund expenditures under the Measure "T" Program (The Napa Countywide Road Maintenance Act).

8. 2021 Annual Pavement Management Project (TR21-0100) Notice of Completion Action: Adopted Resolution 2023-21 amending the FY22-23 Capital Budget and Project Budget, accepting the project as complete, authorizing the Public Works Director to file a "Notice of Completion" (Agreement 2023-08-R), and releasing a Retention payment to VSS International, Inc. in conjunction with the 2021 Annual Pavement Management Project (TR21-0100).

9. Quarterly Investment Report for City and Fire District Fiscal Year 2022-23 Quarter 2 Action: Received and filed the City and Fire District's Treasurer's Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2022.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

10. Development Impact Fee imposed on behalf of the American Canyon Fire Protection District Council received a staff report from Fire Chief Geoff Belyea. Mayor Garcia opened the public hearing and called for public comments. Written comments: none. Oral comments: Hugh Marquez was called to speak. The public comments and Public Hearing were closed.

Action: Motion to Waive first reading, by title only, and adopt an Ordinance accepting the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Levying a Fire Capital Facilities Fee on New Construction and Development to Fund Fire Protection Services made by Vice Mayor Pierre Washington, seconded by Councilmember Mariam Aboudamous, and CARRIED by roll call vote.

Ayes: Councilmember Mark Joseph, Councilmember Mariam Aboudamous, Vice Mayor Pierre Washington, Mayor Leon Garcia
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Excused: Councilmember David Oro
12 BUSINESS

11. Pavement Management Program Update P-TAP 23
Council received a staff report from Public Works Director Erica Ahman Smithies. Mayor Garcia called for public comments. Written comments: none. Oral comments: none. The public comments period was closed.

Action: Council received the Pavement Management Program P-TAP 23 Budget Options Report Summary and filed it with the City Clerk.

MANAGEMENT AND STAFF ORAL REPORTS

12. Public Works Department Quarterly Update
Council received a Public Works Department Quarterly Update presentation from Public Works Director Erica Ahman Smithies.

Council received Management Oral Reports from Maintenance & Utilities Director Felix Hernandez, III and Parks & Recreation Director Alexandra Ikeda.

MAYOR/COUNCIL COMMENTS, COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

13. City Council Committee Report - Councilmember Mark Joseph Councilmembers commented on their council reports and other items of interest.

14. Future Agenda Items of Note:

March 21, 2023
Juneteenth Event Presentation
Giovannoni Logistics Center Design Permit, PM, EIR
Housing Element 5th Cycle Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Auditor Report
March 24, 2023
Council FY 2023/24 Budget Workshop
April 4, 2023
Proclamation Acknowledging Ramadan Month
Proclamation Acknowledging National Fair Housing Month
Proclamation Acknowledging Arts in April Month
13 AB 481 Military Equipment Ordinance
American Canyon Police Department Annual Report
Annual Communications Report
April 18, 2023
Proclamation Acknowledging April Volunteer Week
Speed Survey Ordinance
Facility Rental Insurance
Fee Schedule for Parks and Recreation Department
May 2, 2023
Utility Rate Study Session
FY 2023/24 Proposed Budget

ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

CERTIFICATION
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________________
Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk
14 William D. Ross
David Schwarz
Kypros G. Hostetter
Law Offices of
William D. Ross
400 Lambert Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: (650) 843-8080
Facsimile: (650) 843-8093
www.lawross.com
Los Angeles Office:
11420 Santa Monica Blvd
#25532
Los Angeles, CA 90025
File No: 199/6
March 9, 2023

VIA E-MAIL
The Honorable Leon Garcia, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Re: Report Upon Return from Closed Session; Virtual Regular City Council Closed Session Meeting of the American Canyon City Council; March 7, 2023 Dear Mayor Garcia and Members of the City Council:

This communication sets forth reportable action, if any, of the City Council (“Council”) of the City of American Canyon (“City”), consistent with provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Opening Meeting Act (Government Code Section 54950, et seq.) resulting from the Closed Session of the Virtual Regular City Council Closed Session Meeting of March 7, 2023, consistent with Government Code Section 54957.1.

Vice Mayor Washington called the meeting to order in Open Session at 5:08 p.m. (Mayor Garcia not present, see below) and ascertained that there were no public comments on matters agendized for Closed Session consideration, and then adjourned to Closed Session at 5:08 p.m.

There were two matters agendized for City Closed Session consideration.

1. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
Authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) a. City of American Canyon v. City of Vallejo, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2022-00327471).
b. American Canyon I, LLC v. Napa Valley Unified School District (Napa County Superior Court Case No 22CV001145).
c. City of American Canyon v. Leon Dale Schmidt (Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001041).
15 The Honorable Leon Garcia, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
March 9, 2023

2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation Two Matters.

The Council first considered a matter under Anticipated Litigation on which Mayor Garcia has previously recused himself based on an acknowledged conflict of interest. With respect to that matter, although direction was given to the City Attorney and Staff (4-0) to take certain action with respect to the Eagle Vines Lease, there was no reportable action under the common law attorneyclient privilege and that provided by Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2).

After conclusion of the matter just referenced, Mayor Garcia joined Closed Session at 5:26 p.m.

With respect to Closed Session Agenda Item No. 1.a., there was no reportable action under the common law attorney-client privilege and that provided by Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).

With respect to Closed Session Agenda Item No. 1.b., there was no reportable action under the common law attorney-client privilege and that provided by Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).

With respect to Closed Session Agenda Item No. 1.c., (American Canyon v. Leon Dale Schmidt, Napa County Superior Court Case No. 22CV001041), there was reportable action of unanimous direction (5–0) to proceed with a request to enter default judgment to continue to review the property for City Municipal Code violations as the debris is accumulated on the Property and Mr. Schmidt is attempting to reside on the property without water, sewer, electrical or natural gas service. Except as indicated, there was no other reportable action under the common law attorney-client privilege and that provided by Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1).

With respect to the second item considered under Closed Session Agenda Item No. 2., there was reportable action in the form of direction (5-0) to authorize a proposed settlement with California Trenchless Inc., under specific terms and conditions. Except as indicated, there was no other reportable action under the common law attorney-client privilege and that provided by Government Code Section 5496.9(d)(2).

Your Council concluded the Closed Session at 6:15 p.m. where it was indicated that a written report upon return from Closed Session consistent with Government Code Section 54957.1, would be prepared.

This communication should be reviewed under the Consent portion of the Agenda of your next Regular or Special City Council Meeting.

Should you have questions concerning this Report, it may be taken off the Consent calendar 16 The Honorable Leon Garcia, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
March 9, 2023

when agendized in the future, or our office may be contacted in the interim.

Very truly yours,
William D. Ross
City Attorney
WDR:jf
cc: Jason B. Holley, City Manager
Maria Ojeda, Assistant City Manager
Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk
Cherri Walton, Deputy City Clerk
17 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 21, 2023

STAFF REPORT

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM NUMBER: 9.

TITLE
Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Levying a Fire Capital Facili,es Fee on New Construc,on and Development

RECOMMENDATION
Waive second reading, read by ,tle only, and adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of American Canyon accep,ng the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study and Levying a Fire Capital Facilities Fee on New Construction and Development to Fund Fire Protection Services.

CONTACT
Geoff Belyea, Fire Chief
William D. Ross, Legal Counsel

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The American Canyon Fire Protection District currently has a voter-approved special tax that is levied upon new development and also charges an aerial ladder development impact fee of $0.50 per square foot for buildings exceeding 2 stories or 32’ in height. Upda,ng the fee amount is essen,al to keep pace with the infla,onary costs of construc,ng and equipping fire sta,ons. The special tax is subject to an annual adjustment for infla,on, while the aerial ladder fee is sta,c. Land acquisi,on and construction costs have far outpaced the inflationary factor and static fee amount.

The District Board has recognized the need to plan for the impact of future development by authorizing staff to retain the services of AP Triton to conduct a Long-Range Master Plan and Capitol PFG to conduct a development impact fee study.

At the Fire Board’s January 24, 2023 Regular Mee,ng, the Board adopted a Resolu,on to begin the process of implemen,ng a fee to offset the rising costs that new development imposes on the District.

As discussed below, for such a fee to become effec,ve, it must be implemented by the City (for proper,es within both the City and the District) and the County of Napa (for proper,es within the District and the County).

Legal Requirements
18 The Fire Protec,on District Law of 1987 does not allow a fire district to charge a fee for public improvements, facili,es, or equipment. However, it is common prac,ce for fire districts to work with ci,es and coun,es to impose an impact fee on the fire district's behalf. This approach is effec,ve, given the mutual interest in ci,es and fire agencies to adequately fund fire services to protect the lives and property of their residents. To that end, the District will need to work with the County of Napa and the City of American Canyon to charge and collect the fee for the District.

Capitol PFG has completed a development impact fee study which meets the requirements of the California Mi,ga,on Fee Act. Specifically, the fee study makes findings as to the purpose and use of the fee as it pertains to the District's growth plan and the associated capital costs, and determines that the fees are supported by an appropriate “nexus” – meaning the costs of the fees successfully approximate the actual costs for which they are intended to offset.

California Government Code §66018 requires a local agency to hold a public hearing prior to adop,ng a fee. Prior to the hearing the local agency is required to publish the purpose of the hearing in accordance with the regula,ons. The City conducted its first reading of the proposed Ordinance on March 7, 2023, at a properly noticed hearing.

Long Range Master Plan
The District, as the fire agency that serves all property within the City, takes a system-wide approach to delivering services, meaning resources are deployed across its service area as needed, for as long as needed to mi,gate an emergency event. The recently completed long-range master plan contemplates development in master planned areas as well as infill development that also contributes to increased call volume. Therefore, the long-range master plan and associated fee study includes updates to capital requirements to accommodate master planned areas and infill development alike.

Fee Update
The Capitol PFG fee study report supports the adop,on of a development impact fee for fire facili,es of $0.98 per square foot of new construc,on. This development impact fee is inclusive of the exis,ng voter approved tax on new development such that the combined new impact fee and exis,ng voter approved special tax would equate to a total of $0.98 per square foot of new construc,on. (i.e., Developers would receive a credit against the Fire Capital Facili,es Fee equal to any mi,ga,on tax imposed on the project.) A comparison of the current mi,ga,on tax and fee with what is being proposed is summarized in the table below.

New Impact Fee Calculation - Not Subject to Aerial Ladder Fee Type Construction
New Fire Capital
Facilities Fee
Less-Voter Approved
Tax Credit
Net Impact Fee
Residential
Single-Family $0.98 $0.27 $0.71
Multi-Family $0.98 $0.33 $0.65
19 Commercial $0.98 $0.50 $0.48
Industrial $0.98 $0.60 $0.38
SB 13 Compliance
SB-13 Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), as chaptered on October 9th, 2019, amended, repealed, and added to Sec,on 65852.2 of the Government Code provides that certain ADUs are exempt from development impact fees. In consulta,on with the County of Napa and the City of American Canyon, staff recommends implementing each local agency's policy regarding SB-13 compliance.

COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Public Safety: "Ensure American Canyon remains a safe community."

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed development fee will not have a fiscal impact on the City. However, establishing the Fire Capital Facili,es Fee will ensure the District (1) con,nues to collect the necessary funds to construct the new sta,on and acquire the apparatus and equipment needed to serve new development; (2) avoids any nega,ve impact on exis,ng service delivery because of the need to serve new development; and (3) provides a fair, equitable, and reasonable alloca,on of the improvement costs across all future development.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The approval of the proposed Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Sec,on 15060(c)(2) because the ac,vity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. It is also categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Sec,on 15060(c)(3) and Sec,on 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regula,ons, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it is a governmental financing mechanism that has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance - Fire Development Impact Fee.pdf

2. American Canyon FPD Impact Fee Study

3. Comparable Fire District Impact Fees

4. Fire District Resolution 2023-07
20 ORDINANCE NO. 2023-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA,

ACCEPTING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY AND LEVYING A FIRE CAPITAL

FACILITIES FEE FOR ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION AND NEW DEVELOPMENT TO FUND FIRE

PROTECTION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the American Canyon Fire Protection District (District) provides fire protection, emergency medical services and hazardous material response to residents and businesses within the City of American Canyon (City);
WHEREAS, the California Mitigation Fee Act authorizesthe City to impose feesthat offset the costs imposed on public services by new development, including the costs incurred for emergency response and fire protection services;
WHEREAS, the District has identified the need to plan for the impact of future development on existing resources, including keeping pace with new development by constructing and equipping current and future fire stations, and therefore retained the services of AP Triton to conduct a LongRange Master Plan and Capitol PFG to conduct a development impact fee study; WHEREAS, Capitol PFG has completed a development impact fee study which meets the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act. Specifically, the fee study makes findings as to the purpose and use of the fee asit pertainsto the District's growth plan and the associated capital costs, and determines that the fees are supported by an appropriate “nexus” – meaning the amount of the fees successfully approximate the actual costsfor which they are intended to offset; WHEREAS, although the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 does not allow a fire district to directly charge a fee for public improvements, facilities, or equipment, it is common practice for fire districts to work with cities and counties to impose an impact fee on the fire district's behalf; WHEREAS, the mutual interest of the City and District are fulfilled by the City enacting a Development Impact Fee, as authorized by the Mitigation Fee Act and the City’s police powers, to fund fire and emergency response servicesfor the protection of lives and property of City residents and to ensure that the District has the resources and capabilities of keeping pace with new construction within the City;
WHEREAS, consistent with Government Code section 66001, the City intends to levy a Development Impact Fee on all new residential, commercial, and industrial development within the City’s boundaries, to fund capital equipment and facilities construction needs for the District; WHEREAS, at the Fire Board’s January 24, 2023 Regular Meeting, the Board adopted a Resolution to begin the process of implementing a fee to offset the rising costs that new development imposes on the District, and to work with the City to implement the fee (for properties within both the City 21 and the District) and to work with the County of Napa (for properties within the District and the County); and
WHEREAS, the proposed fee shall be updated on an annual basis to account for inflationary costs and/or as updates are needed based upon the current costs of construction and equipping fire stations.

NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council, having considered all the evidence, accepts the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Prepared by Capitol PFG and the findings and conclusions therein, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. The City Council adopts a Fire Capital Facilities Fee based upon the square footage of the structure as determined from the plans submitted with the application for a building permit and computed as follows:

A. Any proposed structure designed for use as a single-family dwelling unit shall be assessed a fee of ninety-eights cents ($.98) per square foot. For purposes of this subsection a single-family dwelling shall mean a dwelling unit containing not more than one kitchen and designed to house not more than one family.

B. Any proposed structure designed for use as a multiple family dwelling unit shall be assessed a tax of ninety-eights cents ($.98) per square foot. For purposes of this subsection, a multiple family dwelling unit shall mean any structure designed to house two or more families living independently of each other and may consist of one building or a series of detached dwelling units.

C. Any proposed structure designed to be used for business or commercial purposes shall be assessed a tax of ninety-eights cents ($.98) per square foot. Business or commercial purposes as used herein includes, but is not limited to, facilities used primarily for public assembly, sleeping rooms in hotels, or motels, and mental or physical convalescent facilities.

D. Any proposed structure designed to be used for industrial purposes shall be assessed a tax of ninety-eights cents ($.98) per square foot. Industrial purposes as used in this subsection shall mean any use involving manufacturing, fabricating, refining, processing, research, warehousing, or similar uses.

E. Where a structure is replaced, no fee shall be payable, provided the square footage of the new structure is the same or less than the replaced structure.

F. Where a structure is remodeled, no fee shall be payable, provided the square footage of the new structure is the same or less than the remodeled structure.

G. If a fee had been previously paid to the District, and the new structure contains less square footage than the old structure, no refund shall be payable by the District.

H. The Fire Capital Facilities Fee shall automatically be adjusted July 1 of each year according to the change in the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco / Oakland / San Jose area for the twelve-month period ending the preceding April. 22 SECTION 3. The City shall implement, administer, and oversee the collection of such fees and remit those fees to the District. The actual amount of Fire Capital Facilities Fee due and payable shall be the amount determined undersection 2 above less any Fire Mitigation Fee paid pursuant to District Resolution 86-5.

SECTION 4. The Development Impact Fee, including any adjustments based on inflation, may be required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit.

SECTION 5. Staff shall assist the District Fire Chief to take all actions necessary to implement, administer, and collect the Fire Capital Facilities Fee Schedule, and as part of the District’s budget process shall annually review the estimated costs of capital improvements and capital equipment and evaluate the continued need for those improvements and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of the various types of development pending or anticipated and for which the fee is charged.

The foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 7th day of March, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

The foregoing Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon, State of California, held on the 21 st day of March, 2023, by the
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT
Leon Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Taresa Geilfuss, City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney 23 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY

FIRE FACILITIES
JANUARY 2023
Prepared by:
2436 Professional Drive, Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661
(916) 641-2734
www.capitolpfg.com
24 January 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2: THE MITIGATION FEE ACT ........................................................................... 3 PURPOSE OF THE FEE ................................................................................................. 3 USE OF THE FEE....................................................................................................... 3 BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP .............................................................................................. 4 BURDEN RELATIONSHIP .............................................................................................. 4 PROPORTIONALITY .................................................................................................... 4 OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF AB 1600 ............................................................................... 4 SECTION 3: METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT FEE STUDY .......................................................... 6 FACILITY STANDARDS METHODOLOGY.............................................................................. 6 SECTION 4: PREVIOUS STUDIES/CURRENT FEES............................................................... 8 SECTION 5: DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA..................................................................... 9 OTHER DISTRICT INFORMATION................................................................................... 10 SECTION 6: EXISTING ASSETS..................................................................................... 11 FACILITIES........................................................................................................... 11 VEHICLES AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT .............................................................................. 11 SECTION 7: ANTICIPATED GROWTH ............................................................................. 13 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 13 SECTION 8: NECESSARY FACILITIES............................................................................. 14 EXISTING CAPITAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 14 NEW STATION COST................................................................................................ 14 APPARATUS, VEHICLE & CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COSTS .......................................................... 14 AVAILABLE REVENUE SOURCES.................................................................................... 15 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS ......................................................................................... 15 SECTION 9: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION ..................................................... 17 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION ......................................................................................... 17 IMPOSING THE FEE ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTY TYPES................................................ 18 SECTION 10: ASSESSING THE FEE ............................................................................... 19 SECTION 11: IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................. 20 FIRE DISTRICT BOARD APPROVAL ................................................................................ 20 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL ................................................................... 20 FEE ACCOUNTING ................................................................................................... 20 USE OF THE FEE..................................................................................................... 20 INFLATION ADJUSTMENT ........................................................................................... 21 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................... 21 25 - 1 - January 2023
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The American Canyon Fire Protection District (the “District”) provides fire protection, fire prevention, emergency medical to the City of American Canyon and portions of Napa County.

This study is intended to update the development impact fee imposed by the District. This report summarizes an analysis of the need for fire facilities and equipment to accommodate new development within the District’s boundaries and documents a reasonable relationship between new development, the fee, and the facilities and capital equipment to be funded.

Napa County has and will continue to experience growth. As a consequence, local public works are faced with the challenge of providing service to an expanding customer base with limited resources for upgrading the infrastructure necessary to accommodate such expansion. The District too faces the challenge of providing fire facilities and services to service new development within its boundaries. The impact fees collected as a result of new construction provides a funding source for the construction of fire facilities and purchase of vehicles and equipment necessary for this purpose.

The District currently has a voter approved special tax that is levied upon new development and charges an aerial ladder development impact fee of $0.50 per square foot fee for buildings exceeding 2 stories or 32’ in height. Ultimately, this study will demonstrate the need for an adjustment to the development impact fee due to the increasing amount of development within the District’s boundaries and the rapidly increasing cost of building public facilities.

This report updates the development impact fee based on the current values of all fire equipment and facilities necessary to protect current residents at current service levels. This fee is translated into a per square foot cost that is imposed on any new construction which may occur. Impact fees paid will allow for the District to provide the necessary facilities, vehicles, and equipment necessary to maintain current service levels.

This report supports the adoption of a development impact fee for fire facilities of $0.98 per square foot of new construction. This fee is in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et. seq.), and this report substantiates the findings required by the Act.

Upon the submittal of this report to the District, it is incumbent upon the District Board of Directors (the “Board”), assisted by staff, to review and evaluate the report for accuracy and agreement with the conclusions presented. Once the Board is satisfied that the legislative requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. are met and the fee adjustment recommendations are valid, the Board shall submit a recommendation regarding the fee adjustments to the American Canyon City Council and the Napa County Board of Supervisors for enactment.

After accepting and considering public input, the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors shall vote to approve findings and a resolution to set the appropriate fees, shown in Table 1. If accepted, the fees would be imposed pursuant to the County’s development “police powers” under Article XI, section 7, of the California Constitution. 26 - 2 - January 2023
TABLE 1
Type Construction
Total Impact
Fee
Less VoterApproved
Fee Credit
Net Impact
Fee
Residential
Single Family $0.98 $0.2714 $0.71
Multi-Family $0.98 $0.3312 $0.65
Commercial $0.98 $0.4968 $0.48
Industrial $0.98 $0.6025 $0.38
Net Impact Fee Calculation
27 - 3 - January 2023
SECTION 2: THE MITIGATION FEE ACT
In 1987, the California Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1600 which established a uniform process for formulating, adopting, imposing, collecting, accounting for, and protesting impact fees. In order to impose an impact fee, a local agency must go through a process to establish a reasonable relationship between a development project and the public improvement for which the development fee is charged.

The most important part of AB 1600 is the requirement for findings that connect any impact stemming from a development project to the type and amount of the fee imposed or what is commonly referred to as the “Nexus” requirement. Government Code Section 66001 states that after January 1, 1989, in any action “establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project,” the local agency shall do all of the following:
1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
2) Identify how the fee is to be used. If the use is for financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified.
3) Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 4) Determine how a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 5) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of this development impact fee is to ensure that new development within the District pays its proportionate share of the capital investments to be made by the District along with its share of future capital costs, which are necessary to provide fire protection, fire suppression and other fire safety services adequate to accommodate a growing service population. The District is prudent in requiring that new development not burden existing property owners with the cost of public facilities required to accommodate growth. The District can further this objective through the imposition of development impact fees. The purpose of the development impact fee is to implement this policy by providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fee helps to ensure that the level of service is maintained as new development offsets the increased costs of providing service as growth occurs.

Use of the Fee
The development impact fee will fund new construction of fire stations, apparatus, vehicles, and capital equipment needed to serve new development. All facilities and capital equipment will be located within the boundaries of the District. As detailed in the following sections of this report, these facilities include:
 land for new fire stations
 fire station construction or expansion
28 - 4 - January 2023
 fire apparatus acquisition
 vehicle acquisition
 capital equipment acquisition
 financing costs associated with the above listed capital expenditures This report provides the cost estimates for projected facility needs.

Benefit Relationship
The District will restrict fee revenues to the acquisition of land, construction/reconstruction/ expansion of buildings, and purchase of apparatus, vehicles and capital equipment, and related financing costs to serve new development. Fire facilities and capital equipment funded by the fee will further the District-wide network of services accessible to the additional residences and businesses associated with new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and non-residential types of new development that will pay the fee.

Burden Relationship
The purpose of assessing an impact fee is to provide the capital resources necessary to sustain a constant level of service for fire protection, emergency medical response, rescue and extrication, containment and mitigation of hazardous materials exposure, and other life safety services that is required of a growing service population. Based on the District’s historical experience in responding to calls for service among the varying types of development in its boundaries, it is appropriate to assess the on fee on a uniform basis in order to share the costs on a pro rata basis among existing and new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development served by the capital resources funded by the fee.

Proportionality
The reasonable proportionality relationship can be established by identifying the facility costs attributable to future development, then establishing fee rates that allocate those costs in proportion to the demands created by each type of development project. The fee apportions costs between the existing population and new development in a manner proportional to their contribution of the need for that facility. Further, fees are imposed based on building size as measured by habitable and enclosed square feet of each building. Thus, larger buildings that have a greater demand for fire service and related capital facilities and equipment pay a proportionately higher fee than smaller buildings.

Other Requirements of AB 1600
In addition to the Nexus requirements, AB 1600 also outlines the accounting for future revenue received through imposition of impact fees on new construction projects. AB 1600 requires that upon receipt of a fee, the local agency deposit into a separate capital facilities account or fund, in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the agency, and expend the fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Interest gained on the capital facilities accounts or funds shall be separated, accounted, and expended in the same manner.

The agency Board shall make findings once each fiscal year with respect to any portion of the fee remaining unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years after the deposit 29 - 5 - January 2023
of the fee. The finding shall identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged.

The agency shall refund to the current record owner(s) of the project, on a prorated basis, the unexpended or uncommitted portion of the fee, with interest, for which the required findings cannot be made. Upon certain circumstances, with appropriately noticed hearings, the legislation allows alternative actions.

The agency shall annually adopt and update, by resolution at a publicly noticed hearing, any capital improvement plan defined in this legislation.
30 - 6 - January 2023
SECTION 3: METHODOLOGY FOR IMPACT FEE STUDY
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the capital needs that are a direct result of growth due to new development. In order to fund the improvements needed due to growth occurring within the District, it is necessary to determine what the appropriate fee should be.

There are four basic steps followed in the calculation of any development impact fee, these include:

1. Prepare growth projections;

2. Identify facility standards;

3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standards and growth projections;

4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development (on a square foot basis).

Facility Standards Methodology
One important issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards. Facility standards determine new development’s total need for new facilities and each development unit’s fair share of those needs. Standards also ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

The District will determine the size and location of fire stations, vehicles, and equipment necessary to ensure they will be sufficient to accommodate the personnel needed to serve the amount of new development anticipated. This study uses the District’s existing inventory of facilities, vehicles, and equipment combined with planned facilities needed to accommodate future development as the District’s facilities standard. The District’s existing inventory of facilities, vehicles, and equipment serve the entire District and will serve future development.

Further, additional facilities, vehicles, and equipment will be needed to serve the anticipated future service population because of new development.

The District currently provides fire and emergency response services to a large response area.

Given the District’s size and protection facilities, vehicles, and equipment available at any one time, it is understandable that new construction will only exacerbate the protection challenges of the District. Given such facts, the District has determined that current service levels will be used as a benchmark and that new construction will not adversely affect these service levels.

To mitigate new construction’s impact on the District’s service capabilities, new development must be required to pay development impact fees. Assuming that the current levels of service being provided to the District’s residents are to be considered the standard, any additional construction within the District’s boundaries which requires fire or emergency response services, will pay an impact fee that is proportionate to such service. Given the existing demands placed on the District, existing stations, vehicles, and equipment should not be utilized to accommodate new construction at the expense of existing service levels. To offset the impact, the development impact fees will be used to construct or purchase new facilities, vehicles, and equipment necessary to accommodate such growth.

The District’s inventory of existing and planned fire facilities was used as part of the basis for calculating the District's facility standard. This standard is used to determine new development's fair share obligation for expanded facilities as growth occurs. The District’s 31 - 7 - January 2023
existing fire protection facilities described in this Report currently serve the entire District.

The facility standard utilized in this study will specifically benefit any new development that will occur within the District as it will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development.

The District has the flexibility to alter the list of necessary facilities shown in this report as conditions change. If the overall cost of facilities necessary to mitigate the anticipated residential and commercial growth is altered significantly then the District should update this fee program to incorporate those changes.
32 - 8 - January 2023
SECTION 4: PREVIOUS STUDIES/CURRENT FEES
The American Canyon Fire Protection District’s previous development impact fee study was prepared and adopted in August 1986, the fee has been adjusted each year according to changes in the Consumer Price Index, most recently in June 2022. The District’s current impact fees are shown in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2
The District also charges an aerial fee for buildings exceeding 2 stories or 32’ in height at the lowest point of the roof, an aerial truck fee of $0.50 per square foot will be charged on all habitable area of the 3rd or higher floors, or the entire building if over 32’ in height at lowest point of the roof.

Capitol Public Finance Group, LLC was contracted by the American Canyon Fire Protection District to provide this updated Development Impact Fee Study. This study is intended to establish the legal and policy basis for the calculation and imposition of impact fees on all new development within the District. The study will analyze the impact of recent and future construction on the needs of District, evaluate the existing mitigation program that was adopted in August 1986, and consider the changes that have occurred in the development community since the study was completed.

Ultimately, this study will demonstrate the need for an adjustment to the development impact fee due to the increasing amount of development within the District’s boundaries and the rapidly increasing cost of building public facilities.

Construction Type
Impact Fee per
Square Foot
Residential
Single Family $0.2714
Multi-Family $0.3312
Commercial $0.4968
Industrial $0.6025
Current Impact Fees
33 - 9 - January 2023
SECTION 5: DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
The District serves the City of American Canyon, as well as portions of Napa County. As shown in Figure 1, the District is located in southern Napa County, bordering northern Solano County.

FIGURE 1
The District was formed as an independent special district in 1957, and is responsible for the protection of a variety of geographical areas, ranging from residential neighborhoods, 34 - 10 - January 2023
commercial and industrial buildings, rural areas, as well as a portion of Highway 29. The District covers 15 square miles and serves a population of approximately 22,300 people.

Other District Information
The District provides a full range of services, including fire prevention, fire suppression, and emergency medical response in addition to a variety of other miscellaneous requests. The District is a Special District, a self-governed agency led by a five-member Board of Directors, and is composed of 21 full time employees, 1 Fire Chief, 1 Assistant Fire Chief and 2 fire executive assistants.

The District responded to 7,685 service calls from 2017 through 2021. Rescue and EMS calls amounted to 69.9% of the service calls, as shown in the Chart 1. On average the District had approximately 1,537 service calls per year over the past five years.

CHART 1
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District
35 - 11 - January 2023
SECTION 6: EXISTING ASSETS
Facilities
The District currently operates out of two fire stations and has a communications building located in American Canyon. A training tower is also located on-site at Station 211. Station 11 is a public safety facility that is shared with the American Canyon Police Department. An inventory of the District’s stations and the year they were constructed is shown in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District
Vehicles and Capital Equipment

The District’s equipment inventory is shown in Table , and Table 5 shows the District’s current apparatus and vehicles.

Table 4
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District
Building Address Year Built
Insured
Value
Station 211 225 James Road 1980 $1,490,517
Training Tower 225 James Road 1990 $127,299
Station 11 911 East Donaldson Way 2007 $6,332,339
Communications Building 4401 Hess Drive 1980 $84,267
Total $8,034,422
American Canyon Fire Protection District Facilities Inventory Description
Estimated
Value
Breathing Apparatus $283,966
Chest Compression Systems $37,494
Defibrillators $90,751
Fill Station $116,296
Fire Hoses $10,717
Termal Imaging $59,644
Total $598,868
Equipment Inventory and
Estimated Value
36 - 12 - January 2023
TABLE 5
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District
Apparatus Type Year Insured Value
White FT 1955 $3,500
Wells Cargo Trailer 1990 $24,000
Ford Utility Pickup 2001 $50,000
Zodiak MK 2002 $15,000
Achilles/Honda - 15 HP 2003 $4,800
American La France 75' Quint Engine 2005 $975,000
Interstate Trailer 2006 $24,000
SPCNS Trailer 2006 $24,000
Ford Ambulance 2007 $5,000
Ford F-150 Utility 2007 $50,000
Ameri-Can Engineering 814 Traditional Restroom Trialer 2009 $24,000 Ford F150 2011 $75,000
International Water Tender 2013 $400,000
Hyundai Tucson 2015 $24,200
Ford F150 2016 $75,000
Hi-Tech/Ford - Type 6 Wildland 2017 $275,000
International HME 2018 $450,000
Pierce FT 2018 $590,000
Pierce FT 2020 $700,000
Total $5,630,500
Note: Total includes recent purchase of two new apparatus, totaling $1,842,000.

American Canyon Fire Protection District Apparatus and Vehicle Inventory
37 - 13 - January 2023
SECTION 7: ANTICIPATED GROWTH
According to the District’s Long Range Master Plan, adopted in October 2022, the District expects an additional 3,144 residential units to be constructed within its boundaries. To estimate the square footage of new residential development, the average square footage of current residential units within the District was determined using ParcelQuest and then applied to the estimated number of units expected to be built, shown in Table 6 below.

TABLE 6
Commercial/Industrial Development
As residential construction continues within the boundaries of the District, an inherent demand for commercial facilities is created. According to the District’s Long Range Master Plan there is a total of 3,773,416 square footage of non-residential building space expected to be constructed within its boundaries, shown in Table 7 below. As these developments may significantly affect the District’s service requirements, the District must consider these properties when planning and assessing its ability to maintain high levels of service to existing residents and as well these new properties that will be added to its service population.

TABLE 7
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District
As the demand for fire suppression and emergency response increases due to new construction, the capabilities and overall quality of protection services and personnel provided, degrades proportionally. The only plausible mitigation from the District’s perspective is the addition of facilities, equipment, and personnel to provide existing service levels to any new construction which may occur. This is accomplished through the modernization and upgrade of existing facilities, or the construction of entirely new facilities.

This will serve to support timely response and maintain adequate supplies of apparatus and equipment so that the District may maintain its current service levels while accommodating any new growth.

Total Estimated # of
Units
Average Current
Residential Square
Footage
Estimated Square
Footage
3,144 2,204 6,929,531
Estimated Residential Development Square Footage
Type of Construction
Estimated Square
Footage
Retail 90,187
Industrial/Warehouse 3,583,229
Utility Regional Center 100,000
Total Non-Residential
Square Footage 3,773,416
Estimated Non-Residential
Development Square Footage
38 - 14 - January 2023
SECTION 8: NECESSARY FACILITIES
New development within the District will benefit from the existing capital resources of the District and will need to provide funding towards new fire stations and required apparatus, vehicles and capital equipment that will enable the District to adequately serve the future development. Furthermore, based on data provided by the District it is recommended that the District construct a new fire station over the next five years to provide fire service at adequate levels. The new station will serve current and new development within the District in conjunction with the existing fire stations.

Existing Capital Resources
As previously detailed in Tables 3, 4 and 5, and summarized in Table 8, the District has invested approximately $14.2 million into its capital assets.

TABLE 8
New Station Cost
In order to serve future new development within the District, one additional fire station will be needed. The location of the new fire station has yet to be determined. The District has estimated that a new fire station, including a training facility, will cost approximately $15 million.

Apparatus, Vehicle & Capital Equipment Costs
The District has a policy that new development will not adversely impact the existing service levels and subsequently response capabilities. As the District’s existing fleet ages, new apparatus and equipment will need to be purchased to both meet the demands of the existing service population and offset the increased demand and meet District standards. The District has projected that it will require acquisition of the apparatus, vehicles, and equipment shown in Table 9.

Type of Asset
Total Insured
Value
Fire Stations $8,034,422
Apparatus and Vehicles $5,630,500
Other Assets $598,868
Total $14,263,790
Capital Asset Summary
39 - 15 - January 2023
TABLE 9
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District
Available Revenue Sources
The District intends to commit all available developer fee funds to the projects. As of August 2022, the District had approximately $60,929 in developer fees available to commit to facilities projects.

Total Estimated Costs
Adding together the current capital assets with the cost of a new station and new apparatus, results in the total estimated capital impact from new development in the District, as shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10
Source: American Canyon Fire Protection District
Type
Estimated
Cost
Apparatus and Vehicles
Ladder Truck $2,000,000
Total Apparatus and Vehicle Estimated Costs $2,000,000
Equipment
Radios - Mobile (19 @ $11,165 each) $212,135
Turnouts (34 @ $3,000 each) $102,000
Computers (11 @ $1,500 each) $16,500
Mobile Data Terminal (11 @ 2,000 each) $22,000
Total Equipment Estimated Costs $352,635
Total Apparatus, Vehicle and Equipment
Needs Estimated Costs $2,352,635
Apparatus, Vehicle and Equipment Needs
Type of Asset
Total Estimated
Value/Costs
Current Capital Assets $14,263,790
Future Improvement Costs $17,352,635
Total Estimated Capital Impact $31,616,425
Less Development Fee Balance $60,929
Net Total Estimated Capital Impact $31,555,496
Combined Total Capital Assets and Future
Costs
40 - 16 - January 2023
The District is currently utilizing all available Mitigation and General Fund revenues to fund existing expenditures and will not have sufficient funds to offset the cost of future capital needs.
41 - 17 - January 2023
SECTION 9: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
To properly express the impact of new construction on the service quality and capabilities of the District, the District’s impact fee will be justified by taking the total value of assets of the District and dividing the value across all assessable square footage within the District boundaries. Then, the average size of units within the District will be applied to the per unit value to determine a per square foot value.

Impact Fee Calculation
To calculate the amount of the development impact fee necessary on a per square foot basis, for all properties within the District’s boundaries, we will identify the cost to provide facilities and equipment to new construction at existing levels. To accomplish this goal, we must first identify the total number of structures within the District. Although the District covers a wide ranging service area, including open land and large forest areas, the impact fee calculated will include solely on structures with assessable square footage.

As described in Section 7, the estimated square footage of development to be constructed is 10,702,947. Using information provided by the District and a visual inspection via ParcelQuest it was determined that there is currently 22,298,828 total square footage of building space within the District. As shown in Table 11, over the next 5 years the District expects to have approximately 33 million square feet of building space within its boundaries.

TABLE 11
To calculate the amount of the development impact fee necessary, on a per square foot basis, we first identify the unfunded facilities cost of $31,555,496, as stated in Section 8. We then determine the total square footage of residential, commercial, and industrial construction within the District, which is 33,001,775 square feet. Finally, we divide the total facilities cost ($31,555,496) by the total square footage of building space within the District (33,001,775 square feet).

TABLE 12
Therefore, as shown in Table 12, the District can justify a development impact fee for fire facilities of $0.96 per square foot of new construction.

Square
Footage
Current Structures 22,298,828
Anticipated New Construction 10,702,947
Total Square Footage 33,001,775
Estimated Current and Future
Development by Square Footage
Total Estimated Costs $31,555,496
Future Service Square Footage 33,001,775
Cost per Square Foot $0.96
Gross Impact Fee Calculation
42 - 18 - January 2023
Imposing the Fee on Different Types of Property
The District serves non-residential parcels with the same capital equipment as residential parcels, based on the relative size of the development, with a more equipment intense response for larger buildings. For all calls that the District responds to, the Type 1 engine is the first to respond, with the exception of wildfire/vegetation calls, when the Type 3 engine is first. The type of property does not impact the apparatus or equipment that is used for response. As such, the same fee is applied to all new construction, regardless of the use of the property. Imposing the impact fee on a per square foot basis provides for proportionate funding based on the size of the building and the resulting fire response.

As stated above, the District can justify a development impact fee for fire facilities of $0.96 per square foot of new construction. In addition to the cost of fire facilities and equipment necessary to serve new development, there is an administrative cost to the District to justify, impose and collect development impact fees. The administrative cost is estimated to be 2% of the fee. As such, approximately $0.02 is added to the fee to cover the cost of administering the fee program bringing the total fee up to $0.98 per square foot of new construction.

TABLE 13
Type Construction
Total Impact
Fee
Less VoterApproved
Fee Credit
Net Impact
Fee
Residential
Single Family $0.98 $0.2714 $0.71
Multi-Family $0.98 $0.3312 $0.65
Commercial $0.98 $0.4968 $0.48
Industrial $0.98 $0.6025 $0.38
Net Impact Fee Calculation
43 - 19 - January 2023
SECTION 10: ASSESSING THE FEE
The fee is a uniform fee that will be applicable to new construction, including residential, commercial, office, and industrial building space as well as to additions to existing buildings which requires the issuance of a permit or approval from the County of Napa.

Future large or specialized commercial/industrial development may require special considerations and should be judged on a project-by-project basis. Commercial and industrial development should be reevaluated during the routine review of impact fees for fire and hazmat response data to support the different fee structure. An in lieu mitigation agreement may be needed in order to adequately collect mitigation fees from commercial and/or industrial development with unique considerations.

Residential categories other than single-family dwellings, are differentiated by their size as the fee is assessed on a per square foot basis. These fees are recommended to include the square footage of all classes of covered structures constructed within the District. A covered structure is defined as a roof assembly, as the same is described within the Uniform Building Code, or as defined by the Napa County Fire Development fee ordinance. 44 - 20 - January 2023
SECTION 11: IMPLEMENTATION
If the District Board concurs with and chooses to increase the fee as provided for in this study, the following process should be followed for fee implementation.

Fire District Board Approval
The District Board should adopt a resolution and make a recommendation to the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors to adopt this fee pursuant to the County’s “police powers” under Article XI, section 7 of the California Constitution.

City Council and County Board of Supervisors Approval
The City Council and the County Board of Supervisors should adopt the proposed fee schedule in compliance with California Government Code section 66016 through 66018. The City and the County should:
 30 days before the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors approve the fee, the City and County must post a notice of public hearing on their website and where notices are physically posted;
 Send a notice of a public hearing at least 14 days prior to the hearing to any party that has submitted a written request for such a notice. Have this report and all supporting documentation available for review by the public at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Publish notice of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing, with a second notice published at least 5 days after the first hearing notice. The notice should include the time and place of the meeting as well as a general explanation of the matter to be considered;
 Hold the public hearing to consider adoption of the development impact fee;  Adopt an implementing ordinance to establish the authority to impose the proposed fee and automatically adjust the fee annually for inflation, and adopt a resolution or ordinance to set the fee;
 Begin collecting the fee no sooner than 60 days following adoption of the ordinance and resolution.

Fee Accounting
The District should deposit all fee revenues into a restricted public facility fee account.

Interest earned on fund balances should be credited to the fund.

Use of the Fee
The District should only use fee revenues for capital expenditures that expand the District ability to deliver fire services to accommodate new development. Use of the fee in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenue.

The Fire District may alter the scope of the capital expenditures or substitute new capital projects as long as the project continues to represent an expansion of the District’s 45 - 21 - January 2023
capabilities. If the total cost of all capital expenditures varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fee, the District should revise the fee accordingly.

Inflation Adjustment
The Fire District should adjust the fee annually for inflation in the cost of the capital expenditures to be funded by the fee. The inflation adjustment may be based on the Consumer Price Index for the San Francisco / Oakland / San Jose area for the month ending April of the year of the inflation adjustment. The inflation adjustment should take effect the following July

1. Any inflationary adjustment must first be authorized in the enacting resolution or ordinance approved by the County.

Reporting Requirements
The District should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code section 66000 et. seq. Annually, the District must identify the fee revenues received and for what purposes they were expended.
46 District County
Single-Family
Residential Fee
Retail/Commercial
Fee Office Fee Industrial Fee
Amador County FPD Amador
$1,400 per unit
(approx. $0.70 per
sq ft)
$0.94 $1.10 $0.94
Cordelia FPD Solano $2.23 $2.35 $3.19 $2.48
Dixon FPD Solano $0.67 $0.70 $0.95 $0.75
El Dorado Hills Fire Dept. El Dorado $1.18 $1.99 $2.50 $1.83 Esparto FPD Yolo $1.48 $1.48 $1.48 $1.48
Garden Valley FPD El Dorado $1.43 $1.89 $2.29 $1.74
Linda FPD Yuba $1.22 $1.22 $1.22 $1.22
Placer Hills FPD Placer $0.98 $0.98 $0.98 $0.98
Rodeo-Hercules FPD Contra Costa
$1,680 per unit
(approx. $0.84 per
sq ft.)
$0.84 $1.13 $0.48
Sonoma County FPD Sonoma $1.62 $1.81 $2.96 $1.26
Sonoma Valley FPD Sonoma $1.72 $1.95 $3.23 $1.36
Suisun FPD Solano $1.78 $1.96 $2.54 $2.00
Truckee FPD Placer $1.20 $1.27 $1.82 $0.91
Vacaville FPD Solano $2.14 $2.25 $3.06 $2.39
West Stanislaus FPD Stanislaus $0.86 $0.86 $0.86 $0.86
Willow Oak FPD Yolo $1.69 $1.69 $1.69 $1.69
Fire District Impact Fees
47 1
Resolution 2023-07
A Resolution of the American Canyon Fire Protection District Correcting a Clerical Error Contained In District Resolution 2023-05 Pertaining to the District Aerial Ladder Fee
WHEREAS, at its January 24, 2023 meeting, the American Canyon Fire Protection District (District) Board of Directors unanimously adopted Resolution 2023-05, which accepted the findings contained in the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by Capitol PFG, and began the process of the District to cooperate with the City of American Canyon and County of Napa to implement and levy a new Development Impact Fee on new construction for funding District capital facilities and equipment;
WHEREAS, Section 4 of Resolution 2023-05 contained a clerical error from a prior discussion-only draft that incorrectly indicated that the District was intending to repeal its Aerial Ladder Fee, incorrectly stating that:

Upon adoption of this Fire Capital Facilities Fee and Implementation by the County of Napa and City of American Canyon, the Aerial Ladder Development Impact Fee of $0.50 per square foot for buildings exceeding 2 stories or 32’ in height shall be repealed and no longer imposed on new development.

WHEREAS Section 4 was inadvertently not removed from the version of the Resolution presented to the Board,
WHEREAS, because the District’s intent was, and is, to maintain the Aerial Ladder Fee in full force and effect, and to avoid any confusion related to the fees levied by the District, the District Board of Directors hereby corrects and amends Resolution 2023-05 to remedy this clerical error.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors does hereby:

1. Affirm that the Aerial Ladder Fee remains in full force and effect; and,

2. Amends Resolution 2023-05 to strike Section 4 and any remove any and all indication that the Aerial Ladder Fee is intended to be repealed.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the American Canyon Fire Protection District held on the 28th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 29FCBAB0-95BB-4836-B14B-B2011E0D6DFF 48 2
AYES: Board Members, M. Joseph, D. Oro, Vice-Chair P. Washington, and Chair L. Garcia NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT:

Leon Garcia, Chairman
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
Geoff Belyea, Fire Chief
Clerk to the Board
William D. Ross, District Counsel
Resolution 2023-07
DocuSign Envelope ID: 29FCBAB0-95BB-4836-B14B-B2011E0D6DFF 49 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 21, 2023

STAFF REPORT

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM NUMBER: 10.

TITLE
2022 Calendar Year Housing Element Progress Report

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file annual 2022 Calendar Year Housing Element Progress Report

CONTACT
William He, AICP, Senior Planner

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
On March 17, 2015, the City Council approved the 5th Cycle Housing Element. This Housing Element provides housing policy for the years 2015 – 2023. State law requires an Annual Housing Element Progress Report (APR) to highlight work that has been accomplished on the General Plan Housing Element. Each jurisdic9on’s APR must be submi;ed to California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) by April 1 each year (covering the previous calendar year). The 2022 Annual Housing Element Progress Report is attached as Attachment 1.

AB 879 and SB 35 of the 2017 State-wide Housing legisla9on package added new data requirements for the Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APRs) to encourage housing development and increase transparent repor9ng. The HCD mandated requirements include tracking housing units in all its approval stages:
entitlement,
building permit issuance, and
certificate of occupancy.

The report also requires an accoun9ng of affordable housing funds pursuant to Senate Bill 35.

Tracking progress can be seen in Table #A2 of the report. In 2022, there were no projects that were conducted through SB35.

To address housing needs in California, State law requires each jurisdic9on adopt a Housing Element as a chapter of its General Plan. The Housing Element includes the City’s housing strategy to plan for exis9ng and projected housing demand. Key to this strategy is the Housing Element iden9fies adequate sites to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs. The Housing Element also includes an evalua9on that helps remove local policies, regula9ons, and requirements that may 50 constrain housing development for all income levels.

The City’s Regional Housing Needs Alloca9on (RHNA) is assigned by the Associa9on of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). This alloca9on is intended to accommodate American Canyon’s “fair share” of the regional housing demand in the Bay Area. Our RHNA alloca9on for the period between 2015 – 2023 is 392 dwelling units allocated among these income groups:
116 very low-income dwelling units;
54 low income dwelling units;
58 moderate income dwelling units; and
164 above moderate dwelling units.

The RHNA alloca9on does not require the City to build these homes. It requires the City to iden9fy land with residen9al zoning that can accommodate a variety of housing densi9es to achieve the RHNA allocation. The City is also required to adopt policies that facilitate housing for all incomes and special needs groups.

Housing Element law requires that ci9es provide an Annual Housing Element report on progress toward mee9ng the RHNA alloca9on and Housing Element policy implementa9on. ALer review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the a;ached report will be submi;ed to the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research as required by Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.

It is worth no9ng that before the 2018 Annual Report, the RHNA alloca9on period was from 2014 – 2021. Since 2018, the realigned period changed to 2015 – 2023, which corresponds to the City’s Housing Element that was adopted in March 2015. There were no credits lost as the City did not issue any housing units in 2014.

City RHNA Status
The annual Housing Element Progress Report forms provided by HCD must be used to report building permits issued. In 2022, the City received 6 ADU applica9ons and one mul9family development applica9on for 453 units for a total of 459 proposed units. The City also issued building permits for 156 dwelling units. For occupancy, the City provided final inspections for 4 ADUs.

As shown on Table 1 below, the RHNA is disaggregated into income category groups. The City achieved 187% (734 of 392) of the RHNA requirement in 2022. The City exceeded every RHNA category assignment and issued 734 units of the required 392 in the 5th Cycle period. In a joint mee9ng with the Planning Commission, the City Council approved the 6th Cycle Housing Element on January 31, 2023. Comments were received by HCD on February 10, 2023, and staff will diligently respond to these comments. The Napa County area median income and affordable rent limits are attached in Attachment 2.
51 Table 1: 2015-2023 RHNA Allocation Status
Income Level
Area Median
Income in
Napa County
(AMI)
2015-2023
RHNA
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units added
2015-2021
2022
Dwelling
Units Issued
Remaining
RHNA Units
(Surplus)
Percent
Complete
Very Low
Income
(0-50% of
AMI)
116 182 28
Exceeded by
93 units
181%
Low Income
(51-80% of
AMI)
54 109 39
Exceeded by
94 units
274%
Moderate
Income
(81-120% of
AMI)
58 143 1
Exceeded by
86 units
248%
Above
Moderate
Income
(over 120% of
AMI)
164 144 88
Exceeded by
68 units
141%
Total 392 578 156 (340) 187%
Housing Element Policy Implementation
Table D of the Progress report lists Housing Element policies and explains the status of City implementation of each policy during 2022. This year’s standouts include:

Program 1.2.4: Incentives for Second Units (Accessory Dwelling Units) In 2022, the City approved a resolu9on to apply for the Permanent Local Housing Alloca9on (PLHA) program for a grant that would provide up to $704,000 to assist homeowners construct an ADU that would be rented to low-income residents. The City is also scheduled to present revisions to the ADU Ordinance to comply with new state laws in early 2023.

The City received a steady stream of ADU ac9vity in 2022. The City received 6 new ADU applica9ons and issued 2 ADU permits. 4 ADU projects received final inspec9on this year. Staff expects to see a minor increase in the amount of ADUs in 2023.

Program 1.2.10: Affordable Housing Fund
The City received $102,302.40 in Affordable Housing Nexus fees in 2022. These fees were generated from assessments on new non-residential building permits.

Program 1.2.12: Density Bonus Program
In May of 2022 the City received an applica9on for the development of 453 apartment units, the Residents at Napa Junc9on. The Project u9lizes a 50 percent State Density Bonus and includes several development standard concessions/waivers. The project includes 46 very-low-income units.

Staff provided third comments to the applicant on February 9, 2023.

Program 1.2.16: Partner with the Housing Authority
52 In June 2022, the City Council approved a 2-year contract with the City of Napa Housing Authority.

Program 1.2.22: Rental Assistance Program
In 2022, the City completed affordable housing agreements with the Lemos Pointe Apartments for 186 affordable units and the Napa Cove Apartments for 66 affordable units.

Housing in 2023
Looking ahead to 2023, there are several housing projects that have been submi;ed and proceeding to construction.

Sun Square Mixed Use: The project consists of 20 one-bedroom apartments above 9,820 SF of office space on a one-acre lot in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district in the Broadway District.

The project consists of five buildings that are two-stories high each. The project requires a Design Permit. The applicant anticipates a Planning Commission hearing in 2023.

Residences at Napa Junction: The project consists of 453 dwelling units on a 15.05-acre parcel in the Business Park zoning district of the Broadway District. The project includes 46 affordable housing units at 50% AMI. The project also includes a community center, swimming pool, a volleyball court, and a basketball court. The project requires a Design Permit and an Environmental Impact Report. A Planning Commission and City Council hearing is anticipated in 2023.

Watson Ranch Lot 8: The project consists of 25 single-family lots on a 2.17-acre lot in Watson Ranch.

The project is an extension of the Harvest Subdivision (Watson Ranch Lot 10). Staff provided comments on the first submi;al in September 2022, but the project requires a Tenta9ve Subdivision map and a Specific Plan Amendment, which is in review. The applicant an9cipates resubmiRng materials in 2023.

Promontory Subdivision: The project consists of 216 single-family homes and a 6-acre park on 23 acres in the Watson Ranch Specific Plan. The homes range from 2,200 SF to over 3,100 SF and are all two-stories tall. The project plans to provide at least 54 units (or 25%) with a;ached ADUs. The applica9on includes a Specific Plan Amendment, a Tenta9ve Subdivision map, and a Design Permit.

Staff provided first round comments to the applicant in January 2023.

Crawford Way Mul9family: The project consists of 100 townhome style apartments on a 4.27-acre site in the Local Serving Mixed-Use (LSMU) zone in the BDSP. The project proposes 16 three-story buildings with garages and private open space. The project includes 5 very-low-income units, 5 lowincome units, and 5 moderate income units. The applicant submi;ed a design permit for the project in January 2023 and staff anticipates first round comments to the applicant in February 2023.

Hotel at the Ruins: The project consists of a new 200-room hotel and 30 residential units designed as flats and townhomes. The residen9al units are proposed for sale as condominiums and range from 2,065 to 2,695 SF. The Planning Commission approved the project in January 2023 and the applicant 53 plans to submit construction permits later in the year.

COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The City is required to complete the annual Housing Element Progress Report to comply with State Law. The comple9on of the annual report also enables the City to par9cipate in many housingrelated grant programs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The annual Housing Element Progress Report is not a project in for purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sec9on 15378(b)(5) - organiza9onal or administra9ve ac9vi9es of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Housing Element Annual Progress Report 2022

2. 2022 Napa County Affordable Rents and Income Limits Charts 54 Jurisidiction Name
Reporting Calendar YearFirst NameLast NameTitle Click here to download APR InstructionsEmailPhoneStreet AddressCityZipcode 12_28_22
Optional: Click here to import last year's data. This is best used when the workbook is new and empty. You will be prompted to pick an old workbook to import from. Project and program data will be copied exactly how it was entered in last year's form and must be updated. If a project is no longer has any reportable activity, you may delete the project by selecting a cell in the row and typing ctrl + d. 4381 Broadway St - Suite 201
American Canyon
94503
Please Start Here
General Information
2022
American Canyon
Contact Information
William
He
Senior Planner
[email protected]
7076474337
Mailing Address
Annual Progress Report January 2020
Attachment 1
55 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element ImplementationPlanning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Date
Application
Submitted
Total
Approved
Units by
Project
Total
Disapproved
Units by
Project
Streamlining
2 34 6 78 9
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Unit Category (SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH) Tenure R=Renter O=Owner Date Application Submitted+ (see instructions) Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low-Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Total PROPOSED Units by Project Total APPROVED Units by project Total DISAPPROVED Units by Project Was APPLICATION SUBMITTED Pursuant to GC 65913.4(b)? (SB 35 Streamlining) Ddi the housing
development
application seek
incentives or
concessions
pursuant to
Government
Code section
65915?
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 46 2 0 4 0 407 0 459 6 0 058-413-009 262 Sheffield 262 Sheffield ADU BP22-0012 ADU R 3/9/2022 1 1 1 0 No No058-611-019 1707 Rio Grande 1707 Rio Grande ADU BP22-0125 ADU R 3/17/2022 1 1 1 0 No No058-201-003 230 Andrew 230 Andrew ADU BP22-0269 ADU R 6/1/2022 1 1 1 0 No No059-241-019 58 Sarcedo 58 Sarcedo ADU BP22-0465 ADU R 8/30/2022 1 1 1 0 No No058-496-001 25 Larkspur 25 Larkspur ADU BP22-0533 ADU R 9/26/2022 1 1 1 0 No No058-544-010 209 Jana 209 Jana ADU BP22-0732 ADU R 12/14/2022 1 1 1 0 No No059-020-003 425 Napa Junction Sun Square Mixed Use PL-0020 5+ R 8/2/2021 1 1 1 17 20 0 No No059-020-037 TBD Napa Junction Residences at Napa Junction PL22-0011 5+ R 5/2/2022 46 407 453 0 No Yes 0000000000000000000
Table A
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
1 5
Project Identifier Unit Types Proposed Units - Affordability by Household Incomes Density Bo Applica 10 Housing Development Applications Submitted
56 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Table A2
23 56 89
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Unit Category (SFA,SFD,2 to 4,5+,ADU,MH) Tenure R=Renter O=Owner Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Entitlement Date Approved # of Units issued Entitlements Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Building Permits Date Issued # of Units Issued Building Permits Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 6 26 2 39 0 0 1 88 156 058-141-003 44 Alta Loma 44 Alta Loma ADU BP20-0024 ADU R 1 1/21/2020 1 1 2/11/2021 1058-281-010 151 Thayer 151 Thayer ADU BP20-0487 ADU O 1 10/23/2020 1 1 3/24/2021 1 058-492-005 21 Alder Ct 21 Alder ADU BP21-0067 ADU O 1 2/17/2021 1 1 6/3/2021 1058-173-002 100 Corsicana 100 Corsicana ADU BP21-0325 ADU O 1 7/22/2021 1 1 11/6/2021 1058-151-045 120 Gisela 120 Gisela ADU BP21-0348 ADU R 1 8/2/2021 1 1 11/6/2021 1058-563-001 457 Poppyfield 457 Poppyfield ADU BP21-0553 ADU O 1 12/23/2021 1 1 11/23/2022 1 058-362-021 100 Rojas Napa Cove PL21-0027 5+ R 26 39 1 12/16/2021 66 26 39 1 3/23/2022 66
059-430-017 100 Fran Lemos WRSP: Lemos Point PL21-0004 5+ R 122 62 2 2/25/2021 186
122 62 2 11/23/2021 186
059-430-027 101 Frontier WRSP Lot 14 and 15: Artisan PL20-0032 SFD O 98 12/15/2020 98 44 12/13/2022 44
059-430-015 101 Goldback WRSP Lot 10: Harvest PL21-0014 SFD O 219 9/21/2021 219
44 12/14/2022 44
058-380-008 TBD Oat Hill Parcel A PL20-0022 5+ R 206 9/21/2021 206 0 058-320-001 TBD Oat Hill Parcel B PL20-0023 5+ R 85 9/21/2021 85 0058-413-009 262 Sheffield 262 Sheffield ADU BP22-0012 ADU R 1 3/9/2022 1 1 6/9/2022 1 058-611-019 1707 Rio Grande 1707 Rio Grande ADU BP22-0125 ADU R 1 3/17/2022 1 0 058-201-003 230 Andrew 230 Andrew ADU BP22-0269 ADU R 1 6/1/2022 1 0 059-241-019 58 Sarcedo 58 Sarcedo ADU BP22-0465 ADU R 1 8/30/2022 1 0058-496-001 25 Larkspur 25 Larkspur ADU BP22-0533 ADU R 1 9/26/2022 1 0058-544-010 209 Jana 209 Jana ADU BP22-0732 ADU R 1 12/14/2022 1 0058-282-004 25 Andrew 25 Andrew ADU BP19-0534 ADU R 1 12/30/2019 1 1 6/26/2020 1 059-430-012 TBD WRSP Lot 8 PL22-0024 SFD O 25
25 0
059-430-021 TBD WRSP Lot 17: Hotel at the Ruins PL22-0012 5+ O 30 1/26/2023 30 0
059-030-007 TBD WRSP: Promontory PL22-0034 SFD O 216
216
0 059-030-007 TBD WRSP: Promontory ADUs PL22-0034 ADU O 54 54 0
059-020-037 TBD Residences at Napa Junction PL22-0011 5+ R 46 407 453 0 Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
Annual Building Activity Report Summary - New Construction, Entitled, Permits and Completed Units 1 Unit Types Affordability by Household Incomes - Completed Entitlement Affordability by Household Incomes - Building Permits 4 7
57 Streamlining Infill
Housing without Financial
Assistance or Deed
Restrictions
Term of Affordability
or Deed Restriction Notes
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Deed
Restricted
ModerateIncome Non
Deed Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Certificates of
Occupancy or other
forms of readiness
(see instructions)
Date Issued
# of Units
issued
Certificates of
Occupancy or
other forms of
readiness
How many of the
units were
Extremely Low
Income?+
Was Project
APPROVED using
GC 65913.4(b)?
(SB 35
Streamlining)
Y/N
Infill Units?
Y/N+
Assistance Programs
for Each Development
(may select multiple -
see instructions)
Deed Restriction
Type
(may select multiple
- see instructions)
For units affordable without
financial assistance or deed
restrictions, explain how the
locality determined the units
were affordable
(see instructions)
Term of Affordability or
Deed Restriction (years)
(if affordable in perpetuity
enter 1000)+
Number of
Demolished/Dest
royed Units
Demolished or
Destroyed Units
Demolished/De
stroyed Units
Owner or
Renter
Total Density Bonus Applied
to the Project (Percentage
Increase in Total Allowable
Units or Total Maximum
Allowable Residential Gross
Floor Area)
Number of Other
Incentives,
Concessions, Waivers,
or Other Modifications
Given to the Project
(Excluding Parking Waivers or Parking
Reductions)
List the incentives,
concessions,
waivers, and
modifications
(Excluding Parking Waivers or Parking
Modifications)
Did the project receive a
reduction or waiver of
parking standards? (Y/N)
Notes+
0 2020 0 0 4 15 0 00
1 6/29/2022 1 0 N Y Self-certified income survey
1 1/19/2022 1 0 N Y Self-certified income survey
00 N Y Self-certified income survey
1 11/18/2022 1 1 N Y Self-certified income survey
00 N Y Self-certified income survey00 N Y Self-certified income survey0 13 N Y Other, LIHTC INC Deed Restricted 55 2 Development Standards Modification
Yes
SB330 application
0 0 N Y Other INC 55 2
Development Standards Modification
Yes
Part of Watson Ranch Specific Plan entitlement, approved in Nov. 2018. 00 N Y
Part of Watson Ranch Specific Plan entitlement, approved in Nov. 2018. 00 N Y
Part of Watson Ranch Specific Plan entitlement, approved in Nov. 2018. 0N Y
0N Y0N Y Self-certified income survey
0 N Y Self-certified income survey0N Y Self-certified income survey0N Y Self-certified income survey0N Y Self-certified income survey0N Y Self-certified income survey 1 8/17/2022 1 1 N Y Self-certified income survey
00 N Y
Part of Watson Ranch Specific Plan entitlement, approved in Nov. 2018. Project in review. 00 N Y
Part of Watson Ranch Specific Plan entitlement, approved in Nov. 2018. 0 NY
Part of Watson Ranch Specific Plan entitlement, approved in Nov. 2018. Project in review. 0 N Y INC
Part of Watson Ranch Specific Plan entitlement, approved in Nov. 2018. Project in review. 0 N Y INC Deed Restricted Project in Review
Housing with Financial Assistance
and/or Deed Restrictions Affordability by Household Incomes - Certificates of Occupancy Demolished/Destroyed Units Density Bonus 10 58
Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element ImplementationPlanning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 1 Projection Period 34
RHNA Allocation by
Income Level 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date (all years) Total Remaining RHNA by Income Level Deed Restricted - - - 49 8 - - 122 26 - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - - 1 - 2 2 - Deed Restricted - 9 - 20 8 - - 62 39 - Non-Deed Restricted - - - - 3 - 3 4 - - Deed Restricted - - - - - - - 2 - -
Non-Deed Restricted - 140 - 1 - - - - 1 -
Above Moderate 164 - - - - 143 - - 1 88 - 232 -
392
- 149 - 70 162 1 3 193 156 - 734 -
5 67
Extremely low-Income
Need 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Units to Date Total Units Remaining 58 - - 11 - - - - 13 - 24 34
-
Please note: For the last year of the 5th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted during the portion of the year that was in the 5th cycle. For the first year of the 6th cycle, Table B will only include units that were permitted since the start of the planning period. Projection Period units are in a separate column.

Total RHNA
Total Units
Income Level
Very LowLowExtremely Low-Income Units*
Note: units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income RHNA progress and must be reported as very low-income units in section 7 of Table A2. They must also be reported in the extremely low-income category (section 13) in Table A2 to be counted as progress toward meeting the extremely low-income housing need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). *Extremely low-income houisng need determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1). Value in Section 5 is default value, assumed to be half of the very low-income RHNA. May be overwritten.

Progress toward extremely low-income housing need, as determined pursuant to Government Code 65583(a)(1).

Please note: The APR form can only display data for one planning period. To view progress for a different planning period, you may login to HCD's online APR system, or contact HCD staff at [email protected]. -
210
This table is auto-populated once you enter your jurisdiction name and current year data. Past year information comes from previous APRs. 144
Moderate
116 54 58
Please contact HCD if your data is different than the material supplied here 148
2 Table B
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Progress
Permitted Units Issued by Affordability
-
59 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element ImplementationPlanning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Date of Rezone Rezone Type
2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Date of Rezone Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate- Income Rezone Type Parcel Size (Acres) General Plan Designation Zoning Minimum Density Allowed Maximum Density Allowed Realistic Capacity Vacant/Nonvacant Description of Existing Uses Note: "+" indicates an optional fieldCells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
3 8
Project Identifier RHNA Shortfall by Household Income Category Sites Description 1 Sites Identified or Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need and No Net-Loss Law Table C
60 Jurisdiction American Canyon
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
123 4
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status of Program Implementation Program I.2.1: No-NetLoss Evaluation Procedure Policies 2.1.1, 2.1.2 Project review is ongoing with annual report to HCD In 2018, one project has been approved on a 5-acre site. The project, HFP Church, utilized 1.5-acres for a new church, which reduces the number of developable housing units on the site by 33. The offset can be made up from the 1253 housing units entitled in the City's Watson Ranch Specific Plan that was approved on November 6, 2018.

Program I.2.2: Maintain Inventory of Developable Sites
Policy 2.1.1 Update annually
An inventory of housing sites and the number of permits issued in 2022 is available on the city’s website and front counter for the Planning Division. The City approved the Broadway District Specific Plan (BDSP) in July 2018, which identified a capacity for up to 1,200 new units in the Broadway corridor. The City approved the Oat Hill multifamily project that proposes 291 apartment units on a site outside of the current inventory. The project required a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment.

Program I.2.3: Priority Sewer and Water Service for Affordable Housing Policy 2.1.3 Dec-15
The City modified their Sewer and Water Service to put affordable housing as the first priority in July 2019. The update incorporated in ACMC Section 13.10.020.

Program I.2.4: Incentives for Second Units Policy 2.2.4 Explore and adopt programs and/or incentives by 2018
The City adopted new guidelines and standards for Second Units, or Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), in 2017 and in 20202 to match the State’s regulations. The new guidelines are available in ACMC section 19.39. New incentives for ADU’s include the removal of water and wastewater capacity fees, the reduction in parking and fire sprinkler requirements, and the reduction in impact fees. In 2018, staff created two handouts that explains the building permit and zoning requirements for ADUs. In March 2019, the City joined the Napa-Sonoma ADU coalition to develop ADU outreach materials and fee estimating software. In 2022, the City approved a resolution to apply for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) program for a grant of up to $704,000 to assist in ADUs developed for low-income residents. The City is also scheduled to present revisions to the ADU Ordinance to comply with new state laws in early 2023.

Program I.2.5: Neighborhood Preservation Program
Policy 2.4.1 Ongoing The City’s Code Enforcement officer continues to implement this program Housing Programs Progress Report
Describe progress of all programs including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

Table D
Program Implementation Status pursuant to GC Section 65583

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
61 Program I.2.6: Residential
Rehabilitation Loan Program
Policies 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3 Apply for funding annually A $1 million grant was awarded in 2017. The City applied for a new $1 million CDBG grant, which includes $300,000 for owner-occupied rehabilitation assistance programs in February 2019, but was not awarded.

Program I.2.7: Code Enforcement Policies 2.5.1, 2.5.2 Ongoing The City’s Code Enforcement officer continues to implement this program Program I.2.8: City-owned Land for Affordable Housing
Policy 2.6.3 Review opportunities annually No city-owned land was made available during this period.

Program I.2.9: Employee Housing Program Policy 2.6.10
Begin exploring options by 2017 and adopt, as appropriate by 2019 Employee housnig is permitted by right in all single-family zoning districts. The City is on schedule to begin exploring options by 2017 and adopt, as appropriate by 2023.

Program I.2.10: Affordable Housing Fund Policy 2.6.5 Review opportunities annually The City approved up to $1 million in funding support for the Valley View Affordable Senior Apartment Project in 2016. The City received $102,302.40 in Affordable Housing Nexus fees in 2022.

Program I.2.11: Incentives for Affordable Housing Policies 2.6.3, 2.6.5 Ongoing The City required the Village at Vintage Ranch project increase the affordability term from 10 to 20 years for 8 Very Low and 8 Low income units in exchange for extending the term of their Design Permit approval. The City completed their update to the Density Bonus program to comply with the State's AB2753 Density Bonus Law in February 2019. In 2022, the City provided waivers for the Napa Cove project to reduce required parking, which provided 66 affordable apartment units. The City is currently reviewing a housing development project, the Residences at Napa Junction, that requested waivers for the development of 453 housing units that includes 46 very-low-income units.

Program I.2.12: Density Bonus Program Policy 2.6.3 Prepare brochure by 2016 The density bonus brochure was posted to the City’s website in 2016. See http://bit.ly/3x0U5k8 website link. The City updated their Density Bonus Ordinance in February 2019. The City approved two projects, the Lemos Pointe Apartments and the Napa Cove Apartments, which both utilized the Density Bonus program and requested concessions to design standards. The Lemos Pointe project consistsed of 186 affordable units and the Napa Cove project consisted of 66 affordable units. In 2022 the City received an application for the development of 453 apartment units, the Residents at Napa Junction. The Project utilizes the State Density Bonus program and requests several waivers. The project includes 46 very-low-income units. Staff provided third round comments to the applicant on February 9, 2023. Program I.2.13: Planned Development Process Policy 2.6.3 Ongoing The Village at Vintage Ranch provides 16 units of low and very low income units.

Program I.2.14: Assist in Accessing Grant Funding Policies 2.6.5, 2.6.6, 2.6.7 Review funding opportunities annually The City received a HOME grant in 2017. The City applied for a CalHome Disaster Assistance funds in December 2019 and was awarded $2.2 million for down payment assistance. The funds are to assist low and moderate income households who are victims of the 2017-2018 fires in federally declared disasters. The City is also applying for $1 million in HOME funds in January of 2020 and $1 million in CalHome General Funds for OOR and ADU programs in February 2020. The City also applied for the SB2 Planning Grant in December 2019 and received $160,000 in funding to update their building permit software and update their Housing Element. The City applied for the LEAP grant in March 2020 and was awarded $160,000 for pro-housing efforts. The City will pursue OBAG 2 grant funds in 2023. 62 Program I.2.15: Incentives
for Lot Consolidation Policy 2.6.3
Identify appropriate incentives and post information on website by 2017 Staff completed two lot mergers in 2016. There were no requests for consolidation and/or re-use of small lots to create larger parcels with greater affordable housing development potential in 2022.

Program I.2.16: Partner with the Housing Authority
Policy 2.6.6 Ongoing The City Council approved a 2-year contract with the City of Napa Housing Authority in June 2022.

Program I.2.17: Inclusionary Housing Program
Policy 2.6.8 Amend Ordinance in 2015
The City amended the Inclusionary Housing Program Ordinance in October 2019. The new program made the option of paying for in-lieu fees a last resort for developers.

Program I.2.18: Conduct Nexus Study for Affordable Housing Fees Policy 2.6.9 Consider adopting fee in 2015 The Nexus Study and Commercial linkage fee was adopted in 2016.

Program I.2.19: Preserve At-Risk Housing Policy 2.7.1 Ongoing The City of Napa Housing Authority (HACN) worked with the Lodge apartments to encourage presrevation of 11 affordable units that were scheduled to expire in 2016. HACN worked with the property owner to provide financial incentives to tenants of the affordable units that were scheduled to vacate. In 2018, lowincome tenants in 9 of the 11 units were vacated. The remaining 2 units to vacated in 2019. The City has ongoing efforts to preserve at-risk housing with the Napa Housing Authority.

Program I.2.20: Monitor Section 8 Status Policy 2.7.1 2007-2014 The City of Napa Housing Authority monitors apartments for Section 8 status. In 2022, the Housing Authority administered 134 housing vouchers, in which 34 of them were for the Valley View Senior Apts.

Program I.2.21: Mobilehome Park Rent Stabilization Program Policies 2.7.4 Ongoing Ongoing
Program I.2.22: Rental Assistance Program Policy 2.7.1
Seek funding for rental assistance when available.

The City Housing Authority secured 34 Section 8 vouchers for Homeless Veterans in 2016. The Housing Authority was awarded 11 Mainstream vouchers in 2018 and the City of American Canyon recieved those vouchers in 2019. The City applied for the CDBG Corona Response 1 (CARES grant) in August of 2020 and was awarded $98,000 to provide rental assistance. In 2022, the City signed affordable housing agreements with the Lemos Pointe Apartments for 186 affordable units and the Napa Cove Apartments for 66 affordable units.

Program I.2.23: Rehabilitation Loan Program Outreach to Elderly Homeowners Policy 2.8.1 Prepare outreach materials by 2016
The City Housing Authority provides on-going marketting of outreach materials to elderly citizens regarding Rehabilitation Loan Programs. The outreach consists of flyers, workshops, and newspaper advertisements. The City Housing Authority also conducts outreach meetings at the Senior Center and the Family Center in American Canyon. Due to the Governor's Shelter-In-Place order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, physical outreach meetings have been suspended from 2020 to 2022. Outreach is planned for Fall of 2023.

Program I.2.24: Facilitate Construction of Housing for Persons with Disabilities Policies 2.8.1, 2.8.5 Ongoing
The Valley View affordable Senior housing project will provide handicap accessibility and on-site supportive services. The project received building permits in 2017 and was completed in 2019.

Program I.2.25: Outreach to Developmentally Disabled
Policies 2.8.1, 2.8.5 Initiate coordination by 2016 In 2016, the City coordinated with North Bay Regional Center and has a link to their services. See http://bit.ly/2k626Np for a link to the website. 63 Program I.2.26: Zoning for
Small Group Homes Policy 2.8.8 2016 The City amended the zoning code in 2017 to classify small group homes, or residential care homes, as permitted uses for all residential zones.

Program I.2.27: Zoning for Employee Housing Policy 2.8.6 2016 The City amended the zoning code in 2017 to add employee housing as a use classification with the class as a permitted use in all residential zones.

Program I.2.28: Zoning for Single Room Occupancy Policy 2.8.1 2016 The City amended the zoning code in 2017 to add Single Room Occupancy facilities (SROs) use classification. The use is permitted in high-density residential zones.

Program I.2.29: Facilitate Construction of Large Units
Policy 2.8.2 Prepare fliers by 2017
The City prepared fliers in 2017 and they are available on the City’s Housing website as well as the planning division counter. See http://bit.ly/3lgseK1 for a link to the webpage.

Program I.2.30: Farmworker Housing Policy 2.8.6
Reach out to developers by 2017 and bi-annually thereafter The City added web links to farmworker housing resources on the City’s housing website. See https://bit.ly/3rwxmK4 for a link to the web site.

Program I.2.31: Distribute Homeless Shelter Information Policy 2.8.9 Ongoing The City of Napa Housing Authority provides this service on an ongoing basis.

Program I.2.32: Distribute Fair Housing Information Policies 2.9.1, 2.9.2 Ongoing The City of Napa Housing Authority provides this service on an ongoing basis. Fair Housing posters are displayed at City Hall.

Program I.2.33: Fair Housing Event Policy 2.9.2 Annually The City of Napa Housing Authority provides this service on an ongoing basis.

Program I.2.34: Encourage Sustainable Building
Policies 2.10.1, 2.10.3, 2.10.4 Ongoing
The City adopted a new Electric Vehicle Ordinance that streamlines permit processing for residential projects in 2019. The City adopted the Broadway District Specific Plan in 2019, which requires new development in the 300-acre district to provide 15% more energy reduction than the California Building Code requires.

Program I.2.35: Energy Conservation Fact Sheet Policies 2.10.5, 2.10.7 Distribute fact sheet by 2016 The Energy Conservation Fact sheet was prepared and is available on the City’s website. See https://bit.ly/3rwxmK4 for a link to the website.

Program I.2.36: Adjust Utility Allowances for Green Affordable Housing Units Policy 2.10.1 2016
The City adopted new utility allowances for affordable housing units and allowed for the adjustments of utility allowances for Green Affordable Housing units in 2017. See https://bit.ly/3rwxmK4 for a link to the website. The City updates the utility allowances on an annual basis.

Program I.2.37: Annual Housing Element Report Policies 2.11.1, 2.11.2 Annually The annual Housing Element report is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 2023 and the City Council at a public hearing on March 2023.

Program I.2.38: Maintain Adequate Staffing Policy 2.11.1 Annual review of staffing levels Review of staffing levels occurred in conjunction with the annual fiscal year budget. 64 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element ImplementationPlanning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Description of Commercial
Development Bonus
Commercial Development Bonus
Date Approved
34 APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Description of Commercial Development Bonus Commercial Development Bonus Date Approved Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Units Constructed as Part of Agreement
Commercial Development Bonus Approved pursuant to GC Section 65915.7 Table E
Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Project Identifier
1 2
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
65 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulasPlanning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 The description should adequately document how each unit complies with subsection (c) of Government Code Section 65583.1+.

For detailed reporting requirements, see the chcklist here:

Extremely LowIncome+ Very Low-Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ Extremely Low- Income+ Very Low- Income+ Low-Income+ TOTAL UNITS+ https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communityͲ development/docs/adequateͲsitesͲchecklist.pdf Rehabilitation ActivityPreservation of Units At-RiskAcquisition of UnitsMobilehome Park PreservationTotal Units by Income Table F
Please note this table is optional: The jurisdiction can use this table to report units that have been substantially rehabilitated, converted from non-affordable to affordable by acquisition, and preserved, including mobilehome park preservation, consistent with the standards set forth in Government Code section 65583.1, subdivision (c). Please note, motel, hotel, hostel rooms or other structures that are converted from non-residential to residential units pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c)(1)(D) are considered net-new housing units and must be reported in Table A2 and not reported in Table F.

Activity Type
Units that Do Not Count Towards RHNA+
Listed for Informational Purposes Only
Units that Count Towards RHNA +
Note - Because the statutory requirements severely limit what can be counted, please contact HCD to receive the password that will enable you to populate these fields.

Units Rehabilitated, Preserved and Acquired for Alternative Adequate Sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1(c) Annual Progress Report January 2020
66 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: "+" indicates an optional field
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulasPlanning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Notes
23 6
Prior APN+ Current APN Street Address Project Name+
Local
Jurisdiction
Tracking ID+
Unit Category
(2 to 4,5+)
Tenure
R=Renter
Very LowIncome Deed
Restricted
Very LowIncome Non
Deed
Restricted
Low- Income Deed
Restricted
Low- Income
Non Deed
Restricted
Moderate- Income
Deed Restricted
ModerateIncome Non Deed
Restricted
Above
ModerateIncome
Total Moderate Income Units
Converted from Above
Moderate
Date Converted Notes
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Table F2
Above Moderate Income Units Converted to Moderate Income Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2 For up to 25 percent of a jurisdiction’s moderate-income regional housing need allocation, the planning agency may include the number of units in an existing multifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Before adding information to this table, please ensure housing developments meet the requirements described in Government Code 65400.2(b). 5 Project Identifier Unit Types
1 4
Affordability by Household Incomes After Conversion Units credited toward Above Moderate RHNA 67 Jurisdiction American Canyon
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Housing Element Implementation
23 4
APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Realistic Capacity Identified in the Housing Element Entity to whom the site transferred Intended Use for Site 1 Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note: "+" indicates an optional fieldCells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas Table G
Locally Owned Lands Included in the Housing Element Sites Inventory that have been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of Project Identifier
NOTE: This table must only be filled out if the housing element sites inventory contains a site which is or was owned by the reporting jurisdiction, and has been sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of during the reporting year. 68 Jurisdiction American Canyon Note: "+" indicates an optional field Reporting Period 2022
(Jan. 1 - Dec.
31)
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation
formulas
Designation Size Notes
1 2 34 5 6 7
APN Street Address/Intersection Existing Use Number of Units Surplus Designation Parcel Size (in acres) Notes NOTE: This table is meant to contain an invenory of
ALL surplus/excess lands the reporting jurisdiction
owns
Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Parcel Identifier

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Housing Element Implementation
Table H
Locally Owned Surplus Sites
For Napa County jurisdictions, please format the APN's as follows:999-999-999-999 69 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Note: + indicates an
optional field
Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element Implementation Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Project Type Date
23 APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Activity Date Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Table I
Units Constructed Pursuant to Government Code 65852.21 and Applications for Lot Splits Pursuant to Government Code 66411.7 (SB9) NOTE: SB 9 PROJECTS ONLY. This table only needs to be completed if there were lot splits applied for pursuant to Government Code 66411.7 OR units constructed pursuant to 65852.21. Units entitled/permitted/constructed must also be reported in Table A2. Applications for these units must be reported in Table A.

Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Project Identifier Unit Constructed
1 4
Annual Progress Report January 2020
70 Jurisdiction American Canyon ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT Reporting Period 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31) Housing Element ImplementationPlanning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023 Project Type Date
23 APN Street Address Project Name+ Local Jurisdiction Tracking ID+ Unit Category (SH - Student Housing) Date Very Low- Income Deed Restricted Very Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Low- Income Deed Restricted Low- Income Non Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Deed Restricted Moderate- Income Non Deed Restricted Above Moderate- Income Summary Row: Start Data Entry Below
Note
Cells in g
Table J
Student housing development for lower income students for which was granted a density bonus pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65915 Project Identifier Units (Beds/Student Capacity) Approved 1 4
NOTE: STUDENT HOUSING WITH DENSITY BONUS ONLY. This
table only needs to be completed if there were student housing projects WITH a density bonus approved pursuant to
Government Code65915(b)(1)(F)
Annual Progress Report January 2020
71 Jurisdiction American Canyon
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Planning Period 5th Cycle 01/31/2015 - 01/31/2023
Current Year
Deed Restricted 26
Non-Deed Restricted 2
Deed Restricted 39
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 1
88 156
Units by Structure Type Entitled Permitted Completed
SFA 0 0 0
SFD 0 88 0
2 to 4 0 0 0
5+ 0 66 0
ADU 6 2 4
MH 0 0 0
Total 6 156 4
7 459
6 0
0 0
0 0
Income Rental Ownership Total
Very Low 0 00
Low 0 00
Moderate 0 00
Above Moderate 0 00
Total 0 00
Cells in grey contain auto-calculation formulas
Above Moderate
Units Constructed - SB 35 Streamlining Permits
Number of Streamlining Applications Approved
Total Developments Approved with Streamlining
Total Units Constructed with Streamlining
Total Housing Applications Submitted:

Number of Proposed Units in All Applications Received:

Total Housing Units Approved:

Total Housing Units Disapproved:

Total Units
Housing Applications Summary
Use of SB 35 Streamlining Provisions
Note: Units serving extremely low-income households are included in the very low-income permitted units totals Number of Applications for Streamlining
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
72 Jurisdiction American Canyon
Reporting Year 2022 (Jan. 1 - Dec. 31)
Total Award Amount Total award amount is auto‐populated based on amounts entered in rows 15‐26.

Task $ Amount Awarded $ Cumulative Reimbursement
Requested
Other
Funding Notes
Summary of entitlements, building permits, and certificates of occupancy (auto‐populated from Table A2) Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 2
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 4
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
0 6
Current Year
Deed Restricted 26
Non-Deed Restricted 2
Deed Restricted 39
Non-Deed Restricted 0
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 1
88 156
Current Year
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 2
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 2
Deed Restricted 0
Non-Deed Restricted 0
0 4
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Completed Entitlement Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Total Units
Building Permits Issued by Affordability Summary
Income Level
Very Low
Low
Total Units
Certificate of Occupancy Issued by Affordability Summary Income Level
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate

ANNUAL ELEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Reporting
(CCR Title 25 §6202)
Please update the status of the proposed uses listed in the entity’s application for funding and the corresponding impact on housing within the region or jurisdiction, as applicable, categorized based on the eligible uses specified in Section 50515.02 or 50515.03, as applicable.
$                                                                                                                                       ‐ Task Status
73 2022 NAPA COUNTY ANNUAL INCOME LIMITS

AFFORDABLE RENTAL LIMITS

INCOME LIMITS ALL RENTAL UNITS
Persons 15% 30% 35% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Per Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Household Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income 1 13,245 23,500 30,905 44,150 52,980 61,810 70,550 75,240 83,600 2 15,135 30,300 35,315 50,450 60,540 70,630 80,600 85,950 95,500 3 17,025 34,100 39,725 56,750 68,100 79,450 90,700 96,705 107,450 4 18,915 37,850 44,135 63,050 75,660 88,270 100,750 107,460 119,400 5 20,430 40,900 47,670 68,100 81,720 95,340 108,850 116,055 128,950 6 21,945 43,950 51,205 73,150 87,780 102,410 116,900 124,650 138,500 7 23,460 46,950 54,740 78,200 93,840 109,480 124,950 133,245 148,050 8 24,975 50,000 58,275 83,250 99,900 116,550 133,000 141,840 157,600 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Effective: 4/18/2022 and State Housing and Community Development Effective: 6/15/2022 **DENSITY BONUS AND/OR CITY FINANCED RENTAL UNITS**

MONTHLY AFFORDABLE RENTS
Number 50% 60-80% 100% 120%
Of Median Median Median Median
Bedrooms** Income Income Income Income
Studio 1,104 1,325 2,090 2,508
1 1,261 1,514 2,388 2,866
2 1,419 1,703 2,686 3,224
3 1,576 1,892 2,985 3,583
4 1,703 2,043 3,224 3,869
5 1,829 2,195 3,463 4,156
**CITY INCLUSIONARY RENTAL UNITS**

MONTHLY AFFORDABLE RENTS
Number 30% 35% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 120%
Of Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Median Bedrooms** Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Studio 588 773 1,104 1,325 1,545 1,764 1,881 2,090 2,508 1 758 883 1,261 1,514 1,766 2,015 2,149 2,388 2,866
2 853 993 1,419 1,703 1,986 2,268 2,418 2,686 3,224
3 946 1,103 1,576 1,892 2,207 2,519 2,687 2,985 3,583
4 1,023 1,192 1,703 2,043 2,384 2,721 2,901 3,224 3,869 5 1,099 1,280 1,829 2,195 2,560 2,923 3,116 3,463 4,156 Total housing cost includes rent and all utilities except for phone service, and cannot exceed 30% of tenant's monthly gross income.

If utilities are paid by tenant, the maximum monthly rent is reduced by the Utility Allowance.

The current Utility Allowance Chart can be found on the Housing Authority's webpage ** Presumed Occupancy Levels:

Two Persons 1 Bedroom
Three Persons 2 Bedroom
Four Persons 3 Bedroom
Five Persons 4 Bedroom
Six Persons 5 Bedroom
74 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 21, 2023

STAFF REPORT

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM NUMBER: 11.

TITLE
Giovannoni Logistics Center Warehouse Project

RECOMMENDATION
Take the following actions related to the Giovannoni Logistic Center Warehouse Project:

1. Adopt a Resolu1on of the City Council of the City of American Canyon (i) Approving a Water Supply Assessment, (ii) Cer1fying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021010104), (iii) Adop1ng CEQA Findings of Fact, (iv) Adop1ng a Statement of Overriding Considera1ons, and (v) Adop1ng a Mi1ga1on Monitoring and Repor1ng Program for the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project located north of Green Island Road and bisected by Devlin Road, APN 057-090- 008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (File No. PL 20-0042).

2. Adopt a Resolu1on of the City Council of the City of American Canyon approving the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Phase 1 Design Permit to allow up to 1,069,904 square feet of High Cube Warehouse Uses on 70.2 acres, located north of Green Island Road and east of Devlin Road, APN 057-090-008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (File No. PL 20-0042).

3. Adopt a Resolu1on of the City Council of the City of American Canyon approving the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Tenta1ve Parcel Map to create a Two-Lot Subdivision for up to 1,069,904 square feet of High Cube Warehouse Uses on 70.2 acres, located north of Green Island Road and east of Devlin Road, APN 057-090-008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (File No. PL 20-0043).

CONTACT
Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director

BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The proposed Giovannoni Logis1cs Center consists of up to 2.4 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on 163 acres of a 208-acre project site. Approximately 45-acres will remain open space for stormwater deten1on and wetlands preserva1on. The semi-rectangular project site is bounded by industrial development in the Green Island Business Park (west), the Napa Logis1cs Park and Devlin Road (north), the Napa Branch Line (east), and Green Island Road, a stone supply business, and a wine distribution warehouse (south). A location map is included as Attachment 0.0.

The project is anticipated to be developed in two phases. 75 Phase 1 Consists of two high cube warehouse buildings that comprise approximately 1.1 million square feet on approximately 70 acres east of Devlin Road.

Phase 2 Consists of approximately 1.3 million square feet of high cube warehouse on 113.1-acres west of Devlin Road.

Approximately 45 acres of the overall project site would be preserved as wetlands. A site plan is included as Attachment 0.1.

The underlying purpose of the Project is to develop industrially zoned 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 posi1ve tax revenues for the city by genera1ng more in new tax revenues than are consumed by City expenditures on services provided to the development.

3. Create new employment opportuni1es for residents of Napa County and the surrounding region.

4. Develop compa1ble 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 circula1on improvements along Green Island Road and Devlin Road that provide efficient ingress and egress to the Proposed Project while also ensuring these facili1es operate at acceptable levels.

10. Promote public safety by incorporating security measures into the project design.

11. Mi1gate impacts on the environment through implementa1on of feasible mi1ga1on measures.

The Project includes three Entitlements. They are:

1. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the entire 208-acre project;

2. A Design Permit for Phase 1 which includes two high-cube warehouses that comprise nearly

1.07 million square feet; and

3. A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide Phase 1 into two parcels.

On November 17, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and unanimously recommended City Council approval of each of the three en1tlements. The City Council is the final approval authority because the EIR requires a Statement of Overriding Considera1ons (see, ACMC 76 Section 19.01.0060(D)).

On December 6, 2022, the City Council voted unanimously by all members present to con1nue the public hearing to February 21, 2023, and allow the Center for Biological Diversity un1l January 16, 2023, to comment on the proposed draft EIR.

Existing Conditions
The Giovannoni property was annexed into the City of American Canyon in 2005. At that 1me, this property along with other proper1es north of Green Island Road were pre-zoned for industrial use.

At 208-acres, the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center site is the largest undeveloped property within American Canyon designated for industrial land use.

The project site gently slopes from east to west and the eleva1on ranges from 35 feet to 50 feet above mean sea level. The project site contains undeveloped land. Vegeta1on consists primarily of non-na1ve grasslands, with seasonal wetlands and associated plant species scaIered throughout the site. The property has no on-site structures. Photographs of the site from 2021 are included as Attachment 0.2.

Devlin Road bisects the site north-to-south. Green Island Road, to the south will be improved within the next 12-18 months. Both Devlin Road and Green Island Road include an extension of the Vine Trail.

The headwaters of No Name Creek are located in the northwestern por1on of the site. No Name Creek flows into the Napa Logis1cs Park Wetland Preserve from the northwestern corner of the property. This drainage is hydrologically connected to Fagan Slough, which flows into the Napa River.

Although most of the Project Site is rela1vely flat, historic grazing and inunda1on in low topographic areas with scaIered depressions. As a result, there are small seasonal wetlands and swales scaIered throughout the site, most of which are supported by rainwater. Altogether, there are

11.93 acres of seasonal wetlands in the north and southwest corner of the site. These are regulated as “waters of the U.S.” pursuant to Sec1on 404 of the Clean Water Act and are subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdic1on. Aerial maps that depict Phase 1 wetland impacts and the proposed mitigation plan is shown on Attachment 0.3.

The Phase 2 site west of Devlin Road is bisected by the West Napa Fault in a northwest/southeast direc1on. The fault does not extend into the proposed Phase 1 Design Permit and Tenta1ve Parcel Map. A graphic depic1ng the approximate loca1on of the West Napa Fault and Regulatory Zone is included as Attachment 0.4.

An exis1ng 18-inch diameter force main crosses the western por1on of the project site between a Pump Sta1on on Tower Road and another Pump Sta1on on Green Island Road. Parallel wastewater 77 and recycled water pipelines were constructed through the Phase 2 project site in Spring 2021 to support the Napa Logis1cs Park Project. These pipelines link Napa Logis1cs Park to the north with the City’s Water Reclamation Facility to the south.

EIR Milestones
The EIR was circulated for public review for 60 days from May 20, 2022, to July 20, 2022. As noted above, the City Council allowed the Center for Biological Diversity un1l January 16, 2023, to comment on the proposed DraO EIR. A copy of the DraO EIR and Appendices is included as Attachments 1. Exhibit A and B.

The city received comments on the DraO EIR. These comments were reviewed and a response to each comment was prepared. The Final EIR consists of the DraO EIR and Appendices (see AIachments 1. Exhibit A and B), Final EIR (AIachment 1. Exhibit C1 and C2), Facts and Findings (Attachment 1. Exhibit D), and the Mitigation and Monitoring Report (Attachment 1. Exhibit E).

ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires every project evaluate impacts on a range of environmental topics. Listed below are each of the environmental topics and the degree of impact caused by the Project:
1) No Significant Impact. The Project’s impact on following topic areas are Not Significant:

Agriculture and Forest Resources
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Recreation
Wildfire
State Scenic Highways
Septic or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials
Private Airstrips
Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan
Wildland Fire
An explana1on of the reasons why each issue is determined to be Not Significant is provided in EIR Chapter 7, Effects Found Not to be Significant. See Attachment 1. Exhibit A Giovannoni Draft EIR. 2) The project impacts are Less Than Significant. Changes to the project and/or feasible mi1ga1on measures lessen the impact to Less Than Significant. These topic areas include the following:

Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
78 Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise
Public Services
Transportation
Utility Systems
An explana1on of the reasons why each issue is determined to be Less Than Significant is provided in EIR Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis. See AIachment 1. Exhibit A Giovannoni DraO EIR.

Proposed Mi1ga1on Measures to reduce environmental impacts are summarized in the Mi1ga1on and Monitoring Report. See, Attachment 1. Exhibit E Giovannoni MMRP. 3) The project creates a Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Changes to the project and/or feasible mi1ga1on measures lessen the impact, but the impact remains Significant and Unavoidable.

Significant and Unavoidable impacts are limited to Air Quality as described below:

Air Quality Management Plan: The Proposed Project would exceed regional emissions thresholds and, therefore, be inconsistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regional air quality planning assump(ons. Proposed Mi(ga(on includes emission reduc(on measures; however, these measures would not lower impacts to a Less Than Significant level.

Therefore, the significance after mitigation is significant and unavoidable.

Cumulave Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts: The Bay Area region does not comply with federal or State air quality standards for certain air pollutants. The Proposed Project would cause a net increase of some of these criteria air quality pollutants. Even though the project would implement measures to reduce these pollutants though Mi(ga(on, it would not fully reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the significance a/er mi(ga(on is significant and unavoidable.

An explana1on of the reasons why these Air Quality impacts are Significant and Unavoidable is provided in EIR Chapter 3, Sec1on 3.2, Environmental Impact Analysis. See AIachment 1. Exhibit A Giovannoni Logistics Center Draft EIR.

Project Alternatives
CEQA requires an EIR evaluate alterna1ves to the Proposed Project that are poten1ally feasible and would aIain most of the basic project objec1ves while avoiding or substan1ally lessening the 79 project's poten1al impacts. Below is a summary of the alterna1ves to the Proposed Project considered in Chapter 5, Alterna1ves to the Proposed Project. See AIachment 1. Exhibit A - Giovannoni Logistics Center Draft EIR.

No Project/No Development Alternative
The Proposed Project would not be pursued, and the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. This alternative would avoid all the Proposed Project’s significant impacts.

No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
A 2.4 million square-foot food and beverage facility would be developed on the project site. The project boundaries would remain the same as the Proposed Project. This alterna1ve would increase the severity of all the Proposed Project’s significant impacts.

Reduced Density Alternative
A 1.6-million-square-foot logis1cs center would be developed on the project site, which represents a 25 percent reduc1on rela1ve to the Proposed Project. The layout and project boundaries would remain the same as the Proposed Project. This alterna1ve would lessen the severity of all the Proposed Project’s significant impacts.

Phase 1 Only Alternative
Phase 1 would be developed, which consist of 1.1 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on 95 acres. Phase 2 would not be pursued, and the remaining 113 acres of the project site would remain undeveloped. This alterna1ve would lessen the severity of all the Proposed Project’s significant impacts to the greatest extent. The Phase 1 Only Alterna1ve is the environmentally superior alternative.

Conclusion
The Phase 1 Only Alterna1ve would lessen the severity of, but would not avoid, the significant and unavoidable Air Quality and GHG emissions impacts associated with the Proposed Project.

Addi1onally, the severity of several significant impacts that can be reduced to Less Than Significant with mi1ga1on (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and noise), would be further reduced by the Phase 1 Only Alternative.

The Project Applicant has a 100-year lease agreement with the Property Owner for the en1re 208- acre site. The Phase 1 Only Alterna1ve is problema1c because the Project Applicant would be unlikely to forgo development on approximately 113 acres (the Phase 2 por1on of the project site).

Moreover, the project site is the single largest undeveloped industrial zoned site in the City of American Canyon. Preserving 113 acres as a wetland preserve would not represent the highest and best use of the property, par1cularly since approximately 45 acres of the project site would be assigned for this use.

For reasons described above, staff does not recommend the environmentally superior Phase 1 Only 80 Alternative. Alterna1ves to the Proposed Project are more fully described in the DraO EIR, Chapter

5. See Attachment 1. Exhibit A Giovannoni Draft EIR.

Comments on the Draft EIR
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sec1on 15088, the City of American Canyon (City), as the lead agency, evaluated the comments received on the DraO EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2021010104) for the proposed Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project (proposed project), and prepared responses to the comments received.

On October 31, 2022, the city released a document described as the (proposed) Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project (proposed project). In issuing this document, City staff intended that, upon cer1fica1on by the American Canyon City Council, the document would become the official Final EIR for the proposed project.

On November 17, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the project en1tlements and recommended approval of all items (including cer1fica1on of the Final EIR) to the City Council (Resolution 2022-05).

Following the Planning Commission mee1ng; however, the City was made aware of public no1cing issues associated with the DraO Environmental Impact Report (DraO EIR), which was released for public review on May 20, 2022. In par1cular, a representa1ve of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) claimed that CBD had submitted to City staff a request for notice of the availability of the Draft EIR at the 1me it was released for public review but had not received any such no1ce prior to, or at the time of, the May 20, 2022, release of the document.

Out of an abundance of cau1on, the city agreed to delay ac1on by the City Council on the project and EIR un1l such 1me as CBD had been given a full 45-day period in which to comment on the DraO EIR, consistent with the statutory time periods for such comments set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21091, subdivision (a).

Because no other person or en1ty claimed a similar lack of adequate no1ce on the DraO EIR, the City did not grant any other persons or en11es a similar 45-day period in which to provide official comments on the DraO EIR. Even so, prior to and during the period in which poten1al ac1on on the proposed project by the City Council was delayed to accommodate CBD, several government agencies and private organiza1ons submiIed to the City new or addi1onal comments on the proposed project, mainly focusing on the original (proposed) Final EIR issued on October 31, 2022.

Those comments are addressed in the Final EIR, although such written responses are not required by CEQA.

Because of the need to provide CBD a full 45-day period in which to comment on the DraO EIR, and subsequent comments submiIed by CBD on January 13, 2023, as well as comments received by several government agencies and private organiza1ons, the Final EIR document issued on October 81 31, 2022, now includes a Volume 2 of the Final EIR (February 3, 2023). The new Volume 2 of the Final EIR is organized into four sections:

Section 1–Introduction. Provides an introduction to the Final EIR Volume 2.

Sec1on 2–Master Responses. Provides a single, comprehensive response to similar comments about a par1cular topic. Where noted, the Master Responses contained in Final EIR Volume 2 supersede those in Final EIR Volume 1.

Sec1on 3–Responses to WriIen Comments. Provides a list of the individuals, agencies, and organiza1ons that commented during the second DraO EIR review period. Copies of all the leIers received regarding the DraO EIR and responses to all significant environmental issues in those letters are also included in this section.

Section 4–Errata. Includes an addendum lis1ng refinements and clarifica1ons on the DraO EIR, which have been incorporated. Where noted, the refinements and clarifica1ons contained in Final EIR Volume 2 supersede those in Final EIR Volume 1.

Appendices. Includes appendices that are cited as suppor1ng evidence in Sec1ons 2 and 3, as well as an updated Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project (dated December 6, 2023) (Appendix Q.1) and a related technical memorandum prepared by Balance Hydrologics (dated February 7, 2023) (Appendix Q.2), concluding that the conclusions of the updated WSA are unchanged notwithstanding (i) the American Canyon City Council’s adop1on on September 6, 2022 (via Resolu1on 2022-84) of an amendment to the City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and (ii) the City’s release on January 18, 2023, of its Final 2020 UWMP.

A copy of the October 31, 202 Final EIR which is labelled as Volume 1 and the February 7, 2023, Final EIR Volume 2 are included in AIachment 1. Exhibit C1 Giovannoni Final EIR Volume 1 and Attachment 1. Exhibit C2 Giovannoni Final EIR Volume 2.

EIR Conclusion
A Statement of Findings has been prepared to document the project descrip1on, environmental review process, and substan1al evidence to support all the conclusions in the EIR. This evidence is contained in a list of Findings. See Attachment 1. Exhibit D Giovannoni FOF.

City of Vallejo Input
At the February 21, 2023, American Canyon City Council Mee1ng, the City of Vallejo submiIed a late leIer asser1ng that: (1) Vallejo did not receive no1ce of the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project; (2) Vallejo was a responsible agency for the project EIR; and (3) American Canyon could not approve the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project (the Project) because of pending li1ga1on over a 1996 water agreement between the two ci1es, which created uncertainty regarding whether American Canyon could provide a reliable water supply to the Project; and (4) the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Project was deficient. A copy of the City of Vallejo letter is included as Attachment 0.9.

With respect to the first claim, American Canyon’s project no1fica1on list includes the City of Vallejo Planning Division. Thus, Vallejo received wriIen no1ce of the No1ce of Prepara1on in January 2021 and wriIen no1ce of the availability of the DraO EIR in May 2022. A copy of the Project No1fica1on 82 List is included as AIachment 0.91. American Canyon also published a no1ce of DraO EIR availability of the Vallejo Times Herald. Vallejo did not provide comments in response to either no1ce. Rather, Vallejo waited un1l the evening of the American Canyon City Council hearing on the Project to voice its first concerns about the Project. While these comments may have been 1mely as a legal maIer, American Canyon would have preferred to receive such comments at an earlier date. (SeeCitizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 530-532 [court concludes that correspondence submiIed on the day of a public hearing on a project did not fairly present all of the issues that the commenter later aIempted to pursue in litigation].)
As for the second asser1on, the CEQA Guidelines Sec1on 15381 defines a “responsible agency” as an agency other than the lead agency that is required to grant discre1onary approvals associated with a proposed project. No such discre1onary approval is required for the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project. Although American Canyon receives water Vallejo pursuant to a 1996 contractual arrangement, nothing in the exis1ng contract requires project-specific discre1onary approvals from Vallejo for water deliveries to individual sites such as the Giovannoni site. Vallejo’s theory on this point is that because Vallejo supplies a por1on of American Canyon’s potable water supply pursuant to the 1996 agreement, this contractual rela1onship, by itself, makes Vallejo a responsible agency.

This theory falls short as a legal maIer. As noted, the contract does not give Vallejo any discre1onary control over individual water deliveries within American Canyon. Regardless, even if Vallejo were a responsible agency, Vallejo would not have been en1tled to a greater level of consulta1on than it has already received. American Canyon provided Vallejo with all of the materials to which it would have been en1tled to as a responsible agency, namely, the no1ce of prepara1on and no1ce of the availability of the DraO EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15082, subd. (a), 15086, subd. (a)(1).)
In response to the leIer from Vallejo, American Canyon contacted its water counsel, Alexis K.

Stevens and Kelly M. Taber of Somach, Simmons and Dunn. A March 10, 2023 leIer from Ms.

Stevens and Ms. Taber to American Canyon City AIorney William Ross rebuts Vallejo’s conten1ons (i) that the terms of the 1996 contract create uncertain1es regarding the availability of water to the Project site and (ii) that the WSA for the Project errs by concluding that such reliable supplies exist.

The leIer concluded that, notwithstanding the conten1ons made by Vallejo, the WSA was legally adequate and was factually accurate in concluding that American Canyon has ample water to supply the proposed project along with other planned development during single dry and mul1ple dry year scenarios during a 20-year planning period. A copy of the Somach leIer is included as AIachment

0.92. American Canyon therefore stands by the conclusions of the WSA and concludes that the document is factually accurate and legally adequate under Water Code sec1on 10910. For this reason, nothing in the February 21, 2023, correspondence from Vallejo undermines the validity of the water supply discussion in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project. The 1996 agreement predates the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project by more than 25 years and the Project’s water demand can be clearly met by American Canyon’s exis1ng water supply sources. Underscoring this point, American Canyon’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) indicated that actual 83 2020 per capita usage was 116 gallons / day, which was far less than the 162 gallons / day projected in 2020 by the 2015 UWMP. This evidence of ongoing reduc1ons in per capita water consump1on within American Canyon serves to indicate that American Canyon’s water planning projec1ons are underpinned by conserva1ve assump1ons. Both the 2020 UWMP and the WSA demonstrate that American Canyon has sufficient water supplies to serve exis1ng and future demand (including the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project), during normal, single-dry, and mul1ple dry-year scenarios, without needing any additional water from Vallejo.

Phase 1 Design Permit
Buzz Oates LLC submiIed a Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Phase 1 Design Permit applica1on to develop two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet on 70.2-acres east of Devlin Road and north of Green Island Road.

Building A, located at 300 Green Island Road, is proposed to be 627,976 square feet; and Building B, located at 1200 Devlin Road is proposed to be 469,512 square feet. Both buildings would provide docks, grade level roll-up doors, and trailer parking stalls and enclosed with a secure perimeter.

Access would be restricted to authorized users. Building A building may be rail-served by the adjacent Napa Branch Line. A graphic depicting the site plan is included as Attachment 0.1.

The building architecture meets the design and development principles set out in the General Plan (Policy 1.22.4 and 1.22) and reflect a modern industrial look by providing architectural detailing around windows, building corners, parapet, and ar1culated sidings of the main entrance. The exterior concrete walls have score lines that break up the wall expanse. The ground floor eleva1on has storefront like windows that capture natural light.

The building design includes a tall parapet to screen rooOop structures and mechanical equipment.

A condi1on of approval requires adequate rooOop equipment screening verified at the 1me of building permit issuance and occupancy. Photosimula1ons of the building eleva1ons are included as Attachment 0.5.

The site is well landscaped, including trees throughout the parking areas and along the southern, western and northern edges of the site, and plan1ngs within the stormwater bio-reten1on area that runs along the northwest side of the site. There are clearly marked pedestrian routes in the parking lot leading to the front office of the building. A copy of the Preliminary Landscape Plan is included as Attachment 0.6.

Each building has safe access onto the adjacent roadway. The entrances are designed to separate big-rig trucks from passenger vehicles and the site plan has a driveway interconnec1on between the Building A and Building B site along the northern perimeter onto Devlin Road.

Building A has four entrances on Green Island Road. The western and eastern entrances are designed for big-rig trucks. The central two driveways are for passenger vehicles. 84 Building B has three entrances off Devlin Road. The northern and southern entrances are designed for big-rig trucks. The central driveway is for passenger vehicles.

The parking code requires ten bicycle racks for each building. The site plan shows bike lockers located adjacent to service doors at two loca1ons on the northern and southern sides of Building A.

On Building B, bike lockers are located next to the western eleva1on directly in line with the Devlin Road entrance. A second bike locker is located on the northeast elevation near the office entrance.

A table depic1ng compliance with General Industrial zoning standards for Building A (300 Green Island Road) and Building B (1200 Devlin Road) is included as AIachment 0.7. As shown on the table, all applicable General Industrial development standards have been met or exceeded.

Special Issues
a. Fire District Fiscal Impacts.

The applicant conducted a fiscal analysis that projected the Project would generate an annual Fire District opera1ng deficit of $158,000. The applicant and the Fire District reached a mutual agreement to supplement financing over the long term. The Memorandum of Understanding between the American Canyon Fire Protec1on District and Buzz Oats, LLC was approved by the Fire District Board on October 22, 2022 (Resolution 2022-29).

A condi1on of approval requires the Applicant to form a Mello-Roos Community Facili1es District or similar public financing mechanism (CFD) on full legal parcels that are a part of the Project prior to City issuance of the first building permit. This same condi1on is included in the Tenta1ve Parcel Map except the threshold is prior to recorda1on of the map, or city issuance of the first building permit, whichever occurs first.
b. Traffic Monitoring.

The Giovannoni EIR projected trip genera1on from the project to equal 240 vehicles in the AM peakhour and 264 vehicles in the PM peak-hour. To ensure actual traffic volumes are no more than the EIR assump1on, the Design Permit includes two condi1ons of approval that require the Applicant to enter into a Recorded a Transporta1on Demand Management (TDM) Program Agreement (“TDM Agreement”) prior to issuance of the first building permit. Modelled aOer the Napa Logis1cs Park Phase 2 TDM Program, the applicant is required to implement off-peak hour workday shiOs. In addition, the TDM program may include a variety of additional trip reduction measures including: car sharing, transit subsidies, and so on. If these are not successful, the Applicant would be required to pay an addi1onal amount for each and every peak-hour trip recorded by the coun1ng device that exceeds the TDM threshold, equal to the latest adopted Traffic Impact Fee (“TIF”) program in effect at the time.
c. Water Conservation
85 As a part of ongoing water conserva1on efforts in the commercial sector, the City of American Canyon adopted a Zero Water Footprint policy. Also known as ZWF, the primary goal of this policy is there will be no loss in reliability or increase in water rates for exis1ng water service customers due to new demand for water within the City’s water service area.

To meet the ZWF standards, Developers must ensure that all new developments offset the amount of increased potable water that will be consumed by their project on a one-to-one basis. There are several ways to meet ZWF requirements. During the development process, the City and Developer work in partnership with each other to iden1fy the most appropriate ZWF methods for offseXng the increase in potable water consumption. At a minimum, water conservation measures include:

Water efficient fixtures
Install water wise landscaping and irrigation
Dual plumb the buildings to use recycled water for non-potable uses Once the Developer has refined their plan to minimize potable water needs, the City and Applicant evaluates the project’s water footprint and the proposed potable water offset through these potential programs:

Contribu1ng to the City’s exis1ng conserva1on programs, including our popular Cash-forGrass turf conversion program, toilet retrofits, and similar community-wide programs.

Elimina1ng an exis1ng public use of potable water by conver1ng it to recycled water, such as city park and landscaping irrigation.

Construc1ng or funding city capital projects that directly result in reduced demand for potable water or increased capacity to produce recycled water, including but not limited to replacing leaking main lines, replacing inefficient water meters, and treatment improvements at the water reclamation facility.

Contribu1ng toward the expansion of the City’s reclaimed water system by extending the purple pipeline to locations not currently served by recycled water.

Acquiring water supply from another source.

The Giovannoni Logis1cs Center has a condi1on of approval requiring the project to comply with the ZWF policy and to dual plumb toilets to use recycled water. d. Water Supply Assessment
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project was prepared by Balance Hydrologics Inc. in conjunc1on with the EIR (see EIR Appendix I, AIachment 1.J). The WSA (dated September 21, 2021), prepared in accordance with Water Code Sec1on 10910, (a) iden1fies the City of American Canyon as the public water supplier for the proposed development; (b) compares the an1cipated water demands of the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project with the projected demands assumed in the City's most recent 2015 Urban Water Management Plan; and (c) assesses whether the City's water system can meet the projected water demand of the Giovannoni 86 Logis1cs Center Project in addi1on to exis1ng and planned future uses over a 20-year projected time frame.

The WSA concludes that 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 addi1on, compliance with the city's Zero Water Footprint policy would offset the Project's potable demand through offsite implementa1on of project-funded water conserva1on measures of up to 23.9 afy. The citywide supply/demand analysis in this WSA an1cipates sufficient supply in all normal years, but shorYalls in water supply during dry-year scenarios in 2035 and 2040, consistent with the analysis in the 2015 UWMP. The WSA is included as Appendix I in the Draft EIR. See Attachment 1. Exhibit B Giovannoni EIR Appendices.

American Canyon released a Final 2020 UWMP on January 18, 2023. This planning update included revised projec1ons 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 es1mates of popula1on and other growth within the City.

In general, the UWMP update resulted in projected decreases in both water supply and demand, when compared year-to-year to the projec1ons contained within the 2015 UWMP. Balance Hydrologics, Inc. reviewed the 2020 UWMP. The 2020 UWMP concluded that even with a lower projected demand and even less available supply than that projected in the 2015 UWMP, American Canyon has available addi1onal supply through the purchase of “supplemental imported water through exis1ng agreements through the planning horizon (2045) for all water year scenarios” to overcome potential drought-scenario shortfalls through the 2045 planning period.

As detailed in the WSA, the Giovannoni Project is an1cipated to use up to 24 acre-feet per year ("afy") of potable water and 82 afy of recycled water (aOer full development of the project site). The updated projec1ons of Commercial/Industrial/Ins1tu1onal (C/I/I) demand in the 2020 UWMP, while less than that projected in 2015, could s1ll accommodate the increase in potable demand associated with the Project. As a result, the Giovannoni Project WSA is consistent with Water Code sec1on 10910—because the City has sufficient water to serve the Project, in addi1on to the City’s exis1ng and planned future uses (including agricultural and manufacturing uses) during normal, single-dry, and mul1ple-dry water years during the next 20-year 1me period. A copy of the Balance Hydrologics, Inc. review of the 2020 UWMP is included as Appendix Q in FEIR, Volume 2. See Attachment 1. Exhibit C2.
e. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Methods
The Giovannoni EIR includes five mi1ga1on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The first mitigation measure MM GHG-1a includes ten ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from project construc1on. These range from no vola1le organic compound (VOC) paints, local building material suppliers, use of electric construction equipment, and so on. 87 The other four measures reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ongoing building opera1on. MM GHG 1e requires the Applicant to provide the city with documenta1on (e.g., site plans) demonstra1ng to the City’s sa1sfac1on that the electricity demand will be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity sources through the Year 2045. This requirement is necessary to satisfy prior to the issuance of any building permit for the Proposed Project.

The Design Permit implements MM GHG-1e with the use of on-site solar panels. On-site solar electricity has the advantage of not requiring use of unreliable PG&E distribu1on lines. Furthermore, there is significant concern that adap1ng to a carbon free future will strain exis1ng supplies of carbon free electricity. Genera1ng electricity on-site helps grow the supply of carbon- free electricity, not draw from limited existing sources.
f. Lot Line Adjustment
An exis1ng parcel line cuts through the proposed Building A western parking lot from Green Island Road to the proposed bioswale north of Building A. For a variety of legal reasons and zoning setback requirements, it is important to reconfigure parcel lines to reflect the proposed site plan. A graphic depic1ng the exis1ng parcel line is included as AIachment 0.8. It is labelled “Lands of Right from the Start.” APN 057-130-036.

Design Permit Conclusion
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Design Permit as shown in Attachment 2.

Tentative Subdivision Map
Buzz Oates LLC submiIed a Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Phase 1 Tenta1ve Parcel Map to create a two-lot parcel map north of Green Island Road, and east of Devlin Road for up to 1,069,904 square feet of high-cube warehouse buildings (the proposed project). Lot 1, located at 300 Green Island Road, comprises 38.36 acres, and Lot 2 located at 1200 Devlin Road comprises 31.44 acres.

Both parcels are specifically designed to accommodate the proposed warehouse buildings shown in the Design Permit applica1on. Each parcel has its own parking and access, so they could operate independently from each other.

Parcel Sizes
The Light Industrial zoning district requires a minimum parcel size of 40,000 square feet. Both Lot 1 and 2 greatly exceed this minimum standard with 38.36 acres, and 31.44 acres, respectively.

Infrastructure
As shown on the Tenta1ve Parcel Map plans, the subdivision has been designed to accommodate stormwater and u1li1es. The condi1ons of approval (See AIachment 3) provide addi1onal instructions on infrastructure development and impact fee payments. 88 Giovannoni Logistics Park EIR Mitigation Measures
As required for the Design Permit, the Tenta1ve Map also includes applicable mi1ga1on measures from the Giovannoni Logistics Park EIR.

Fire District Financing Agreement
As required for the Design Permit, the Tenta1ve Map also includes the same requirement for the Applicant to form a Mello-Roos Community Facili1es District or similar public financing mechanism (CFD) on full legal parcels that are a part of the Project in accordance with ACFPD Agreement 2022-

29. A copy of Agreement 2022-29 is included with the Tenta1ve Map Resolu1on. (See AIachment 3 Exhibit C).

Tentative Parcel Map Conclusion
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Tentative Parcel Map as shown in Attachment 3.

COUNCIL PRIORITY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Economic Development and Vitality: "AIract and expand diverse business and employment opportunities."

FISCAL IMPACT
Processing the Project's En1tlements is funded by the applicant to eliminate a General Fund subsidy. Development of the project will generate ongoing tax revenues and indirect economic development from addi1onal employees. Costs will increase from providing municipal services i.e., road maintenance, emergency services. Specific fiscal impacts will vary dependent upon the ultimate site users at the property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH# 2021010104) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and adequately reflects the City’s independent judgement and analysis regarding the poten1al environmental impacts associated with the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project, and: (i) approves a Water Supply Assessment, (ii) Cer1fies the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021010104), (iii) Adopts CEQA Findings of Fact, (iv) Adopts a Statement of Overriding Considera1ons, and (v) Adopts a Mi1ga1on Monitoring and Repor1ng Program for the Giovannoni Logis1cs Center Project located north of Green Island Road and bisected by Devlin Road, APN 057-090-008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (File No. PL 20-0042) ATTACHMENTS:

0.0 Location Map

0.1 Site Plan

0.2 Site Photographs

0.3 Wetlands Delineation & Mitigation Map

0.4 Fault Zone Map
89 0.5 Building Photosimulations

0.6 Preliminary Landscape Plan

0.7. Building A and B Development Standards

0.8. Parcel Line To Adjust

0.9. Vallejo to American Canyon (Opposition Comments) 2.21.23

0.91. Giovannoni Project Notice List

1. CC Giovannoni CEQA Reso 03.21.23

1. Exhibit A. Giovannoni Draft EIR

1. Exhibit B Giovannoni EIR Appendices

1. Exhibit C1 Giovannoni Final EIR Volume 1

1. Exhibit C2 Giovannoni Final EIR Volume 2

1. Exhibit D Giovannoni Logistics Center FOF 2-21-23

1. Exhibit E Giovannoni MMRP

2. CC Giovannoni Design Permit Reso 03.21.23

2. Exhibit A Giovannoni Design Permit Plans

2. Exhibit B Confirmation of Design Permit Conditions

2. Exhibit C Fire District Resolution 2022-29

3. CC Giovannoni TPM Reso 03.21.23

3. Exhibit A Giovannoni Tentative Parcel Map Plans

3. Exhibit B Confirmation of TPM Conditions.pdf

3. Exhibit C Fire District Resolution 2022-29
092. FINAL Memo Responding to Vallejo Comments on Giovannoni Project 90 54600001 • 09/2021 | 2-2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 2-2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Aerial Imagery, 10/2020. County of Napa.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Eucalyptus Dr
Green Island Rd
Green Island Rd
Paoli Loop Rd
Watson Ln
Hanna Dr
Commerce Blvd
29 Devlin Rd
Kelly Rd
Airport Rd
12 Napa County Airport Napa Branch Line
California Northern Railroad
California Northern Railroad
Napa Logistics Park
Napa Airport
Corporate Center Middleton Way
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 0.0
91 ATTACHMENT 0.1
92 Photograph 1: View of Phase 1 (eastern) portion of project site. Photograph 2: View of Phase 2 (western) portion of project site.

Photograph 3: View of the under construction segment of Devlin Road.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2021.
54600001 09/2021 | 2-3_site_photographs.cdr •
Exhibit 2-3
Site Photographs

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ATTACHMENT 0.2
93 I
54600001 09/2021 | 3.3-3_phase_1_wetland_impacts.cdr •
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants (May 2021). Imagery Source: County of Napa 6/19/2018.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-3
Phase 1 Wetland Impacts
ATTACHMENT 0.3
94 I
54600001 • 09/2021 | 3.3-4_wetland_mitigation_plan.cdr
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants (May 2021). Imagery Source: County of Napa 6/19/2018.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-4
Wetland Mitigation Plan
95 I
54600001 • 09/2021 | 3.3-5_phase_2_wetland_impacts.cdr
Source: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc., Environmental Regulatory Consultants (May 2021). Imagery Source: County of Napa 6/19/2018.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 3.3-5
Phase 2 Wetland Impacts
96 Earthquake
Regulatory Zone
Proposed
lift station
Existing
sewer line
Devlin Road
Southern Pacific Railroad
Green Island Road
Approximate
Site Boundary
N
0 400 800

APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)
Approximate location of trench
Approximate Earthquake
Regulatory Zone
Approximate location of
seasonal unnamed creek
Legend
Base by Google Earth, dated 5/20/2017
Overlay: Topographical Map, undated
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
Figure 7
RRN
Fault Investigation 582-4-1
Giovannoni Property
American Canyon, CA
October 2017
Trench 1
Trench 2B Trench 2A
West Napa
Fault
Qoa
Qha Qpf
Qf
Th
Qha
Geologic Units
Holocene alluvium, undifferentiated
Late Pleistocene to Holocene fan deposits
Late Pleistocene fan deposits
Early to middle Pleistocene fan or terrace deposits
Huichica Formation (Pliocene)
Fluvial gravel, sand, silt, and clay
Qf
Qpf
Qha
Qoa
Th
Approximate location of
West Napa Fault
(this investigation)
50 ft setback
97 54600001 02/2021 | 2-5_conceptual_renderings.cdr •
Source: RMW Architecture Interiors, 11/11/2020.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-5
Conceptual Renderings
ATTACHMENT 0.5
98 Wetlands 50' Wetlands Buffer Line (typ) Wetlands 50' buffer Line Wetlands 50' Buffer Line Bio Retention Detention Pond GREEN ISLAND ROAD

DEVLIN ROAD

SOUTHERN

PACIFIC RAILROAD

NO TRUCKS

NO TRUCKS NO TRUCKS
STOP
STOP

STOP STOP STOP STOP
STOP
STOP BUILDING A BUILDING B Bio Retention Lagerstroemia f. 'Catawba' Crepe Myrtle Low 24" Box Flowering Accent Tree Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache Low 24" Box Deciduous Shade Tree Quercus lobata Valley Oak Low 15 Gallon Deciduous Shade Tree TREES Quercus r. Shumardii Shumard Oak Low 15 Gallon Deciduous Shade Tree PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND Ulmus 'Frontier' Frontier Elm Med 15 Gallon Deciduous Shade Tree Quercus suber Cork Oak Low 15 Gallon Evergreen Screen Tree 48 lbs. per acre Pacific Coast Seed Apply Compact Bio Swale Mix via hydroseed at the following rates: Bio Swale Seed Mix 48/lbs/ac Mulch 2000 lbs/ac M-Binder Tackifier 180 lbs/ac Platanus a. 'Columbia' London Plane Tree Low 15 Gallon Deciduous Shade Tree Acer r. 'October Glory' Red Maple Med 15 Gallon Deciduous Shade Tree Sequoia s. 'Aptos Blue' Redwood Med 15 Gallon Evergreen Screen Tree Acer buergeranum Trident Maple Med 15 Gallon Deciduous Shade Tree Grevillea noelli Noel Grevillea Low 5 Gallon 5' OC 5' X 5' Rosemarinus 'Tuscan Blue' Tuscan Rosemary Low 5 Gallon 5' OC 6' X 5' Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic Low 1 Gallon 2' OC 2' X 2' Ceanothus 'Skylark' California Lilac Low 5 Gallon 5' OC 5' x 5' Xylsoma c. compacta Compact Xylosma Low 5 Gallon 6' OC 6' X 6' Cistus purpureus Purple Rockrose Low 5 Gallon 6' OC 4' x 6' Loropetalum 'Ever Red' Fringe Flower Low 5 Gallon 6' OC 6' X 6' Arctostaphylos 'Sunset' Manzanita Low 5 Gallon 5' OC 5' x 5' FOUNDATION SHRUBS Nandina varieties Heavenly Bamboo Low 5 Gallon 5' OC 5' X 5' Raphiolepis 'Indian Princess' Indian Hawthorne Low 5 Gallon 5' OC 5' X 3' Rosa Carpet varieites Carpet Rose Med 5 Gallon 5' OC 4' X 5' GRASSES & ACCENTS Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic Low 1 Gallon 2' OC 2' X 2' Pennisetum 'Karley Rose' Fountain Grass Med 1 Gallon 3' OC 3' X 3' Pennisetum s. Cupreum' Red Fountain Grass Low 1 Gallon 4' OC 4' X 4' Muhlebergia capillaris Pink Muhly Grass Low 1 Gallon 4' OC 4' X 5' Coleonema pulchrum Breath of Heaven Med 1 Gallon 4' OC 3' x 4' GROUNDCOVER Cotoneaster dammeri Bearberry Low 1 Gallon 4' OC 1' X 6' Coprosma p. 'Verde Vista' NCN Low 1 Gallon 3' OC 2' X 4' Achillea 'Moonshine' Yarrow Low 1 Gallon 2' OC 2' X 2' Calamagrostis 'Karl Foerster' Feather Reed Grass Low 1 Gallon 3' OC 4' X 3' Juniper c. 'Blue Pacific' Shore Juniper Low 1 Gallon 4' OC 1' X 6' Myoporum 'Pink' NCN Low 1 Gallon 5' OC 1' X 8' COVER Landscape Planters-3" Layer of Recycled Wood mulch in all landscape planters BIO RETENTION TREATMENT Ginkgo 'Princeton Sentry' Maidenhair Tree Low 36" Box Flowering Accent Tree

1. THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 195,250 SQ' OF LANDSCAPE PLANTER AREA. 2. THERE IS 10.4% LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THE PARKING AND CIRCULATION AREAS. 3. THERE ARE 430 PARKING STALLS AND 143 SHADE TREES. REQUIREMENT OF 1 TREE PER 3 STALLS SINGLE LOADED AND1 PER 6 STALLS DOUBLE LOADED HAS BEEN MET. BUILDING A PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE NOTES1. THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 186,547 SQ' OF LANDSCAPE PLANTER AREA. 2. THERE IS 11.3% LANDSCAPE AREA WITHIN THE PARKING AND CIRCULATION AREAS. 3. THERE ARE 430 PARKING STALLS AND 139 SHADE TREES. REQUIREMENT OF 1 TREE PER 3 STALLS SINGLE LOADED AND1 PER 6 STALLS DOUBLE LOADED HAS BEEN MET. BUILDING B PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE NOTES WELO NOTES 1. ALL PLANTS AND TREES ARE WUCULS LOW OR MEDIUM WATER VARIETIES. 2. SOIL AMENDMENTS WILL BE INCORPORATED PER SOILS TEST. COMPOST WILL BE ORGANIC COMPOSTED GREEN WASTE. 3. ALL PLANTER AREAS SHALL BE TREATED WITH A 3" LAYER OF RECYCLED MULCH. 4. A FULLY AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS THE CURRENT WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING: 5. AN ET (SMART) CONTROLLER AND ET SENSOR SHALL BE USED FOR WEATHER BASED IRRIGATION CONTROL. 6. A MASTER VALVE AND FLOW SENSOR SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE SYSTEM. 7. ALL PLANTER AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH POINT SOURCE-DRIP IRRIGATION. 8. TREES SHALL RECEIVE DEEP WATER BUBBLERS ON SEPARATE VALVES. 9. WELO DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PLANS (CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS). Scale 1" = 100' 100 0 100 200 300 LP PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN project number : scale : stamp drawn by : checked by : plot date :
approved for the architect by :approved for the owner by : sheet no. : PRELIMINARY DESIGN DOCUMENTS FOR: CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA GREEN ISLAND ROAD AT HIGHWAY 29 GIOVANNONI issue : description : date : 555 CAPITOL MALL SUITE 900 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 PHONE: 916.379.3800 LOGISTICS CENTER OWNER / DEVELOPER: 2204049.00 AS NOTED EJD 11-11-2020 JN A PLANNING SUBMITTAL INITIAL DESIGN REVIEW 11-11-2020 VISTA PARKS design /build /construction WELO WORKSHEETS ATTACHMENT 0.6 99 ATTACHMENT 0.7
Building A and B
Development Standards Table
Development Standard Required Provided
(Building A)
Provided
(Building B)
Minimum Lot Size 40,000 sqft 38.36 acres 31.44 acres
Max Floor Area Ratio 50% 40% 38%
Max Building Height 36 feet 36 feet (clear height)
56’-4” (parapet height)
36 feet (clear height)
56’-4” (parapet height)
Required Setbacks
Front Streetside (Landscape)
Front (Building)
Side (Interior)
Rear
20 feet
20 feet
10 feet
10 feet
20 feet
160 feet
195 feet min
160 feet min
20 feet
140 feet
180 feet min
180 feet
Parking: Warehouses require 1
space per 1,000 SF of gross floor
area for the first 20,000, plus 1
space per 2,000 SF of gross floor
area thereafter
311 Bldg A
245 Bldg B
423 374
Bicycle Parking 10 stalls 10 stalls 10 stalls
100
ATTACHMENT 0.8
101
February 21, 2023
Dear Mr. Cooper,
(CW126518.3)
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Attn: Jason Holley, City Manager and Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director City ofAmerican Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201American Canyon, California 94503 Re.: City of Vallejo Comments in Opposition to City of American Canyon’s Proposed Approvals and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report Regarding the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
The City ofVallejo (“Vallejo”) has reviewed the City ofAmerican Canyon’s (“American Canyon”) City Council (“City Council”) agenda items for the February 21, 2023, City Council meeting. The purpose of this letter is to articulate Vallejo’s comments in opposition to the City Council’s recommended actions regarding Agenda Item No. 1 1, titled, “Giovannoni Logistics Center Warehouse Project” (“Project”). For the reasons set forth below Vallejo opposes the Project and each of the recommended City Council actions associated with Agenda Item No. 11.Vallejo recommends that the City Council not approve the Project and its associated environmental documents until staff have developed an alternative water supply.

Agenda Item No. 1 1, recommends City Council adopt three resolutions. The first of thoseresolutions approves a Water Supply Assessment (“Water Supply Assessment”); certifies a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”); adopts “CEQA Findings of Fact;” and adopts a“Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” for the Project (collectively the “Proposed Environmental Review Approvals”). The two other resolutions associated with Agenda Item No. 1 1 approve “the Giovannoni Logistics Center Phrase 1 Design Permit” and “the Giovannoni Logistics Center Tentative Parcel Map.” Both of these actions depend on City Council’s adoption of the Proposed Environmental Review Approvals.

However, the Proposed Environmental Review Approvals cannot be adopted because the Water Supply Assessment, described as “Appendix Q” to the FEIR, mischaracterizes Vallejo’s water rights and is therefore deficient. As such, the FEIR is also deficient and cannot be certified.

Consequently, none of the three resolutions can be adopted.

1. Vallejo has not been contacted to consider the impact on its water rights through the proposed City Council actions and approvals.
\
I
City of

VALLEJO
California
City Manager’s Office - 555 Santa Clara St. - Vallejo • CA 94590 707.648.4576 ATTACHMENT 0.9
102

{CW126518.3}
A “blend of all of Vallejo’s water sources” is not used to provide American Canyon with potable water. Vallejo’s only water right with an authorized place of use that includes any portion of American Canyon is License 7848, sometimes referred to as “Vallejo Permit Water.” The authorized place of use for Vallejo Permit Water does not extend to the whole ofAmerican Canyon.

Given this limitation on the Vallejo Permit Water that Vallejo provides to American Canyon, Vallejo recommends that American Canyon reassess its Water Supply Assessment and the conclusions that Chapter 3.13 of the FEIR makes with regard to the Vallejo Permit Water serving the Project. As part of that reassessment, American Canyon should consult with Vallejo to determine whether the Project site falls within the authorized place of use of License 7848.

Because Vallejo was not included as a responsible agency in the Project’s Environmental Impact Report, Vallejo only learned ofthe Project very recently, through its own inquiry, and Vallejo has not been able to independently determine whether the Project falls within the authorized place of use for License 7848. However, Vallejo recommends that even ifthe Project is located within the authorized place of use for License 7848, American Canyon should consider developing an alternative water supply for the Project.

2. The proposed City Council actions and approvals fail to consider the ongoing litigation between American Canyon and Vallejo relative to the 1996 Water Service Agreement (“1996 Agreement”).

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 ofVallejo’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”.

Section 2.2.2 of the Water Supply Assessment, “Vallejo Treated Water (Potable),” fails to recognize the place of use restrictions associated with Vallejo’s water rights in stating, at page 10:
1 Id. at p. 3694.
2 Id. at p. 3594.

The Project’s draft Water Supply Assessment “was included as an appendix to the Project Draft EIR submitted in the spring of 2022.”* On July 11, 2022, American Canyon filed its complaint against Vallejo for declaratory relief and breach of contract under the 1996 Agreement in City of American Canyon v. City of Vallejo (Case No. 22CV000772) (the “Litigation”). A final version of the Water Supply Assessment “was prepared in December 2022.”2 Despite ample time between American Canyon’s initiation ofthe Litigation and its preparation ofthe final Water 103

{CW126518.3}
Supply Assessment, the Litigation was not considered as part of the final Water Supply Assessment.The Water Supply Assessment’s failure to consider the impacts of the Litigation makes its findings unreliable and incomplete. The Litigation is centered around Vallejo and AmericanCanyon’s competing interpretations of the 1996 Agreement - the key water supply document between the cities. At a minimum, the Litigation underscores uncertainties regarding American Canyon’s water supply and its water supply planning. Therefore, Vallejo recommends AmericanCanyon refrain from relying on Vallejo water to serve the Project and other developments while the Litigation is ongoing.

On April 6, 2022, Vallejo submitted written comments to American Canyon regarding AmericanCanyon’s draft 2020 Draft Urban Water Management Plan. American Canyon failed to respond to Vallejo’s comments and did not revise its draft Urban Water Management Plan before adopting its Urban Water Management Plan in January 2023.

Vallejo’s April 6, 2022 comments, attached hereto, concern many of the Water Supply Assessment’s deficiencies, including the place of use restrictions associated with License 7848 and the amount of water available to American Canyon under the 1996 Agreement.In conclusion, for the reasons set forth above, American Canyon should not approve the Projectand should not take any action on Agenda Item No. 1 1 until American Canyon develops analternative water source.

3. American Canyon failed to consider Vallejo’s comments to American Canyon’s water supply documents, including Vallejo’s April 6, 2020 comments to American Canyon’s Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Sincerely, 7 /
Mike Malone
City Manager
104

NAPA COUNTY CONSERVATION,

DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING
1195 Third St., Rm. 210
Napa, CA 94559

CITY OF NAPA
Community Development Department
Planning Division
P.O. Box 660
Napa, CA 94559-0660
Napa Valley Unified
School District
2425 Jefferson Street
Napa, CA 94558
Napa County Public Works
1195 Third St., Rm. 201
Napa, CA 94559

NAPA COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT
1535 Airport Blvd
Napa, Ca 94558
Napa County Airport
Land Use Commission
1195 Third Street, No. 210
Napa, CA 94558
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Casey J. Sondgeroth
Environmental Specialist
Adams Broadwall Joseph & Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd., Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Sandy Finegan, Associate Planner
Cal Trans District 4
111 Grand Ave
P.O. Box 23660
Oakland, CA 94623-0660
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Napa County LAFCO
1030 Seminary Street, Suite B
Napa, CA 94559
PG&E
P.O. Box 7700000
San Francisco, CA 94177
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
3379 Solano Ave. #1700
Napa, CA 94558
NCTPA
625 Burnell Street
Napa, CA 94559
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
Pacific Region
2800 Cottage Way, No. W2606
Sacramento, CA 95875-1846
CALIF. DEPT. OF FISH & GAME
P.O. Box 47
Yountville, CA 94559

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
San Francisco District
Regulatory Branch
1455 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Napa County Mosquito Abatement
District
15 Melvin Road
American Canyon, CA 94503

STATE WATER RESOURCES

CONTROL BOARD
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
ABAG (by e-mail)
[email protected]
send only if regionally significant or
sent to SCH
California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife
1416 9th Street, 12th Floor
Vallejo, CA 94591
Philip Millenbah
Public Notice Journal
PO Box 330356
San Francisco, CA 94133
Napa County Clerk
PO Box 298
Napa, CA 94559
Albert Giovannoni Trust
3333 Cuttings Warf
Napa, CA 94559
California Northern Railroad
Genesee & Wyoming, Inc.
20 West Avenue
Darien, Connecticut 06820
Union Pacific Railroad
Rick Gooch
50 California Street #1563
San Francisco, CA 94111
ATTACHMENT 0.91

CITY OF VALLEJO
Planning Division – 2
nd Floor 555
Santa Clara Street Vallejo, CA
94590
105
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON (i) APPROVING A WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT, (ii) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021010104), (iii) ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, (iv) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND (v) ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR

THE GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT LOCATED NORTH OF GREEN ISLAND ROAD AND BISECTED BY DEVLIN ROAD, APN 057-090-008, 057-130-034, 057-130-036 (FILE NO. PL 20-0042) WHEREAS, Buzz Oates LLC, (“applicant”), submitted a Design Permit and Tentative Parcel Map application to develop the 208–acre Giovannoni Logistics Center site with up to 2.4 million square feet of high cube warehouse (the Project); and
WHEREAS, the applicant developed design-level site plans for Phase 1 of the proposed project, which includes a 94.7-acre area east of Devlin Road for two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet, with one building to be rail-served by the adjacent Napa Branch Line; and WHEREAS, each building would provide docks, grade level roll-up doors, and trailer parking stalls, and the facility would be enclosed with a secure perimeter and access would be restricted to authorized users; and
WHEREAS, Phase 2 of the proposed project would occur on a 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road in which the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse is conceptually proposed, and would commence once Phase 1 is completed; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project evaluates Phase 1 at a project level and Phase 2 at a program level of analysis; and WHEREAS, the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, dated September 21, 2021, was prepared on the City’s behalf by Balance Hydrologics Inc. in conjunction with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project; and
WHEREAS, the WSA, included within Appendix I to the Draft EIR, was prepared in accordance with Water Code Section 10910 and it (a) identifies the City of American Canyon as the public water supplier for the proposed development; (b) compares the anticipated water demands of the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project with the projected demands assumed in the City’s most recent 2015 Urban Water Management Plan; and (c) assesses whether the City’s water system can meet the projected water demand of the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project in addition to existing and planned future uses over a 20-year projected time frame; and
WHEREAS, the WSA concluded that the City’s water system can meet the projected water demand of the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project in addition to existing and planned future uses over a 20-year projected time frame; and
WHEREAS the objectives of the Giovannoni Logistics Center 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;
106

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; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), the City is the lead agency for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City released the Draft EIR for public comment for an anticipated 45-day review period to commence on Friday, May 20, 2022, and to end at 4:00 PM Tuesday, July 5, 2022; and WHEREAS,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; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a publicly-noticed workshop to discuss the Giovannoni Logistics Center Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, 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 Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, 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 based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, written and oral testimony given at meetings, it is appropriate to recommend 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; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
107
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2023, CBD submitted to the City by email extensive written comments on the Draft EIR, consisting of 27 pages of text supported by an additional eight pages of references; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2023, the City released the Final 2020 UWMP for American Canyon; and WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, 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; and
WHEREAS, because this post-Draft EIR correspondence from entities other than CBD did not constitute timely commentary on the Draft EIR, the City was under no legal obligation to provide written responses to such correspondence, but chose to do so in the spirit of transparency and to make clear to the correspondents that the City took their input and recommendations seriously; and WHEREAS, Volume 2 of the Final EIR also included new technical information prepared by Balance Hydrologics addressing whether the conclusions of the WSA remained valid in light of (i) the City Council’s adoption on September 6, 2022 (via Resolution 2022-84) of an amendment to the City’s 2015 UWMP to demonstrate compliance with Policy WR P1 (Reduce Reliance on the Delta Through Improved Regional Water Self -Reliance) of the Delta Plan adopted by the Delta Stewardship Council and (ii) the City’s 2020 UWMP; and
WHEREAS, this new technical information concluded that neither the City Council’s adoption of Resolution 2022-84 nor the 2020 UWMP provided any basis for altering the conclusion from the WSA that the City’s 108
water system can meet the projected water demand of the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project in addition to existing and planned future uses over a 20-year projected time frame; and WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15090 requires that, prior to approving a proposed project for which a final EIR has been prepared, a lead agency’s decision making body must certify that: (1) the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) the final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) the final EIR reflects the lead agency‘s independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, prior to approving a proposed project for which a final EIR has identified significant environmental effects, a lead agency’s decision making body is required, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (a), and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, to adopt findings demonstrating that the decision making body has considered and adopted all feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant project-related environmental effects (“CEQA Findings of Fact”); and
WHEREAS, prior to approving a proposed project with significant environmental effects that cannot feasibly be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the adoption of mitigation measures or project alternatives, a lead agency’s decision making body is required by Public Resources Code section 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines section 15093 to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations identifying the benefits of the project that, in the decisionmakers' minds, justify approval of the project notwithstanding those significant, unavoidable environmental effects; and WHEREAS, prior to approving a project that requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects, a lead agency’s decision-making body is required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subdivision (a), to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted by the lead agency are carried out; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2022, February 21, 2023, and March 21, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly-noticed public hearing to evaluate the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project and Final EIR (Volumes 1 and 2) and determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, written and oral testimony given at meetings, it is appropriate to certify the Final EIR (Volumes 1 and 2) as adequate to address environmental impacts associated with the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, to adopt CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, and to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are included herein by reference as findings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon hereby finds that the Water Supply Assessment for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, prepared by Balance Hydrologics Inc. and dated September 21, 2021, accurately provides the information required by Water Code Section 10910.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of American Canyon, acting as the board of the public water service provider, hereby determines it has adequate supplies to serve the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project and approves that certain Water Supply Assessment for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project, prepared on the City’s behalf by Balance Hydrologics Inc. and dated September 21, 2021.
109
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the City Council makes three findings necessary to certify that the Final EIR, namely, that the document (i) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, (ii) was presented to the City Council, which has considered the information contained therein, and (iii) reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR (Exhibit A to this Resolution) and Appendices (Exhibit B to this Resolution), and the Final EIR (Volumes 1 and 2), which includes a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR, responses to the significant environmental issues raised in comments received regarding the Draft EIR, and errata or revisions to the Draft EIR (Exhibit C to this Resolution).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project as included within Exhibit D to this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (Exhibit E to this Resolution).

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of American Canyon held on the 21st day of March, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________
Leon Garcia, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________ ___________________________ Taresa Geilfuss, CMC, City Clerk William D. Ross, City Attorney Exhibit A: Draft EIR
Exhibit B: Draft EIR Appendices
Exhibit C: Final EIR (Volumes 1 and 2)
Exhibit D: CEQA Statement of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exhibit E: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
110
NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA
WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM
DRAFT
Environmental Impact Report
Giovannoni Logistics Center Project
City of American Canyon, Napa County, California
State Clearinghouse Number 2021010104
Prepared for:

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

FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Grant Gruber, Project Manager
Date: May 20, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1.A
111

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
112
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................. i Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................ES- 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................ ES-1 Project Summary .............................................................................................................. ES-1 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts.......................................................................... ES-2 Summary of Project Alternatives....................................................................................... ES-3 Areas of Controversy and Potentially Controversial Issues... ........................................... ES-3 Public Review of the Draft EIR........................................................................................... ES-4 Executive Summary Matrix ............................................................................................... ES-5 Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 - Scope of the Draft EIR ................................................................................................ 1-3

1.3 - Organization of the Draft EIR...................................................................................... 1-4

1.4 - Documents Used In Preparation of the Draft EIR ........................................................ 1-6

1.5 - Documents Prepared for the Project .......................................................................... 1-7

1.6 - Review of the Draft EIR .............................................................................................. 1-7 Chapter 2: Project Description....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 - Project Location and Setting....................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 - Project History ........................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 - Project Characteristics................................................................................................ 2-4

2.4 - Project Objectives and Underlying Purpose................................................................ 2-9

2.5 - Intended Uses of this Draft EIR................................................................................... 2-9 Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis.................................................................................... 3-1 Organization of Issue Areas................................................................................................ 3-1 Issues Addressed in this Draft EIR....................................................................................... 3-1 Level of Significance........................................................................................................... 3-1 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format................................................................ 3-2

3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare..................................................................................... 3.1-1

3.2 - Air Quality............................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.3 - Biological Resources................................................................................................ 3.3-1

3.4 - Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................... 3.4-1

3.5 - Geology, Soils, and Seismicity.................................................................................. 3.5-1

3.6 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ................................................................... 3.6-1

3.7 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................... 3.7-1

3.8 - Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................. 3.8-1

3.9 - Land Use................................................................................................................. 3.9-1

3.10 - Noise .................................................................................................................. 3.10-1

3.11 - Public Services .................................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.12 - Transportation .................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.13 - Utilities and Service Systems............................................................................... 3.13-1 Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................ 4-1

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

4.2 - Cumulative Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 4-2 Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project ........................................................................... 5-1 113
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Table of Contents Draft EIR
iv FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-01 TOC.docx

5.1 - Introduction............................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 - Project Objectives and Underlying Purpose ................................................................ 5-2

5.3 - Alternative 1—No Project/No Development Alternative............................................. 5-3

5.4 - Alternative 2–No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative ........................................ 5-4

5.5 - Alternative 3—Reduced Density Alternative............................................................... 5-7

5.6 - Alternative 3—Phase 1 Only Alternative................................................................... 5-11

5.7 - Environmentally Superior Alternative ....................................................................... 5-15

5.8 - Alternatives Rejected From Further Consideration.................................................... 5-16 Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations.......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 - Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................. 6-1

6.2 - Growth-Inducing Impacts........................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 - Energy Conservation .................................................................................................. 6-3 Chapter 7: Effects Found not to be Significant ............................................................................... 7-1

7.1 - Introduction............................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 - Effects Found not to be Significant.............................................................................. 7-1 Chapter 8: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers............................................... 8-1

8.1 - Lead Agency............................................................................................................... 8-1

8.2 - List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 8-2 Chapter 9: References.................................................................................................................... 9-1 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation, Comments
Appendix B: Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Supporting Information Appendix C: Biological Resources Supporting Information Appendix D: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Supporting Information Appendix E: Geological Supporting Information
Appendix F: Hazardous Materials Supporting Information
Appendix G: Noise Supporting Information
Appendix H: Transportation Supporting Information
Appendix I: Utilities and Service Systems Supporting Information I.1 - Water Supply Assessment
I.2 - Hydrology Report
List of Tables
Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix..........................................................................................ES-6 Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letter Summary...................................................................................... 1-3 Table 2-1: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Summary ................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-2: Phase 1 Parking Summary............................................................................................... 2-6 Table 3.2-1: Description of Criteria Pollutants of National and California Concern ........................3.2-3 Table 3.2-2: Description of Toxic Air Contaminants of National and California Concern.................3.2-6 Table 3.2-3: Federal and State Air Quality Standards in the SFBAAB ...........................................3.2-11 Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status................................................3.2-12 114
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions v https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table 3.2-5: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone..................................................... 3.2-13 Table 3.2-6: Air Quality Monitoring Summary............................................................................ 3.2-15 Table 3.2-7: BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds ............. 3.2-29 Table 3.2-8: BAAQMD Odor Screening-level Distances Thresholds ............................................. 3.2-33 Table 3.2-9: Consistency With 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures ........................................ 3.2-39 Table 3.2-10: Unmitigated Construction Emissions .................................................................... 3.2-48 Table 3.2-11: Mitigated Construction Emissions......................................................................... 3.2-49 Table 3.2-12: Unmitigated Operational Emissions...................................................................... 3.2-51 Table 3.2-13: Mitigated Operational Emissions.......................................................................... 3.2-53 Table 3.2-14: Summary of Construction Health Risks at the Maximum Impacted Receptor ........ 3.2-60 Table 3.2-15: Summary of Construction Health Risks at the Maximum Impacted Receptor ........ 3.2-62 Table 3.3-1 Wetland Impacts..................................................................................................... 3.3-31 Table 3.4-1: Cultural Resources within 0.5-mile of the Project Site............................................. 3.4-15 Table 3.4-2: Previous Investigations within 0.5-mile of the Project Site ...................................... 3.4-15 Table 3.4-3: Tribal Consultation Matrix ...................................................................................... 3.4-18 Table 3.5-1: Fault Summary ......................................................................................................... 3.5-3 Table 3.5-2: Native Soils Summary............................................................................................... 3.5-6 Table 3.6-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern ........................................... 3.6-5 Table 3.6-2: 2011 GHG Emissions by Sector and County (MMT CO2e/Year) ................................ 3.6-10 Table 3.6-3: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................ 3.6-51 Table 3.6-4: Operational GHG Emissions.................................................................................... 3.6-53 Table 3.6-5: Consistency with American Canyon Energy Efficient Climate Action Plan................ 3.6-64 Table 3.6-6: Consistency with SB 32 2017 Scoping Plan Update ................................................. 3.6-66 Table 3.6-7: Annual Project Energy Consumption....................................................................... 3.6-70 Table 3.7-1: Recorded Hazardous Materials Sites......................................................................... 3.7-2 Table 3.8-1: American Canyon Meteorological Summary ............................................................. 3.8-1 Table 3.9-1: Surrounding Land Use Designations.......................................................................... 3.9-2 Table 3.9-2: General Plan Consistency Analysis............................................................................ 3.9-7 Table 3.9-3: Maximum Occupancy Calculation........................................................................... 3.9-50 Table 3.9-4: Maximum Site Density Calculation.......................................................................... 3.9-51 Table 3.10-1: Sound Terminology............................................................................................... 3.10-2 Table 3.10-2: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax ............................... 3.10-4 Table 3.10-3: Vibration Levels of Construction Equipment ......................................................... 3.10-6 Table 3.10-4: Existing Traffic Noise Levels .................................................................................. 3.10-8 115
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Table of Contents Draft EIR
vi FirstCarbon Solutions https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table 3.10-5: Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Impact Criteria ................3.10-10 Table 3.10-6: Traffic Noise Increase Summary ..........................................................................3.10-18 Table 3.10-7: Stationary Operational Noise Impact Summary...................................................3.10-21 Table 3.12-1: Intersection Level of Service Criteria.....................................................................3.12-3 Table 3.12-2: Existing Peak-hour Intersection Levels of Service...................................................3.12-4 Table 3.12-3: Collision Rates for the Study Intersections ............................................................3.12-4 Table 3.12-4: Bicycle Facility Summary.......................................................................................3.12-6 Table 3.12-5: Trip Generation Summary...................................................................................3.12-12 Table 3.12-6: Trip Distribution Assumptions.............................................................................3.12-12 Table 3.12-7: Existing Plus Project Peak-hour Intersection Levels of Service..............................3.12-14 Table 3.12-8: Future Plus Project Peak-hour Intersection Levels of Service ...............................3.12-15 Table 3.12-9: Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary.........................................................................3.12-18 Table 3.13-1: Current Sources of Water Supply ..........................................................................3.13-1 Table 3.13-2: Potrero Hills Landfill Summary..............................................................................3.13-7 Table 3.13-3: Estimated Project Water Demand.......................................................................3.13-16 Table 3.13-4: Comparison of Estimated Water Demand to Urban Water Management Plan......................................................................................................................3.13-18 Table 3.13-5: Recent Potable and Recycled Water Usage for American Canyon ........................3.13-19 Table 3.13-6: Projected Potable, Recycled, and Total Water Demand for American Canyon ......3.13-20 Table 3.13-7: Supply Reliability for Various American Canyon Water Sources ...........................3.13-20 Table 3.13-8: Projected Water Supply for American Canyon for Various Year Types..................3.13-22 Table 3.13-9: Comparison of Potable and Recycled Water Supply and Demand Under Various Year-type Scenarios..................................................................................3.13-23 Table 3.13-10: Recent State Water Project Carryover Water Supply .........................................3.13-25 Table 3.13-11: Potable Water Deficiency Resolution for Dry- and Multi-dry Year Scenarios ......3.13-27 Table 3.13-12: Projected Drought Year Demand Savings...........................................................3.13-29 Table 3.13-13: Summary of Potential Recycled Water Demand by Sector................................. 3.13-30 Table 3.13-14: Wastewater Generation Estimate......................................................................3.13-31 Table 3.13-15: Construction Solid Waste Generation................................................................3.13-33 Table 3.13-16: Operational Solid Waste Generation ................................................................. 3.13-34 Table 4-1: Cumulative Projects........................................................................................................ 4-1 Table 5-1: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative .................................................................. 5-4 Table 5-2: No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Trip Generation Comparison...................... 5-6 Table 5-3: Reduced Density Alternative........................................................................................... 5-8 116
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions vii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-01 TOC.docx Table 5-4: Reduced Density Alternative Trip Generation Comparison............................................ 5-10 Table 5-5: Phase 1 Only Alternative .............................................................................................. 5-11 Table 5-6: Phase 1 Only Alternative Trip Generation Comparison.................................................. 5-14 Table 5-7: Summary of Alternatives.............................................................................................. 5-15 Table 5-8: Alternative Location Feasibility Analysis........................................................................ 5-17 Table 6-1: Energy Consumption Estimates...................................................................................... 6-5 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................... 2-13 Exhibit 2-2: Local Vicinity Map Aerial Base.................................................................................... 2-15 Exhibit 2-3: Site Photographs........................................................................................................ 2-17 Exhibit 2-4: Preliminary Site Plan–Phase 1.................................................................................... 2-19 Exhibit 2-5: Conceptual Renderings.............................................................................................. 2-21 Exhibit 3.3-1: Soils Maps............................................................................................................ 3.3-41 Exhibit 3.3-2: Existing Wetlands................................................................................................. 3.3-43 Exhibit 3.3-3: Phase 1 Wetland Impacts..................................................................................... 3.3-45 Exhibit 3.3-4: Wetland Mitigation Plan....................................................................................... 3.3-47 Exhibit 3.3-5: Phase 2 Wetland Impacts..................................................................................... 3.3-49 Exhibit 3.5-1: Regional Fault Map .............................................................................................. 3.5-19 Exhibit 3.5-2: West Napa Fault Map........................................................................................... 3.5-21 Exhibit 3.5-3: Trench Location Map............................................................................................ 3.5-23 Exhibit 3.10-1: General Plan Noise Element Figure 11-2 ........................................................... 3.10-25 Exhibit 3.10-2: Napa County Airport Noise Levels.................................................................... 3.10-27 Exhibit 3.12-1: Study Area and Lane Configurations................................................................. 3.12-21 Exhibit 3.12-2: Existing Traffic Volumes.................................................................................... 3.12-23 Exhibit 3.12-3: Project Traffic Volume ...................................................................................... 3.12-25 Exhibit 3.12-4: Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes................................................................. 3.12-27 Exhibit 3.12-5: Future Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................... 3.12-29 Exhibit 3.12-6: Future Plus Project Traffic Volumes.................................................................. 3.12-31 Exhibit 5-1: Alternative Locations ................................................................................................. 5-19 117

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
118
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions i
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
°C degrees Celsius (Centigrade)
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACM asbestos-containing material
ACP Alternative Compliance Plan
ACT American Canyon Transit
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Model AFY acre-feet/year
AIA Airport Influence Area
AIC Archaeological Information Center
AICUZ Air Installation Compatibility Use Zone
AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMS American Meteorological Society
APCD Air Pollution Control District
APE Area of Potential Effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQI Air Quality Index
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
AST aboveground storage tank
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association 119
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
ii FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx BAU business-as-usual
BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BCF billion cubic feet
BCF/year billion cubic feet per year
BERD California Built Environment Resource Directory
BMP Best Management Practice
BTU British Thermal Unit
BVOC biogenic volatile organic compound
C&D construction and demolition waste
c/mve collisions per million vehicles entering
C2
ES Center for Climate and Energy Solution
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CASQA California Stormwater Quality Association
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCA community choice aggregations
CCAC Climate and Clean Air Coalition
CCCC California Climate Change Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCTS Central California Taxonomic System
CDF California Department of Finance
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CHL California Historical Landmarks
120
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COC constituents of concern
CPHI California Points of Historical Interest
CPUC California Public Utilities Code
CRA Cultural Resources Assessment
CRAM California Rapid Assessment Method
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DBH diameter at breast height
DOE United States Department of Energy
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
du dwelling unit
du/acre dwelling unit per acre
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EECAP Energy Efficiency Climate Action Plan
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EMF electromagnetic field
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FCS FirstCarbon Solutions
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
121
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
iv FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx FSM Further Study Control Measure
GHG greenhouse gas
GI General Industrial
gpm gallons per minute
GPS Global Positioning System
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWh/y gigawatt-hours per year
GWP global warming potential
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HBG Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc.

HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HI hazard index
HOV/HOT High Occupancy Vehicle/High Occupancy Toll
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HRI California Historic Resources Inventory
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
IAQ Indoor Air Quality
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
ITP Incidental Take Permit
IW Isolated Wetland
kW kilowatts
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LDA light-duty auto
Ldn day/night average sound level
LDT1 light-duty truck 1
LDT2 light-duty truck 2
LED light-emitting diode
LEEDTM Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
LEV low-emission vehicle
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LSE load-serving entities
122
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions v https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDV medium-duty vehicle
mgd million gallons per day
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MTBE methyl tertiary-butyl ether
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTS Metropolitan Transportation System
MW megawatt
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MWh megawatt-hour
MXD mixed-use development
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACC Napa Airport Corporate Center
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NapaSan Napa Sanitation District
NCTPA Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NF3 nitrogen trifluoride
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NHM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAA Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service
NOC Notice of Completion
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
123
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
vi FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx NVWMA Napa-Vallejo Waste Management Authority
NWIC Northwest Information Center
NWPR Navigable Waters Protection Rule
O3 ozone
OAL Office of Administrative Law
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHWM ordinary high water mark
ONAC Federal Office of Noise Abatement and Control
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
pCi/L picocuries per liter
PERP Portable Equipment Registration Program
PFC perfluorocarbon
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PM10 particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter PMx particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per trillion
PRC Public Resources Code
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Recology Integrated Resource Recovery Company
RecycleSmart Central Contra Costa County Solid Waste Authority REL Reference Exposure Level
RMP Risk Management Plan
rms root mean square
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
124
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Acronyms and Abbreviations
FirstCarbon Solutions vii
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx SB Senate Bill
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
South Coast AQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SR State Route
SS Stationary Source
SSMM start-up, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunction
State Water Board California State Water Resources Control Board STN State Transportation Network
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
SWMP Storm Water Management Plan
SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminants
TCM transportation control measures
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDS total dissolved solids
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Tg teragram
therms/y therms per year
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TIF Transportation Impact Fee
TIS Traffic Impact Study
TISG Transportation Impact Study Guide
TMA Transportation Management Association
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TNW traditional navigable water
TOD Transit Oriented Development
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
UBC Uniform Building Code
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
125
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Acronyms and Abbreviations Draft EIR
viii FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec00-02 Acronyms.docx USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C volume to capacity ratio
Valley Air District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
VINE Valley Intercity Neighborhood Express
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle
ZWF zero water footprint
126
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021010104). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000, et seq.).

The purpose of this Draft EIR is to inform decision-makers, representatives of affected and responsible agencies, the public, and other interested parties of the potential environmental effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project. This Draft EIR describes potential impacts relating to a wide variety of environmental issues and methods by which these impacts can be mitigated or avoided.

Project Summary
Project Location
The 208-acre project site is located in the City of American Canyon, Napa County, California. The semi-rectangular project site is bounded by industrial development in the Green Island Business Park (west), the Napa Logistics Park and Devlin Road (north), the Napa Branch Line (east), and Green Island Road, a stone supply business, and a wine distribution warehouse (south).

Project Description
The proposed project consists of the development of up to 2.4 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on 163 acres of the project site. Phase 1 consists of approximately 1.1 million square feet on the eastern portion of the project site. Phase 2 consist of approximately 1.3 million square feet on the western portion of the project. Approximately 45 acres of the project site would be preserved as wetlands. The applicant would extend the Napa Valley Vine Trail along the project frontage with Devlin Road and Green Island Road. Section 2, Project Description, provides a complete description of the project.

Project Objectives and Underlying Purpose
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. 127
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx

2. Promote development that 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.

Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
The proposed project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:
• Consistency With Air Quality Management Plan: The proposed project would result in exceedances of regional emissions thresholds and, therefore, be inconsistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regional air quality planning assumptions.

Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of feasible emissions reduction measures; however, these measures would not reconcile this inconsistency. Therefore, the significance after mitigation is significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts: The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Mitigation is proposed requiring the implementation of air emissions reduction measures, but it would not fully reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Therefore, the significance after mitigation is significant and unavoidable.
128
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Summary of Project Alternatives
Below is a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project considered in Section 5, Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

No Project/No Development Alternative
The proposed project would not be pursued, and the project site would remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future. This alternative would avoid all of the proposed project’s significant impacts.

No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative
A 2.4 million square-foot food and beverage facility would be developed on the project site. The project boundaries would remain the same as the proposed project. This alternative would increase the severity of all of the proposed project’s significant impacts.

Reduced Density Alternative
A 1.6-million-square-foot logistics center would be developed on the project site, which represents a 25 percent reduction relative to the proposed project. The layout and project boundaries would remain the same as the proposed project. This alternative would lessen the severity of all of the proposed project’s significant impacts.

Phase 1 Only Alternative
Phase 1 would be developed, which consist of 1.1 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on 95 acres. Phase 2 would not be pursued, and the remaining 113 acres of the project site would remain undeveloped. This alternative would lessen the severity of all of the proposed project’s significant impacts to the greatest extent. The Phase 1 Only Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

Areas of Controversy and Potentially Controversial Issues Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b), a summary section must address areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public, and it must also address issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects.

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project was issued on January 12, 2021. The NOP describing the original concept for the project and issues to be addressed in the EIR was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties for a 30-day public review period extending from January 12, 2021, through February 10, 2021. During the NOP review period, the following issues were raised in comments submitted to the City of American Canyon:
• Health effects on disadvantaged communities from diesel emissions • Housing for project employees
• Climate change
• Impacts on nearby vernal pools
129
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Executive Summary Draft EIR
ES-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx • Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species
• Traffic
• Aesthetics
• Noise
Disagreement Among Experts
This Draft EIR contains substantial evidence to support all the conclusions presented herein. It is possible that there will be disagreement among various parties regarding these conclusions, although the City of American Canyon is not aware of any disputed conclusions at the time of this writing. Both the CEQA Guidelines and case law clearly provide the standards for treating disagreement among experts. Where evidence and opinions conflict on an issue concerning the environment, and the lead agency knows of these controversies in advance, the EIR must acknowledge the controversies, summarize the conflicting opinions of the experts, and include sufficient information to allow the public and decision-makers to make an informed judgment about the environmental consequences of the proposed project.

Public Review of the Draft EIR
Upon completion of the Draft EIR, the City of American Canyon filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the public review period (PRC § 21161).

Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the City of American Canyon offices and the American Canyon Library. The address for each location is provided below:

American Canyon City Hall
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Hours: Monday-Friday: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

American Canyon Library
300 Crawford Way
Hours: Monday-Saturday
10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The Draft EIR is also posted on the City of American Canyon’s website:
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org
Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Phone: 707.647.4335
Email: [email protected]
130
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the City of American Canyon on the project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision-makers for the project.

Executive Summary Matrix
Table ES-1 below summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and resulting level of significance after mitigation for the relevant environmental issue areas evaluated for the proposed project. The table is intended to provide an overview; narrative discussions for the issue areas are included in the corresponding section of this EIR. Table ES-1 is included in the EIR as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1).
131
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-6
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Table ES-1: Executive Summary Matrix
Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not
substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact AES-3: The proposed project may create a new
source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

MM AES-3: Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval which demonstrates that all exterior light fixtures would be directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to minimize light spillage and avoid interference with aviation operations at the Napa County Airport. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

Less than significant impact.

Section 3.2—Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: The proposed project would conflict with
or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Implement Mitigation Measures MM AIR-2a, MM AIR-2b, MM AIR-2c, MM AIR-2d.

Significant unavoidable impact.

Impact AIR-2: The proposed project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

MM AIR-2a: The following Best Management Practices (BMPs), as recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), shall be included in the design of the project and implemented during construction:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least two times per day. • All exposed non-paved surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and access roads) shall be watered at least three times per day and/or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to exposed non-paved surfaces.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and/or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

Significant unavoidable impact.
132
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints.

The City and the construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM AIR-2b: Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the use of “Low-VOC” architectural coatings during the proposed project's construction. “Low-VOC” architectural coatings used during project construction shall not exceed 50 grams of reactive organic gases (ROG) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.

MM AIR-2c: Prior to issuing any certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the use of “Low-VOC” architectural coatings and electric landscaping equipment during the operation of the proposed project. “LowVOC” architectural coatings used during project construction shall not exceed 50 grams of reactive organic gases (ROG) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product. Landscaping equipment referred to in this requirement shall include lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws. 133
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-8
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation MM AIR-2d: Prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating the use of a truck fleet that meets or exceeds model year 2014 for all heavy-duty trucks during operation of the proposed project. If the project applicant does not own the truck fleet that would be used during operation of the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation from the truck fleet owner or operator demonstrating that trucks utilized for operation of the proposed project will meet or exceed model year 2014. If any change occurs where a new truck fleet is utilized during operation of the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation demonstrating that the new truck fleet meets or exceeds this requirement.

To monitor and ensure that trucks that meet a model year of 2014 or newer are used for the proposed project, the fleet operator shall maintain records of all trucks and equipment associated with the proposed project’s operation and make these records available to the City upon request.

Alternatively, the City may require periodic reporting and provision of written records by operators and conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and practicable.

Impact AIR-3: The proposed project would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

None Required. Less than significant impact.

Impact AIR-4: The proposed project would not result in
other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

None Required. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.3—Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

MM BIO-1a: Pre-construction surveys for Swainson’s hawk shall be conducted in the project site vicinity prior to initiation of project construction activities. These pre-construction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a half-mile radius around all project activities and shall be completed for at least two survey periods immediately prior to commencement of project construction. Surveys shall follow California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) guidelines for Less than significant impact.
134
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation conducting surveys for Swainson’s hawk that were developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee to maximize the potential for locating nesting Swainson’s hawk and reduce the potential for nest failures due to project activities and/or disturbances.

If no nesting Swainson’s hawk are found during the first non-optional survey period starting March 20, then project construction may commence. If during the third surveys (April 5–April 20) Swainson’s hawk are found to be nesting in the project vicinity and construction has commenced, it shall be assumed the Swainson’s hawk commenced nesting and thus that the Swainson’s hawk are habituated to the ambient level of noise and disturbance emanating from the project site.

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

No disturbance such as construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1b: No more than 30 days prior to the first ground disturbance activity, pre-construction golden eagle nesting surveys shall be conducted in the project site vicinity. Pre-construction surveys shall include investigation of all potential nesting trees within a 0.5-mile radius around all project activities. If active golden eagle active nests are identified within any trees within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, a qualified Raptor Biologist shall establish a protection buffer at a minimum of 1,000 feet that is adequate to ensure noise or activity from the proposed project would not cause nest disturbance or young or adult bird mortality. Buffer zones may vary in size as some golden eagles are more acclimated to disturbance than others. Size 135
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-10
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation of buffer zone may be modified by the qualified Raptor Biologist considering the type of construction activity that may occur and the behavioral factors and extent that golden eagle may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young golden eagles have fledged or that the nesting cycle is complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1c: Prior to ground disturbance, a pre-construction nesting survey shall be conducted for northern harrier if construction is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1). To determine whether northern harrier is nesting on-site, a qualified Raptor Biologist(s) shall conduct walking transects through the project site grassland habitat searching for nests. An active northern harrier nest must be protected by implementing a minimum 500-foot radius buffer zone around the nest marked with orange construction fencing. If an active nest is located outside of the project site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. Size of buffer zone could be modified considering the type of construction activity that may occur, physical barriers between the construction site and active nest, and the behavioral factors and extent that northern harrier may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or earthmoving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by a qualified Raptor Biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is otherwise determined to be complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified Biologist.

MM BIO-1d: Prior to any ground disturbance, pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted. The pre-construction surveys shall be conducted within 2 weeks prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist following California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2012 staff report survey methods and Biologist qualifications to establish the status of burrowing owl on the project site.

If burrowing owl are found to occupy the project site during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), occupied burrows shall 136
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation be avoided by establishing a no-disturbance buffer zone a minimum of 100 feet around the burrow. Buffers may be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the impact assessment approach described in the CDFW 2012 staff report. If a qualified Raptor Biologist determines the location of an occupied burrow/s may be impacted even with a 100-foot buffer, or the burrow(s) are in a location(s) on the project site where a buffer cannot be established without preventing the proposed project from moving forward, then a passive relocation effort may be instituted to relocate the individual(s) out of harm’s way pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan prepared in accordance with the CDFW 2012 staff report.

If burrowing owl are found to be present during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the proposed project ground-disturbing activities shall follow the CDFW 2012 staff report recommended avoidance protocol whereby occupied burrows shall be avoided with a no-disturbance buffer.

Impact BIO-2: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or United
States Fish and Wildlife Service.

MM BIO-2: To offset the loss of the 0.496 acre of seasonal wetland impacts from Phase 1, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools from Phase 2, and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, the applicant shall establish/create 0.992 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands (2:1 ratio) for Phase 1 concurrent with project construction, and 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and 1.13 acres of vernal pool wetlands (1:1 ratio) for Phase 2 at least 1 year prior to the start of Phase 2 construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland.

Less than significant impact.

Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect on State or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

MM BIO-3a: Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 grading permit, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain a Nationwide Permit from the San Francisco District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for discharge within 0.004 acre of wetlands/waters of the United States under Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction. For the USACE permit to be valid, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the accompanying Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). The applicant shall apply for and obtain a separate Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for impacts to 0.496 acre of wetlands/waters Less than significant impact.
137
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-12
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation of the State. To offset the loss of 0.496 acre of permanent wetland impacts and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area, the applicant shall establish/create 0.992 acre of wetlands (2:1 ratio), prior to or concurrent with the start of construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved permit(s).

MM BIO-3b: Prior to issuance of the Phase 2 grading permit, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain an Individual Permit from the San Francisco District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for the placement of fill material within approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands/waters of the United States under Clean Water Act Section 404 jurisdiction. For the USACE permit to be valid, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the accompanying Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB). The applicant shall apply for and obtain a separate Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB for the discharge of fill material within approximately 3.7 acres of waters of the State. To offset the loss of 3.7 acres of permanent wetland impacts and to ensure there is no-net loss of wetland area or permanent loss of functions and values, the applicant shall establish/create 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands (1:1 ratio) and 1.13 acres of vernal pools (1:1 ratio), at a minimum of 1 year prior to the start of construction, on the 45-acre Wetland Preserve. The established/created wetlands and vernal pools shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved permit(s).

MM BIO-3c: Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 grading permit, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) for review as part of the process for obtaining a permit from the agency. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall address the loss of 0.496 acre of wetlands impact due to Phase 1 of the proposed project as well as the potential loss of approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands that as part 138
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation of Phase 2. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include in irrevocable instrument (e.g., deed restriction or conservation easements) that shall restrict use of both the 0.992 acre of created wetlands for Phase 1 as well as approximately 3.7 acres of additional wetlands created for Phase

2. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall also include a longterm endowment that would be fully funded by the proposed project to manage approximately 45-acre open space preserve and created wetlands in perpetuity. If additional wetland mitigation lands are required to compensate for wetland impacts associated with Phase 2, wetlands shall be established/created at a minimum 1:1 ratio (1 acre established/created for every acre permanently impacted) on appropriate mitigation land, approved by the RWQCB and United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), within the Phase 2 project site’s Hydraulic Unit Code (HUC) 10 watershed. The established/created wetlands shall be monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure the wetlands meet the USACE’s and RWQCB’s definition of a wetland. The applicant shall implement the terms of the approved permit(s).

MM BIO-3d: Prior to issuance of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 grading permit, a Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco Bay RWQCB) for review as part of the process for obtaining a permit from the agency. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Subpart J–Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources outlined in the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Procedures, and in accordance with the State Water Board Implementation Guidance dated April 2020, and in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Compensatory Mitigation Rule (33 Code of Federal Regulations Part 332) The basic objective of the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is to ensure that project wetland impacts, and compensatory mitigation proposed to offset the wetland impacts, shall provide a no-net-loss of area of wetlands, and wetlands established/created shall be in-kind to the wetlands impacted. In summary, the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall at a minimum:
139
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-14
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation

1. Preserve 7.58 acres of existing seasonal wetlands and 0.13 acre of vernal pools within the 45-acre Wetland Preserve.

2. Establish within the Wetland Preserve approximately 0.992 acre of seasonal wetlands in advance of or concurrent with implementation of Phase 1 impacts to 0.496 acre of palustrine emergent wetlands at a 2:1 ratio.

3. Establish within the Wetland Preserve approximately 2.57 acres of seasonal wetlands and 1.13 acres of vernal pools in advance of implementation of future Phase 2, assuming Phase 2 is built out, to address the potential maximum losses of approximately 3.7 acres of wetlands that may occur.

4. Provide financial assurances to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation shall be successfully completed, in accordance with applicable performance standards.

5. Design ecological performance standards to assess whether the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is achieving the overall objectives, so that it can be objectively evaluated to determine whether it is developing into the desired resource type (vernal pool, seasonal wetland e.g.), and attaining any other applicable metrics such as acres, number of native plant species, water saturation and/or ponding depth etc.

6. Monitor the site for a duration necessary to determine whether the Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is meeting the performance standards. Established palustrine emergent wetlands and vernal pools typically develop quickly on soils with clay restrictive horizon. The 45-acre Wetland Preserve does have a clay restrictive layer approximately 8–18 inches below the surface therefore a 5-year monitoring period would be sufficient to determine whether performance standards are met. This monitoring period may be extended if performance standards are not met due to how the wetlands were constructed or natural events such as severe droughts.

7. Protect the approximately 45-acre Wetland Preserve in perpetuity using a conservation easement, and provide an endowment sufficient to fund the Long-Term Management Plan.

8. An overall assessment of the condition of the wetlands that shall be permanently impacted by the proposed project shall be conducted using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for depressional 140
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation wetlands, or a hybrid approach based on CRAM. Each similar wetland type that may be impacted shall be assessed to describe the floristic community and record the native and non-native dominant plants within the vernal pool and palustrine emergent wetlands. Physical structure such as topographic complexity and physical features that may provide habitat for aquatic species (e.g., boulders, woody debris etc.) shall be recorded and used to design the created/established wetlands. The purpose of this assessment is to ensure the design of the wetlands shall provide habitat that is similar to the wetlands being impacted to ensure the impacted wetlands are mitigated in-kind.

Impact BIO-4: The proposed project could interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

MM BIO-4: If construction occurs during the breeding season of migratory and resident birds (February 1 to August 31), a qualified Biologist shall conduct a pre-construction breeding bird survey in areas of suitable habitat within 15 days prior to the onset of construction activity. Nesting bird surveys shall cover the proposed project footprint and adjacent areas. If bird nests are found, appropriate buffer zones shall be established around all active nests to protect nesting adults and their young from direct or indirect impacts related to project construction disturbance. Size of buffer zones shall be determined per recommendations of the qualified Biologist based on-site conditions and species involved. At a minimum a 1,000-foot buffer shall be established for nesting Swainson’s hawk and golden eagle; 500-foot buffer for nesting northern harriers; 250-foot buffer for nesting accipiters; and minimum 50-foot buffers shall be established for nesting passerines and all other non-raptor or passerine nesting birds. Buffer zones shall be maintained until it can be documented that either the nest has failed, or the young have fledged.

Less than significant impact.

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.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.4—Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

None required. No impact.
141
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-16
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact CUL-2: The proposed project could cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

MM CUL-2a: No ground disturbance shall take place within 100 feet of informal archaeological resource 483A-001. The resource shall be preserved in place.

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

The Archaeologist shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If it is determined the project could damage a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines), mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines, with a preference for preservation in place. Consistent with Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance is not feasible, a qualified Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan in consultation with the City of American Canyon. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the proposed project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results Less than significant impact.
142
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and State repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb
human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.

MM CUL-3: In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 shall be followed. If project construction, there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance within 100 feet of the remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98.
2 Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the MLD or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance:
• The NAHC is unable to identify an MLD or the MLD failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission.
• The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The landowner or authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

Additionally, California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 requires the following relative to Native American Remains:

Less than significant.
143
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-18
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation • When an initial study identifies the existence of, or the probable likelihood of, Native American Remains within a project, a lead agency shall work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The applicant may develop a plan with respect to their respective individual development proposals for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any items associated with Native American Burials with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC.

Impact CUL-4: The proposed project may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.

MM CUL-4: A Tribal Monitor representing the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation shall be present during all project-related ground disturbance. Additionally, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation’s Treatment Protocol (Protocol) shall be followed with respect to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). The purpose of the protocol is to formalize procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains, grave goods, ceremonial items, and items of cultural patrimony, if any are found in conjunction with development, including archaeological studies, excavation, geotechnical investigations, grading, and any ground-disturbing activity. This Protocol also formalizes procedures for Tribal Monitoring during archaeological studies, grading, and ground-disturbing activities.

1. Cultural Affiliation: The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Tribe) traditionally occupied lands in Yolo, Solano, Lake, Colusa, and Napa Counties. The Tribe has designated its Cultural Resources Committee (Committee) to act on the Tribe's behalf with respect to the provisions of this Protocol.

Any human remains which are found in conjunction with projects on lands culturally affiliated with the Tribe shall be treated in accordance with Section III of this Protocol. Any other cultural resources shall be treated in accordance with Section IV of this Protocol.

2. Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains: Whenever Native American human remains are found during the course of a project, the determination of Most Likely Descendant (MLD) under California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 will be made by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) upon notification to the NAHC of the discovery of said remains at a project site. If the location of the site and the history and prehistory of the area is culturally affiliated with the Less than significant.
144
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Tribe, the NAHC contacts the Tribe; a Tribal member will be designated by the Tribe to consult with the landowner and/or project proponents.

Should the NAHC determine that a member of an Indian tribe other than Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation is the MLD, and the Tribe agrees with this determination, the terms of this Protocol relating to the treatment of such Native American human remains shall not be applicable; however, that situation is very unlikely.

3. Treatment of Native American Remains: In the event that Native American human remains are found during development of a project and the Tribe or a member of the Tribe is determined to be MLD pursuant to Section II of this Protocol, the following provisions shall apply. The Medical Examiner shall immediately be notified, ground-disturbing activities in that location shall cease and the Tribe shall be allowed, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(a), to (1) inspect the site of the discovery and (2) make determinations as to how the human remains and grave goods shall be treated and disposed of with appropriate dignity. The Tribe shall complete its inspection and make its MLD recommendation within 48 hours of getting access to the site. The Tribe shall have the final determination as to the disposition and treatment of human remains and grave goods. Said determination may include avoidance of the human remains, reburial on-site, or reburial on tribal or other lands that will not be disturbed in the future. The Tribe may wish to rebury said human remains and grave goods or ceremonial and cultural items on or near the site of their discovery, in an area which will not be subject to future disturbances over a prolonged period of time. Reburial of human remains shall be accomplished in compliance with the California Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98(a) and (b).

The term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones because the Tribe’s traditions call for the burial of associated cultural items with the deceased (funerary objects), and/or the ceremonial burning of Native American human remains, funerary objects, grave goods, and animals. Ashes, soils, and other remnants of these burning ceremonies, as well as associated funerary objects and unassociated funerary objects buried with or found near the Native American remains are to be treated in the same manner as bones or bone fragments that remain intact.
145
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-20
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation

4. Non-Disclosure of Location of Reburials: Unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains shall not be disclosed and will not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 et seq. The Medical Examiner shall withhold public disclosure of information related to such reburial pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code Section 6254(r). The Tribe will require that the location for reburial is recorded with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) on a form acceptable to the CHRIS center. The Tribe may also suggest the landowner enter into an agreement regarding the confidentiality of site information that will run with title on the property.

5. Treatment of Cultural Resources: Treatment of all cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items will reflect the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. All cultural items, including ceremonial items and archaeological items, which may be found at a project site shall be turned over to the Tribe for appropriate treatment, unless ordered by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction.

The project proponent shall waive any and all claims to ownership of Tribal ceremonial and cultural items, including archaeological items, which may be found on a project site in favor of the Tribe. If any intermediary, (for example, an Archaeologist retained by the project proponent) is necessary, said entity or individual shall not possess those items for longer than is reasonably necessary, as determined solely by the Tribe.

6. Inadvertent Discoveries: If additional significant sites or sites not identified as significant in a project environmental review process, but later determined to be significant, are located within a project impact area, such sites will be subjected to further archaeological and cultural significance evaluation by the project proponent, the Lead Agency, and the Tribe to determine whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to treat sites in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with CEQA requirements for mitigation of impacts to cultural resources. If there are human remains present that have been identified as Native American, all work will cease for a period of up to 30 days in accordance with Federal Law.
146
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact CUL-5: The proposed project may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource.

Implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2a, CUL-2b, CUL-3 and CUL-4. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.5—Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Impact GEO-1: The proposed project may expose people
or structures to potential substantial adverse effects
associated with seismic hazards.

MM GEO-1a: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each Phase 2 structure, the project applicant shall submit plans to the City of American Canyon for review and approval that demonstrate a minimum 50-foot setback between the West Napa Fault and each building. The approved plans shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

MM GEO-1b: Prior to the issuance of building permits for each Phase 1 and 2 structure, the project applicant shall submit a design-level Geotechnical Investigation to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The investigation shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and identify grading and building practices necessary to achieve compliance with the latest adopted edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) geologic, soils, and seismic requirements, including abatement of expansive soil conditions. The report shall also determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, and surrounding related improvements (e.g., utilities roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks). The measures identified in the approved report shall be incorporated into the project plans and all applicable construction-related permits.

Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-2: The proposed project may result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

MM HYD-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit to the City of American Canyon for review and approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources (e.g., runoff), including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity, are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fencing, street sweeping, routine inspection, etc.) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in Less than significant impact.
147
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-22
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs are installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Handbook–Construction or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction.

Impact GEO-3: The proposed project would not be
located on an unstable geologic unit or soil.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-4: The proposed project may create
substantial risks to life or property as a result of
expansive soil conditions on the project site.

Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1b. Less than significant impact.

Impact GEO-5: The proposed project may directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

MM GEO-5: If potential fossils are discovered during project implementation, all earthwork or other types of ground disturbance within 100 feet of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified professional Paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the Paleontologist shall either record the find and recommend that the City of American Canyon allow work to continue or recommend salvage and recovery of the fossil. The Paleontologist shall, if required, propose modifications to the stop-work radius based on the nature of the find, site geology, and the activities occurring on the site. If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations will be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and currently accepted scientific practice. If required, treatment for fossil remains shall include preparation and recovery of fossil materials so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection, and, if required, shall also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds.

Less than significant impact.
148
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 3.6—Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Impact GHG-1: The proposed project would generate
greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

MM GHG-1a: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating project construction will include the following construction Best Management Practices (BMPs):
• At least 15 percent of the construction fleet for each project phase shall be alternatively fueled or electric.
• At least 10 percent of building materials used for project construction shall be sourced from local suppliers.
• At least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste materials shall be recycled or reused.
• At least one contractor that has a business location in American Canyon shall be contracted for project construction.
• All construction contracts shall include language that requires all off-road equipment with a power rating below 19 kilowatts (e.g., plate compactors, pressure washers) using during construction be electrically powered.
• Architectural coatings used for project construction shall be “Low-VOC,” containing no greater than 50 grams of volatile organic compounds (VOC) per liter of product.
• Project construction shall prohibit the use of generators and shall establish grid power connection to electrical equipment needs. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage regarding idling restrictions shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• The prime construction contractor shall post a publicly visible sign with their telephone number and contractor to contact. The construction contractor shall take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s Less than significant impact.
149
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-24
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation phone number shall also be identified and visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM GHG-1b:

Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall provide the City of American Canyon with documentation (e.g., site plans) demonstrating the proposed project is designed without the use of any natural gas -fueled appliances or natural gas plumbing.

MM GHG-1c:

Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed buildings are designed and will be built to, at a minimum, the Tier 2 advanced energy efficiency requirements of the Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Division A5.2, Energy Efficiency, as outlined under Section A5.203.1.2.2.

MM GHG-1d:

Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that the proposed parking areas for passenger automobiles and trucks are designed and will be built to accommodate electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. At a minimum, the parking shall be designed to accommodate a number of EV charging stations equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the California Green Building Standards Code, Section A5.106.5.3.2.

Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of American Canyon (e.g., shown on-site plans), that each loading dock is each outfitted with at least one 240-volt outlet to accommodate truck and Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) charging and/or electrical power connection while trucks are loading and unloading goods.

MM GHG-1e:

Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the proposed project, the project applicant shall provide the City with documentation (e.g., site plans) 150
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction that the electricity demand will be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity sources through the year 2045.

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.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-3: The proposed project would not result in
potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact GHG-4: The proposed project would conflict with
or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.7—Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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 reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the likely release of hazardous
materials into the environment.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

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.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project may create aviation
safety hazards for persons residing or working within 2 miles of the Napa County Airport.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. 151
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-26
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact HAZ-4: The proposed project would not impair
emergency response or evacuation in the project
vicinity.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.8—Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities and changes to
drainage patterns associated with the proposed project
may degrade surface water quality in downstream water
bodies.

MM HYD-1a: Prior to issuance of grading permits for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit to the City of American Canyon for review and approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the requirements of the statewide Construction General Permit. The SWPPP shall be designed to address the following objectives: (1) all pollutants and their sources (e.g., runoff), including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construction activity, are controlled; (2) where not otherwise required to be under a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; (3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g., silt fencing, street sweeping, routine inspection, etc.) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity; and (4) stabilization BMPs are installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed. The SWPPP shall be prepared by a qualified SWPPP developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Handbook–Construction or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Stormwater Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual. The SWPPP shall be implemented during construction.

MM HYD-1b: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit a Stormwater Control Plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval. The plan shall be developed using the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) “New Development and Redevelopment Handbook” and include the applicable provisions of 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.

Less than significant impact.
152
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation CAS612008 (or more recent permit). The Stormwater Control Plan shall identify pollution prevention measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control stormwater pollution from operational activities and facilities and provide maintenance in perpetuity. The Stormwater Control Plan shall include Low Impact Development (LID) design concepts, as well as concepts that accomplish a “first flush” objective that remove contaminants from the first 2 inches of stormwater before it enters area waterways. The project applicant shall also prepare and submit an Operations and Maintenance Agreement to the City, identifying procedures to ensure stormwater quality control measures work properly during operations.

Impact HYD-2: The proposed project would not deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

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.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.9—Land Use
Impact LU-1: The proposed project would not conflict
with the applicable provisions of the City of American
Canyon General Plan.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not conflict
with the applicable provisions of the American Canyon
Municipal Code.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact LU-3: The proposed project may conflict with the applicable provisions of the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Implement Mitigation Measure AES-3 and:

MM LU-3: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall retain a qualified Biologist to assess potential wildlife hazards to aviation. The assessment shall evaluate the characteristics of the emergent wetlands, drainages, other potential wildlife attractant features (i.e., ponded water) located within the open space area and identify management practices (e.g., storm drainage, vegetation, etc.) to prevent the creation of attractants for large flocks or birds or other wildlife species that may present safety Less than significant impact.
153
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-28
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation hazards to aviation activities. As part of the assessment, the applicant shall consult with Napa County Airport and Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) representatives, as appropriate, regarding findings and recommendations. The applicant shall submit a report to the City of American Canyon prepared by a qualified Biologist that confirms the wildlife hazard assessment’s findings and recommendations are incorporated into the design of the open space preserve.

Section 3.10—Noise
Impact NOI-1: The proposed project could generate a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in noise-sensitive locations in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.

MM NOI-1: Implementation of the following multi-part mitigation measure is required to reduce potential construction period noise impacts:
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines (i.e., idling in excess of 5 minutes) is prohibited.
• The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. • At all times during project grading and construction, the construction contractor shall ensure that stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from adjacent residences. • The construction contractor shall ensure that the construction staging areas shall be located to create the greatest feasible distance between the staging area and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all on-site construction activities, including the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, grading, or demolition work, are limited to between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction shall be permitted on Sundays and federal holidays.

Less than significant impact.

Impact NOI-2: The proposed project would not result
in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.

Less than significant impact.
154
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-29
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 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.

Less than significant impact.

Section 3.11—Public Services
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.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

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.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.12—Transportation
Impact 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.

No mitigation is required. Less than significant impact.

Impact TRANS-2: The proposed project would not
conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact 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).

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact TRANS-4: The proposed project would not result
in inadequate emergency access.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Section 3.13—Utilities and Service Systems
Impact USS-1: The proposed project would not require
the City of American Canyon to obtain additional water
supplies in order to serve the project and reasonably
No mitigation is required. Less than significant impact. 155
City of American Canyon— Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Executive Summary
FirstCarbon Solutions ES-30
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/wp/54600001 Sec00-03 Exec Summary.docx Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and
multiple dry years.

Impact USS-2: The proposed project would not create a
need for new or expanded wastewater collection or
treatment facilities.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact USS-3: The proposed project would not result in
a need for new or expanded off-site storm drainage
facilities.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact.

Impact USS-4: The proposed project’s solid waste would
not create a need for additional landfill capacity.

No mitigation is necessary. Less than significant impact. 156
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 - Overview of the CEQA Process
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project) (State Clearinghouse No. 2021010104). This document is prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code [PRC], § 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, § 15000, et seq.). This Draft EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for the public agency decision-makers and the public regarding the proposed project.

1.1.1 - Overview
The proposed project consists of the development of up to 2.4 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on 208-acre project site. Phase 1 consists of approximately 1.1 million square feet on the eastern portion of the project site. Phase 2 consist of approximately 1.3 million square feet on the western portion of the project. Approximately 45 acres of the project site would be preserved as wetlands. The applicant would also extend the Napa Valley Vine Trail along the project frontage with Devlin Road and Green Island Road. Section 2, Project Description, provides a complete description of the project.

1.1.2 - Purpose and Authority
This Draft EIR for the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project is a combination of a project EIR and a program EIR. The Draft EIR provides a project-level analysis of the environmental effects of Phase 1 and programmatic analysis for Phase 2 of the Project.

The project-level analysis for Phase 1, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, provides sufficient detail to allow for approvals of all needed approvals and permitting for, as well as construction of, Phase 1 without any need for additional environmental review, provided that future project changes or changed circumstances do not trigger the need for some sort of subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 (subsequent EIR, supplement to an EIR, or addendum to an EIR).

The programmatic level of analysis for Phase 2 has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Under Section 15168(c), “[l]ater activities in the program must be examined in the light of [a] program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” Two general outcomes are possible: the later activity may be found to be “within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR,” in which case “no new environmental document would be required;” or such a finding cannot be made and a new project-specific Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR would be required, depending on the severity of the effects of the later activity.

Section 15168(c)(4) directs that “[w]here the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and 157
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.”
Section 15168(c)(2) provides that “[i]f the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.

Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.” For any later activity covered in whole or in part in the program EIR, “[a]n agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2)).

This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts (both projectlevel and programmatic) that may be associated with the planning, construction, or operation of the proposed project. It also identifies appropriate and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to significantly reduce or avoid these impacts.

CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specific elements. These elements are contained in this Draft EIR and include:
• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Project Description
• Environmental Setting, Significant Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures • Cumulative Impacts
• Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
• Alternatives to the Proposed Project
• Growth-Inducing Impacts (Addressed in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations)Areas of Known Controversy

1.1.3 - Lead Agency Determination
The City of American Canyon is designated as the lead agency for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as “. . . the public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” Once the City certifies the Final EIR for the proposed project after soliciting and responding to public and agency comments on this Draft EIR, other public agencies acting as responsible agencies may use the Final EIR in their own decisionmaking or permit processes.

This Draft EIR was prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), an environmental consultant. Prior to public review, it was extensively reviewed and evaluated by the City of American Canyon. This Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of American Canyon as required by 158
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx CEQA. Lists of organizations and persons consulted and the report preparation personnel are provided in Chapter 8, Persons and Organizations/List of Preparers, of this Draft EIR.

1.2 - Scope of the Draft EIR
This Draft EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The City of American Canyon issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project on January 12, 2021, which circulated between January 12, 2021, and February 10, 2021, for the statutory 30-day public review period. The scope of this Draft EIR includes the potential environmental impacts identified in the NOP and issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP. The NOP is contained in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Seven comment letters were received in response to the NOP. They are listed in Table 1-1 and provided in Appendix A of this Draft EIR.

Table 1-1: NOP Comment Letter Summary
Status Affiliation Signatory Date
Public
Agencies
Native American Heritage Commission Nancy Gonzalez-Lopez January 13, 2021 California Air Resources Board Heather Arias, Chief, Transportation and Toxics Division
February 8, 2021
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Greg Erickson, Regional Manager,
Bay Delta Region
February 8, 2021
Napa County Planning, Building and
Environmental Services Department
John McDowell February 10, 2021
Private
Parties
Ironworkers Local 378 Jason Lindsey, Business
Representative
February 4, 2021
Ironworkers Local 378 Jason Gallia, President/Business
Agent
February 8, 2021
Center for Biological Diversity Ross Middlemiss, Staff Attorney; Mary Rassenfoss, Legal Fellow
February 9, 2021
Source: City of American Canyon 2021.

1.2.1 - Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), the City of American Canyon held a virtual public scoping meeting for the proposed project on Tuesday, February 2, 2021. The meeting was recorded and is posted on the City of American Canyon’s website: www.cityofamericancanyon.org.

1.2.2 - Environmental Issues Determined not to be Significant The NOP identified topical areas that were determined not to be significant. An explanation, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, of the reasons why each area is determined not to 159
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx be significant is also provided in Chapter 7, Effects Found not to be Significant. These topical areas are as follows:
• Agriculture and Forest Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Recreation
• Wildfire
In addition, certain subjects with various topical areas were determined not to be significant. Other potentially significant issues are analyzed in these topical areas; however, the following issues are not analyzed:
• State Scenic Highways
• Septic or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems
• Exposure of Schools to Hazardous Materials
• Private Airstrips
• Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan
• Wildland Fire
• Levee or Dam Failure
• Seiches, Tsunamis, or Mudflows
• Division of an Established Community
• Schools
• Parks
• Other Public Facilities
An explanation, in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, of the reasons why each issue is determined not to be significant is provided in Chapter 7, Effects Found Not to be Significant.

1.2.3 - Potentially Significant Environmental Issues
The NOP found that the following topical areas may contain potentially significant environmental issues that will require further analysis in the Draft EIR. These sections are as follows:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utility Systems

1.3 - Organization of the Draft EIR
This Draft EIR is organized into the following main sections:
160
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx • ES: Executive Summary. This section includes a summary of the proposed project and alternatives to be addressed in the Draft EIR. A brief description of the areas of controversy and issues to be resolved, and overview of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), in addition to a table that summarizes the impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation, are also included in this section. • Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction and overview describing the purpose of this Draft EIR, its scope and components, and its review and certification process. • Chapter 2: Project Description. This chapter includes a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, site, and project characteristics. A discussion of the project objectives, intended uses of the Draft EIR, responsible agencies, and approvals that are needed for the proposed project are also provided.
• Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis. This chapter analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Impacts are organized into major topic areas. Each topic area includes a description of the environmental setting, methodology, significance criteria, impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation. The specific environmental topics that are addressed within Section 3 are as follows:
- Section 3.1—Aesthetics, Light and Glare: Addresses the potential visual impacts of development intensification and the overall increase in illumination produced by the project. - Section 3.2—Air Quality: Addresses potential air quality impacts associated with project implementation and emissions of criteria pollutants. In addition, the section also evaluates project emissions of toxic air contaminants.
- Section 3.3—Biological Resources: Addresses the project’s potential impacts on habitat, vegetation, and wildlife; the potential degradation or elimination of important habitat; and impacts on listed, proposed, and candidate threatened and endangered species. - Section 3.4—Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: Addresses potential impacts on historical resources, unique archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and burial sites.
- Section 3.5—Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Addresses the potential impacts the project may have on soils and assesses the effects of project development in relation to geologic and seismic conditions as well as paleontological resources. - Section 3.6—Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy: Addresses potential project impacts related to energy usage and project emissions of greenhouse gases. - Section 3.7—Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Addresses the potential for the presence of hazardous materials or conditions on the project site and in the project area that may have the potential to impact human health.
- Section 3.8—Hydrology and Water Quality: Addresses the potential impacts of the project on local hydrological conditions, including drainage areas, and changes in the flow rates. - Section 3.9—Land Use: Addresses the potential land use impacts associated with division of an established community and consistency with the City of American Canyon General Plan, the American Canyon Zoning Ordinance, and the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
161
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx - Section 3.10—Noise: Addresses the potential noise impacts during construction and at project buildout from mobile and stationary sources. The section also addresses the impact of noise generation on neighboring uses.
- Section 3.11—Public Services: Addresses the potential impacts upon public services, including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, parks, and recreational facilities. - Section 3.12—Transportation: Addresses the impacts on the local and regional roadway system, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian access. - Section 3.13—Utilities and Services Systems: Addresses the potential impacts upon service providers, including fire protection, law enforcement, water supply, wastewater, solid waste, and energy providers.
• Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects. Discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. • Chapter 5: Alternatives to the Proposed Project. Compares the impacts of the proposed project with four project alternatives: the No Project/No Development Alternative, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative, and the Phase 1 Only Alternative. An environmentally superior alternative is identified. In addition, alternatives initially considered but rejected from further consideration are discussed. • Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations. Provides a summary of significant environmental impacts, including unavoidable and growth-inducing impacts. This section discusses the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including the impacts of past, present, and probable future projects. In addition, the proposed project’s energy demand is discussed.
• Chapter 7: Effects Found not to be Significant. Contains analysis of the topical sections not addressed in Chapter 3.
• Chapter 8: Persons and Organizations Consulted/List of Preparers. Contains a full list of persons and organizations that were consulted during the preparation of this Draft EIR. This section also contains a full list of the authors who assisted in the preparation of the Draft EIR, by name and affiliation.
• Appendices. Includes all notices and other procedural documents pertinent to the Draft EIR as well as all technical material prepared to support the analysis.

1.4 - Documents Used In Preparation of the Draft EIR
This Draft EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and previously certified environmental documentation. The documents and other sources that have been used in the preparation of this Draft EIR include but are not limited to:
• City of American Canyon General Plan
• American Canyon Zoning Ordinance
• Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
• City of American Canyon Urban Water Management Plan
162
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Introduction
FirstCarbon Solutions 1-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the referenced documents and other sources used in the preparation of the Draft EIR are available for review at American Canyon City Hall at the address shown in Section 1.6 or online at www.cityofamericancanyon.org.

1.5 - Documents Prepared for the Project
The following technical studies and analyses were prepared for the proposed project:
• Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (The analysis is wholly contained in Section 3.2, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions and supporting information is provided in Appendix B.1)
• Health Risk Assessment, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (Appendix B.2) • Biological Resources Study, prepared by Huffman Broadway Group (Appendix C) • Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (Appendix D) • Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Wallace Kuhl & Associates (Appendix E.1) • Geological Fault Investigation, prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group (Appendix E.2) • Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling Memo, prepared by Balance Hydrologics (Appendix F)
• Noise Analysis, prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (The analysis is wholly contained in Section

3.9, Noise and supporting information is provided in Appendix G) • Traffic Impact Study, prepared by W-Trans (Appendix H) • Water Supply Assessment, prepared by Balance Hydrologics (Appendix I.1) • Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Sizing Calculations, prepared by CBG (Appendix I.2)

1.6 - Review of the Draft EIR
The City of American Canyon filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research to begin the Draft EIR public review period (PRC § 21161). Concurrent with the NOC, this Draft EIR has been distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, surrounding cities, and interested parties, as well as all parties requesting a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code 21092(b)(3). During the public review period, the Draft EIR, including the technical appendices, is available for review at the locations listed below and online at www.cityofamericancanyon.org.

American Canyon City Hall
Community Development Department
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Hours:

Monday-Friday: 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.

Saturday-Sunday: Closed
American Canyon Library
300 Crawford Way
American Canyon, CA 94503
Hours:

Monday-Friday: 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Saturday: 10:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m.

Sunday: Closed
163
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Introduction Draft EIR
1-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec01-00 Introduction.docx Agencies, organizations, and interested parties have the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period. Written comments on this Draft EIR should be addressed to:

Mr. Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, CA 94503
Phone: 707.647.4335
Email: [email protected]
Submittal of electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF format is encouraged. Upon completion of the public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available for review by the commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing before the American Canyon Planning Commission on the project, at which the certification of the Final EIR will be considered. Comments received and the responses to comments will be included as part of the record for consideration by decision-makers for the project. 164
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) analyzes the potential environmental effects of the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project (proposed project) in American Canyon.

2.1 - Project Location and Setting

2.1.1 - Location
The 208-acre project site is located in the City of American Canyon, in Napa County, California; refer to Exhibit 2-1. The semi-rectangular project site is bounded by industrial development in the Green Island Business Park (west), the Napa Logistics Park and Devlin Road (north), the Napa Branch Line (east), and Green Island Road, a stone supply business, and a wine distribution warehouse (south); refer to Exhibit 2-2. The project site is located on the Cuttings Wharf, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Map, Township 4 North, Range 4 West, Sections 13 and 14 (Latitude 38° 11’ 50” North; Longitude 122° 15’ 36” West).

2.1.2 - Existing Conditions
The project site contains undeveloped land; there are no structures on-site. Vegetation consists primarily of non-native grasslands, with seasonal wetlands and associated plant species scattered throughout the site. The project site gently slopes from east to west and the elevation ranges from 50 feet to 35 feet above mean sea level. The headwaters of No Name Creek are located in the northwestern portion of the site. No Name Creek flows off the site at the northwestern corner of the property into the Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve. The drainage is hydrologically connected to Fagan Slough, which flows into the Napa River. The majority of wetlands that occur throughout the site are supported by direct precipitation. Small soil mounds are located in various places throughout the site.

The West Napa Fault bisects the project site in a northwest/southeast direction. An existing 18-inch diameter force main that connects the Tower Road Pump Station with the Green Island Pump Station crosses the western portion of the project site.

The City of American Canyon owns an approximately 8-acre strip of land that bisects the site northto-south. This strip of land would support the planned extension of Devlin Road from Middleton Way to Green Island Road, which was under construction as of Summer 2021.

Pursuant to the approval of the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 EIR, parallel wastewater and recycled water pipelines were constructed through the project site via jack-and-bore technologies in Spring 2021. The pipelines link Napa Logistics Park to the north with the City’s Water Reclamation Facility to the south.

Photographs of the project site are provided in Exhibit 2-3. 165
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx

2.1.3 - Surrounding Land Uses
West
The California Northern Railroad line connecting American Canyon and Sonoma and the Biagi Brothers distribution warehouse form the western boundary of the project site.

North
Devlin Road and the Napa Logistics Park form the northern boundary of the project site. Napa Logistics Park contains more than 2 million square feet of distribution warehouses as well as a planned Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) regional operations and maintenance center.

Further north is the Napa County Airport.

East
The Napa Branch Line, a railroad that connects American Canyon and Napa, forms the eastern boundary of the project site. East of the branch line are several industrial and commercial businesses that front State Route (SR) 29.

South
Green Island Road, Crown Hill Stone Supply, and the Wine Direct warehouse form the southern boundary of the project site. Further south are industrial and commercial businesses within the Green Island Business Park.

2.1.4 - Land Use Designations
The project site is designated “Industrial” by the City of American Canyon General Plan and zoned “General Industrial.” The project site is within the boundaries of the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

2.2 - Project History

2.2.1 - Giovannoni Property
Historic topographic maps indicate that the Giovannoni Property has been undeveloped since at least the early 20th Century. The property was annexed into the City of American Canyon in 2005 when the City pre-zoned the site for industrial use. It is the largest undeveloped property designated for industrial land use activities within the American Canyon city limits.

2.2.2 - Napa Logistics Park
The approximately 218-acre Napa Logistics Park property is immediately north of the Giovannoni project site and has been through several rounds of entitlements.

In 2009, Napa County approved the entitlements for Phase 1 of the Napa Logistics Park. These entitlements included a use permit, tentative parcel map, and development agreement for a 646,000-square-foot warehouse on 38 acres of the project site. In 2011, the City of American Canyon 166
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx annexed the entire Napa Logistics Park property. The Napa Logistics Park applicant completed the Phase 1 warehouse in 2016 and the building is used as an IKEA customer fulfillment center.

In 2015, the American Canyon City Council certified the Napa Logistics Park Phase 2 EIR and approved entitlements including a use permit, vesting tentative subdivision map, design permits, engineering design exceptions, and a development agreement. The EIR contemplated the development of a 2.27-million-square-foot logistics center on 173 acres of the project site.

In 2017, the Napa Logistics Park applicant requested, and the City of American Canyon approved, the extension of the term of the development agreement to 10 years. The Napa Logistics Park applicant subsequently received design permits for two warehouses (702,000 square feet and 363,000 square feet); the warehouses were developed and are tenanted by Biaggi Bros and Amazon, respectively.

The final developable parcel was acquired by PG&E for the development of the Napa Regional Center, a maintenance and operations facility.

2.2.3 - Napa Airport Corporate Center
The approximately 50-acre Napa Airport Corporate Center property is northeast of the Giovannoni project site and has been through several rounds of entitlements.

In 2018, the American Canyon City Council certified the Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2014122005) and approved entitlements including a use permit, vesting tentative subdivision map, design permits, engineering design exceptions, and a development agreement. The EIR contemplated the development of a 550,000-square-foot business park on the 50-acre project site. The EIR included an option for a fuel station/convenience store/quick serve restaurant in lieu of a warehouse on one of the parcels.

In 2017, prior to the approval of the Napa Airport Corporate Center entitlements, the Napa Vallejo Waste Management Authority (NVWMA) acquired a 15-acre parcel from the property owner. In 2020, the NVWMA Board of Directors approved the development of an enclosed Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Facility on approximately 9 acres of the parcel. The NVWMA processed an Addendum to the Napa Airport Corporate Center EIR.

2.2.4 - Devlin Road and Napa Valley Vine Trail Extension Project The City of American Canyon adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2018122031) for the Devlin Road and Napa Valley Vine Trail Extension Project on October 1, 2019.

The project consisted of the extension of Devlin Road from Green Island Road to Middleton Way (Napa Logistics Park) and associated construction of the Napa Valley Vine Trail along this roadway segment. The extended roadway would have one 14-foot travel lane in each direction and a 12-foot two-way left turn lane. A roundabout would be located at the intersection of Devlin Road/Boone Road. A three-way stop would control the Devlin Road/Green Island Road intersection. The majority of the 3,084-foot segment would be located within the Giovannoni Property.

The City of American Canyon’s Circulation Element contemplates the completion of Devlin Road between Green Island Road and Middleton Way (Segment H). The improvement is programmed into 167
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx the City’s Traffic Impact Fee Program and Capital Improvement Program. The City has been collecting fees from new development projects to pay for Segment H and it is fully funded. The applicant previously dedicated an approximately 8-acre strip of land to the City of American Canyon for this extension. Construction began in Summer 2021.

2.2.5 - Green Island Road Reconstruction and Widening Project The City of American Canyon adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2019089082) for the Green Island Road Reconstruction and Widening Project on October 1, 2019.

The project consisted of improvements to a 1.86-mile segment of Green Island Road between SR-29 and a cul-de-sac and include the following:
• Addition of a two-way left turn center lane on Green Island Road (0.80 mile). • Construction of the Napa Valley Vine Trail Class I bicycle/pedestrian path along the north side of Green Island Road.
• Installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalks at several locations along the roadway corridor. • Improvement the structural section on the internal roads within existing curb and gutter. • Reconstruction and improvement of the two at-grade railroad crossings. • Relocation of existing overhead utilities to a new underground joint trench. • Installation of light-emitting diode (LED) street lighting.

The City was awarded funding from the United States Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration to pay for the proposed improvements.

2.3 - Project Characteristics

2.3.1 - Project Summary
The applicant, Buzz Oates LLC, is proposing to develop a 2.4-million-square-foot logistics center on approximately 163 acres of the 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 the Devlin Road extension. This area will support two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet. One of the buildings 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, this environmental document evaluates Phase 1 at a project level and Phase 2 at a program level of analysis. (See Chapter 1, Introduction, and 168
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Section 2.5 below for detailed discussions of the differences between project-level and programmatic analysis, and how the document will be used for future approvals within Phases 1 and 2.) Table 2-1 summarizes the proposed project. Exhibit 2-4 depicts the preliminary site plan for Phase 1.

Table 2-1: Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Summary
Phase Acres Building/Square Feet End Use/Characteristics 1 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 –
2 113.1 1.3 million High-Cube Warehouse/36 feet clear height Total 208 2.4 million –
Notes:

Total acres and square footage values are rounded up.

Source: RMW Architectural Interiors 2020.

2.3.2 - Devlin Road Extension
As previously discussed, the City of American Canyon is extending Devlin Road approximately 3,084 linear feet from Green Island Road to Middleton Way (Napa Logistics Park). The Devlin Road extension is fully funded, the environmental review process was completed in 2019, and construction began in 2021. As such, the Devlin Road extension would be completed prior to Phase 1 of the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project.

The City’s Sewer Master Plan contemplates a new 21-inch diameter gravity sewer line that would follow the planned extension of Devlin Road. At Green Island Road, the sewer line would continue west to the new Green Island Pump Station. Once operational, the existing 18-inch diameter force main would be abandoned, along with the Tower Road Pump Station.

The project applicant would construct the Napa Valley Vine Trail segment along the project frontage with Devlin Road frontage.

2.3.3 - Green Island Road Improvements
As previously discussed, the City of American Canyon would improve Green Island Road along the project frontage. The roadway would be widened to provide a two-way left turn lane and half width improvements would be installed along the project frontage, including the Napa Valley Vine Trail.

The new Green Island Road/Devlin Road intersection would provide turn lanes. The project applicant would dedicate right-of-way to the City for the Green Island Road widening. The Green Island Road improvements are fully funded, and the environmental review process was completed in 2019. As such, the Green Island Road improvements may be completed prior to Phase 1 of the proposed Giovannoni Logistics Center Project. The project applicant would construct the Napa Valley Vine Trail segment along the project frontage with Green Island Road. 169
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx

2.3.4 - Vehicular Access
Vehicular access to Phase 1 would be provided via four driveways on Green Island Road and four driveways on Devlin Road. Two driveways on each road would be dedicated for truck access and the remaining two would be dedicated for passenger vehicle access. Reciprocal access would be provided between the two Phase 1 warehouses.

Vehicular access to Phase 2 would occur from both Green Island Road and Devlin Road.

2.3.5 - Parking
Off-street parking spaces for Phase 1 would include standard stalls for passenger vehicles and 55- foot-long stalls for empty truck trailers. Table 2-2 summarizes the assignment of parking spaces by building.

Table 2-2: Phase 1 Parking Summary
Building Stalls Notes
A 430 Includes 10 ADA stalls, 26 electric vehicular charging stalls, and nine Clean Air stalls B 430 Includes 10 ADA stalls, 26 electric vehicular charging stalls, and nine Clean Air stalls Total 860
Notes:

ADA = Americans With Disabilities Act
Clean Air stalls intended for vanpools and electric vehicles Source: RMW Architecture Interiors 2020.

2.3.6 - Open Space Preservation
The applicant proposes to establish an Open Space Wetland Preserve (Preserve) to conserve and manage vernal pool and other wetland and grassland resources (including foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and other birds of prey) in perpetuity; and to offset wetland impacts associated with the proposed project, and additional wetland impacts that may occur in the future as part of the possible development of a second phase of the project (referred to herein as the “Phase 2”), as described in more detail in the Biological Resource section of the Draft EIR, below.

The preserve is proposed to consist of approximately 44.8 acres on the northern portion of the site (Section 3.3, Biological Resources, Exhibit 3.3-4). This area coincides with the portion of the project site where No Name Creek meanders and would create a contiguous open space area with approximately the adjoining 37-acre Napa Logistics Park Wetland Preserve.

The project proposes to establish a conservation easement held by a third-party conservation entity.

Additionally, a resource agency approved Wetland Preserve Interim and Long-term Management Plan would be prepared and implemented, which would include monitoring, and the requirement to establish an adequate endowment fund to support in perpetuity conservation and management of the biological resources of the Preserve.
170
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx

2.3.7 - Storm Drainage
The proposed project would provide 110,766 square feet (2.6 acres) of storm drainage retention onsite. A network of underground piping ranging from 12 to 48-inches in diameter would convey runoff to bioretention and detention basins in the northern portion of the property.

2.3.8 - Utilities
Water
The City of American Canyon would provide potable water and recycled water service to the proposed project. Potable and recycled water infrastructure would be installed within the Devlin Road extension. Service laterals would extend from water lines within Green Island Road and Devlin Road to project buildings.

Wastewater
The City of American Canyon would provide wastewater collection and treatment service to the proposed project. Sewer infrastructure would be installed within the Devlin Road extension. Service laterals would extend from sewer lines within Green Island Road and Devlin Road to project buildings.

Electricity and Natural Gas
Marin Clean Energy would procure, and 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 would be installed within the Devlin Road extension. Service laterals would extend from facilities within Green Island Road and Devlin Road to project buildings.

2.3.9 - Grading and Earthwork
Rough grading would require 139,500 cubic yards of cut and 146,900 cubic yards of fill. Utility and development spoils would require 2,000 cubic yards of cut. In total, there would be 141,500 cubic yards of cut and 146,900 cubic yards of fill. Thus, there would be a need for 5,400 cubic yards of fill to be imported to the project site.

2.3.10 - Design and Appearance
Architecture
The warehouse buildings would be of Type VB construction, site cast, tilted concrete panels with a variety of architectural enhancements. The typical wall panels would be enhanced with reveals and a textured elastomeric, multicolored coating system. The areas around the building entries would also be enhanced with tinted glazing in aluminum frames with overhead steel-framed painted canopies.

The placement of these enhancements would be focused on those locations most visible from the public roadways. Exhibit 2-5 depicts the conceptual building renderings. 171
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx Landscaping
The proposed project would be landscaped using plants adapted to the City of American Canyon climate. Low-water-use plants would primarily be used, with moderate water use plants used at accent points, such as driveways and building entries. The landscape palette will not include oleander because it cannot be composted with other green waste.

2.3.11 - Sustainability Features
The proposed project would incorporate a variety of sustainable materials and construction practices including:
• A stormwater pollution prevention plan to minimize contamination, erosion, and dust pollution during construction. All stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces (roofs and paving) will be routed through a specially designed water quality detention and treatment basin. Additionally, on-site detention will be provided to meet the City of American Canyon standards.
• Storage and collection of recyclable materials.
• Construction waste management including recycling.
• Environmental tobacco smoke control.
• Heat reflecting roof membranes.
• Light pollution reduction.
• Water-efficient landscaping.
• Water use reduction methods.
• Low volatile organic compound (VOC) emitting sealants, adhesives, coatings, floorings, and wood materials.
• Roof structures designed to accommodate additional weight for roof-top photovoltaic electricity generation panel arrays.
• California Green Building Code compliant electric vehicle charging stations at seven locations. • The application of United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDTM) techniques and practices to the project design and construction.
• Covered parking for bicycles

2.3.12 - Employment
The proposed project would employ an estimated 1,200 workers during construction and an estimated 3,643 workers at buildout.
172
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx

2.3.13 - Buildout Horizon
For the purposes of providing a conservative, worst-case scenario, this Draft EIR assumes that Phases 1 and 2 would be developed concurrently over a period of 18 months.

As a practical matter, the proposed project would buildout over a period of years or decades. Phase 1 would be developed first, followed by Phase 2.

2.4 - Project Objectives and Underlying Purpose
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 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.

2.5 - Intended Uses of this Draft EIR
This Draft EIR is being prepared by the City of American Canyon to assess the potential environmental impacts that may arise in connection with actions related to implementation of the proposed project. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15367, the City of American Canyon is the lead agency for the proposed project and has discretionary 173
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Project Description Draft EIR
2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx authority over the proposed project and project approvals. The Draft EIR is intended to address all future development and public infrastructure improvements that are within the parameters of the proposed project.

This Draft EIR is a combination of a project EIR and a program EIR. The Draft EIR provides a projectlevel analysis of the environmental effects of Phase 1 and programmatic analysis for Phase 2 of the Project.

The project-level analysis for Phase 1, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, provides sufficient detail to allow for approvals of all needed approvals and permitting for, as well as construction of, Phase 1 without any need for additional environmental review, provided that future project changes or changed circumstances do not trigger the need for some sort of subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 (subsequent EIR, supplement to an EIR, or addendum to an EIR).

The programmatic level of analysis for Phase 2 has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. Under Section 15168(c), “[l]ater activities in the program must be examined in the light of [a] program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.” Two general outcomes are possible: the later activity may be found to be “within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR,” in which case “no new environmental document would be required;” or such a finding cannot be made, and a new project-specific Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR would be required, depending on the severity of the effects of the later activity.

Section 15168(c)(4) directs that “[w]here the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.”
Section 15168(c)(2) provides that “[i]f the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent EIR would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.

Whether a later activity is within the scope of a program EIR is a factual question that the lead agency determines based on substantial evidence in the record. Factors that an agency may consider in making that determination include, but are not limited to, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure, as described in the program EIR.” For any later activity covered in whole or in part in the program EIR, “[a]n agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into later activities in the program” (CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c)(2)).

2.5.1 - Discretionary and Ministerial Actions
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:
174
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Project Description
FirstCarbon Solutions 2-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec02-00 Project Description.docx • Use Permit
• Tentative Parcel Map
• Design Permits
• Lot Line Adjustment
Subsequent ministerial actions would be required for the implementation of the proposed project, including issuance of grading and building permits.

2.5.2 - Responsible and Trustee Agencies
Several other agencies in addition to the City of American Canyon will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This Draft EIR will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation. These agencies or parties may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
• California Public Utilities Commission
• San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • Napa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
• County of Napa
• Napa Valley Transportation Authority/Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition Actions that are necessary to implement the project that may be taken by other agencies are:
• Land Use Compatibility Review (ALUC)
• Issuance of Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (CDFW) • Issuance of Section 401 Water Quality Certification (RWQCB) • Issuance of Encroachment Permit (Caltrans and City of American Canyon) • Approval of General Order 33-B (California Public Utilities Commission) This document may also be used by United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to facilitate its compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with the 404 Permit required for the proposed project under the federal Clean Water Act. 175

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
176
12 29
121
121
37 4
Napa County
Solano County
80 680
12 116
Contra Costa County
780
128
Montezuma Slou gh
Carquinez Strait
M
So
a
n
ri
o
n
ma County
County
242
680
24 Napa River
Jack London
State Park
Vacaville
Napa
Fairfield
Suisun City
Novato Vallejo Benicia
Bay Point
Hercules
Pinole Martinez
San Anselmo
San Rafael Concord
San Pablo
Pleasant Hill Richmond
Larkspur
El Cerrito
Mill Valley
Albany Walnut Creek
Lafayette
Orinda
Berkeley
San Francisco Alamo
Sonoma
American
Canyon
Clayton
Exhibit 2-1
Regional Location Map
5 2.5 0 5
Miles
Text
Project Site
Source: Census 2000 Data, The California Spatial Information Library (CaSIL).

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
54600001 • 01/2021 | 2-1_regional.mxd
Project Site
80 177

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
178
54600001 • 09/2021 | 2-2_local_vicinity.mxd
Exhibit 2-2
Local Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Aerial Imagery, 10/2020. County of Napa.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Eucalyptus Dr
Green Island Rd
Green Island Rd
Paoli Loop Rd
Watson Ln
Hanna Dr
Com
merce B vl d
29 Devlin Rd
Kelly Rd
Airport Rd
12 Napa County Airport
Napa
Branch
Line
California Northern Railroad
California
Northern
Railroad
Napa Logistics Park
Napa Airport
Corporate Center
Middleton
Way
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
179

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
180
Photograph 1: View of Phase 1 (eastern) portion of project site. Photograph 2: View of Phase 2 (western) portion of project site.

Photograph 3: View of the under construction segment of Devlin Road.

Source: FirstCarbon Solutions, 2021.
54600001 • 09/2021 | 2-3_site_photographs.cdr
Exhibit 2-3
Site Photographs

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT181

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
182
183

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
184
54600001
• 02/2021 | 2-5_conceptual_renderings.cdr
Source: RMW Architecture Interiors, 11/11/2020.

CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON

GIOVANNONI LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Exhibit 2-5
Conceptual Renderings
185

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
186
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Env Impact Analysis.docx CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Organization of Issue Areas
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) provides analysis of impacts for those environmental topics where it was determined in the Notice of Preparation, or through subsequent analysis, that the proposed project would result in “potentially significant impacts.” Sections 3.1 through 3.13 discuss the environmental impacts that may result with approval and implementation of the proposed project.

Issues Addressed in this Draft EIR
The following environmental issues are addressed in Chapter 3:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
• Noise
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
Level of Significance
Determining the severity of project impacts is fundamental to achieving the objectives of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires that decisionmakers mitigate, as completely as is feasible, the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. If the EIR identifies any significant unmitigated impacts, CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires decisionmakers, approving a project, to adopt a statement of overriding considerations that explains why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse environmental consequences identified in the EIR.

The level of significance for each impact examined in this Draft EIR was determined by considering the predicted magnitude of the impact against the applicable threshold. Thresholds were developed using criteria from the CEQA Guidelines and checklist; State, federal, and local regulatory schemes; local/regional plans and ordinances; accepted practice; consultation with recognized experts; and other professional opinions.
187
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Environmental Impact Analysis Draft EIR
3-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Env Impact Analysis.docx Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measure Format
The format adopted in this EIR to present the evaluation of impacts is described and illustrated below.

Summary Heading of Impact
Impact AES-1: An impact summary heading appears immediately preceding the impact description (Summary Heading of Impact in this example). The impact number identifies the section of the report (AES for Aesthetics, Light, and Glare in this example) and the sequential order of the impact (1 in this example) within that section. To the right of the impact number is the impact statement, which identifies the potential impact.

Impact Analysis
A narrative analysis follows the impact statement.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
This section identifies the level of significance of the impact before any mitigation is proposed.

Mitigation Measures
In some cases, following the impact discussion, reference is made to state and federal regulations and agency policies that would fully or partially mitigate the impact. In addition, policies and programs from applicable local land use plans that partially or fully mitigate the impact may be cited.

Project-specific mitigation measures, beyond those contained in other documents, are set off with a summary heading and described using the format presented below:

MM AES-1 Project-specific mitigation is identified that would reduce the impact to the lowest degree feasible. The mitigation number links the particular mitigation to the impact it is associated with (AES-1 in this example); mitigation measures are numbered sequentially.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
This section identifies and explains the resulting level of significance of the impact following mitigation.

Abbreviations used in the mitigation measure numbering are:

Code Environmental Issue
AES Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
AIR Air Quality
BIO Biological Resources
CUL Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
GEO Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
188
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Environmental Impact Analysis
FirstCarbon Solutions 3-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-00 Env Impact Analysis.docx Code Environmental Issue
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HYD Hydrology and Water Quality
LU Land Use
NOI Noise
PSU Public Services
TRANS Transportation
USS Utilities and Service Systems
189

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
190
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx

3.1 - Aesthetics, Light, and Glare

3.1.1 - Introduction
This section describes the existing aesthetics, light, and glare setting and potential effects from project implementation on visual resources and the site and its surroundings. Descriptions and analysis in this section are based on-site reconnaissance by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS), as well as review of the City of American Canyon General Plan.

3.1.2 - Environmental Setting
Visual Character
Regional Setting
American Canyon, population 20,837, is located in southern Napa County between the east bank of the Napa River and the Sulfur Springs Mountains foothills. State Route (SR) 29—known locally as Broadway Street—bisects the City from north to south and serves as the primary commercial corridor. Residential uses are generally located in the southern portion of the City, with commercial and industrial uses located in the northern portion near the Napa County Airport. American Canyon is characterized by a contemporary, low-rise, suburban appearance, with most development having occurred within the last 40 years.

Project Site
The approximately 208-acre project site contains undeveloped land. There are no structures on-site.

Vegetation consists of grasses and weeds. The project site gently slopes from east to west and the elevation ranges from 50 feet to 35 feet above mean sea level. The headwaters of No Name Creek are located in the northwestern portion of the site. No Name Creek flows off the site at the northwestern corner of the property into the Napa Logistics Park wetland preserve. Small soil mounds are located in various places throughout the site.

The City of American Canyon owns an approximately 8-acre strip of land that bisects the site north to south. This strip of land would support the planned extension of Devlin Road from Middleton Way to Green Island Road, which was under construction as of Summer 2021.

Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-3 provides site photographs.

Surrounding Land Uses
West
The California Northern Railroad line, connecting American Canyon and Sonoma, and the Biagi Brothers distribution warehouse form the western boundary of the project site. The project site has unobstructed views of the railroad tracks and warehouse.

North
Devlin Road and the Napa Logistics Park form the northern boundary of the project site. Napa Logistics Park contains more than 2 million square feet of distribution warehouses as well as a planned Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) regional operations and maintenance center. 191
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Further north is the Napa County Airport. The project site has unobstructed views of Napa Logistics Park and partial views of the airport.

East
The Napa Branch Line, a railroad that connects American Canyon and Napa, forms the eastern boundary of the project site. East of the branch line are several industrial and commercial businesses that front SR-29. The project site has unobstructed views of the railroad tracks and the businesses that front SR-29.

South
Green Island Road, Crown Hill Stone Supply, and the Wine Direct Warehouse form the southern boundary of the project site. Further south are industrial and commercial businesses in the Green Island Business Park. The project site has unobstructed views of the businesses along the road.

Light and Glare
The project site does not currently contain any sources of light and glare. Parking lot lights that employ full cut-off fixtures are present at the adjoining Wine Direct Warehouse along Green Island Road. Surrounding developed land uses including the Napa Logistics Park, the Wine Direct Warehouse, and the Biagi Brothers distribution warehouse have exterior lighting for safety and security purposes.

3.1.3 - Regulatory Framework
Local
City of American Canyon
General Plan
The City of American Canyon General Plan sets forth the following goals, objectives, and policies relevant to aesthetics, light, and glare:

Goal 1B Provide for the orderly development of American Canyon that maintains its distinctive character.

Goal 1C Create a pattern and character of land use development that establishes American Canyon as a distinct “place” differentiated from adjacent urban areas, maintains a semi-rural character, and respects the environmental setting.

Objective 1.4 Provide for a pattern of development that (a) establishes distinct neighborhoods, districts, places of community activity and culture and open spaces that are interlinked and promote a cohesive image, (b) locates jobs, commerce, recreation, and other places of community activity within close proximity to all housing units, minimizing the need for vehicular use, (c) achieves a balance of uses to serve both sides of Highway 29, and (d) establishes an overall compact urban form surrounded by open space.
192
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Objective 1.5 Maintain the character and quality of the natural environmental resources of the City and protect the population and development from the adverse impacts of environmental hazards.

Policy 1.22.4 Require that development be designed to achieve a high level of quality and compatibility with existing uses including the consideration of the following:
a. Architectural treatment of all building elevations;
b. Use of extensive landscape along the primary street frontages and parking lots; and
c. Enclosure of storage areas visible from principal highways (including Highway 29) and peripheral residential and commercial districts with decorative screening or other elements.

Policy 1.22.5 Require that industrial areas developed as research and development and officeoriented business parks be designed to convey a unified character by consideration of Policy 1.22.4 and the following:
a. Inclusion of pedestrian walkways, arcades, and/or other visual elements to interconnect individual buildings;
b. Differentiation of building facades by materials, color, architectural details and modulation of building volumes;
c. Incorporation of extensive landscape in parking areas, along building frontages, and other public areas;
d. Use of consistent and well-designed public and informational signage; and e. Installation of elements that define the key entries to the industrial district.

3.1.4 - Methodology
FCS evaluated potential aesthetics, light, and glare impacts through site reconnaissance conducted in February 2021, as well as review of the City of American Canyon General Plan and project plans.

3.1.5 - Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is a sample Initial Study Checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts to aesthetics are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the California Natural Resources Agency based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. As a result, many lead agencies derive their significance criteria from the questions posed in Appendix G. The City has chosen to do so for this project. Thus, the proposed project would have a significant effect related to aesthetics if the proposed project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. 193
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway. (Refer to Section 7, Effects Found not to be Significant.)
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point).
d) In an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
e) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

3.1.6 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.

Scenic Vistas
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
The approximately 208-acre project site contains undeveloped land. There are no structures on-site.

Vegetation consists of grasses and weeds. The project site gently slopes from east to west and the elevation ranges from 50 feet to 35 feet above mean sea level. The headwaters of No Name Creek are located in the northwestern portion of the site. No Name Creek flows off the site at the northwestern corner of the property into the Napa Logistics Park wetland preserve. Small soil mounds are located in various places throughout the site.

A scenic vista is defined as a viewing point that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape available to the general public. Scenic resources are defined as those landscape patterns and features that are visually or aesthetically pleasing and that, therefore, contribute positively and define a distinct community or region. 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), nor are any such views 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.

In summary, the proposed project would not adversely affect views to or from a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant.
194
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Visual Character
Impact AES-2: The proposed project would notsubstantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Impact Analysis
The approximately 208-acre project site contains undeveloped land. There are no structures on-site.

Vegetation consists of grasses and weeds. The project site gently slopes from east to west and the elevation ranges from 50 feet to 35 feet above mean sea level. The headwaters of No Name Creek are located in the northwestern portion of the site. No Name Creek flows off the site at the northwestern corner of the property into the Napa Logistics Park wetland preserve. Small soil mounds are located in various places throughout the site.

The project vicinity includes Napa Logistics Park, the Green Island Business Park, two railroad lines, and the Napa County Airport. Generally, the project vicinity can be characterized as an active, contemporary industrial area.

Phase 1
Phase 1 consists of the development of 1,069,904 square feet of high-cube warehouse on 94.7 acres of the eastern portion of the project site. Two warehouse buildings would be developed (627,976 square feet and 469,512 square feet). The larger building would be rail-served by the adjacent Napa Branch Line. Both buildings would provide docks, grade-level roll-up doors, and trailer parking stalls.

The facility would be enclosed with a secure perimeter.

The high-cube warehouse buildings would be of Type VB construction, site cast, tilted concrete panels with a variety of architectural enhancements. The typical wall panels would be enhanced with reveals and a textured elastomeric, multicolored coating system. The roof would support mechanical equipment for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system screened with a roof parapet and/or with roof screens equal in height to the mechanical equipment. The areas around the building entries would also be enhanced with tinted glazing in aluminum frames with overhead steel-framed painted canopies. The placement of these enhancements would be focused at those locations most visible from the public roadways. Chapter 2, Project Description, Exhibit 2-5 depicts the building renderings.

The Phase 1 warehouses would be similar in appearance to the structures in the neighboring Napa Logistics Park and the Green Island Business Park.
195
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Aesthetics, Light, and Glare Draft EIR

3.1-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx Additionally, a 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
Phase 2 would support up to 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse on 113.1 acres of the western portion of the project site. Phase 2 is conceptual and no design-level plans have been prepared at the time of this writing. It would be expected that the Phase 2 buildings would be similar in appearance to the Phase 1 buildings.

Conclusion
Although the development of the proposed project would fundamentally and irreversibly change the visual character of the project site, 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, and the impact related to changed character would be considered less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is necessary.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Light and Glare
Impact AES-3: The proposed project may create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Impact Analysis
Phases 1 and 2
The project site does not currently contain any sources of light and glare. Parking lot lights that employ full cut-off fixtures are present in the adjoining Wine Direct Warehouse along Green Island Road. Nearby developed land uses, including Napa Logistics Park and the industrial uses south of Green Island Road, have exterior lighting for safety and security purposes.

The development of the proposed project would result in the installation of new sources of light and glare on the project site. These new sources of light include additional street lighting along internal roadways, building-mounted light fixtures, and pole-mounted light fixtures within parking areas.

Additionally, illuminated signage may be employed. Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-3 requires the project applicant to prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval to demonstrate that all exterior light fixtures would be directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to minimize light spillage and avoid interference with aviation operations 196
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.1-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-01 Aesthetics.docx at the Napa County Airport. Downward-directed lighting and full cut-off fixtures would prevent the trespass of light and glare onto neighboring properties or conflict with aviation operations. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, potential light and glare impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
MM AES-3 Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a photometric plan to the City of American Canyon for review and approval which demonstrates that all exterior light fixtures would be directed downward or employ full cut-off fixtures to minimize light spillage and avoid interference with aviation operations at the Napa County Airport. The approved plan shall be incorporated into the proposed project.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
197

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
198
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-1
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx

3.2 - Air Quality

3.2.1 - Introduction
This section describes existing air quality conditions regionally and locally as well as the relevant regulatory framework. This section also evaluates the possible impacts related to air quality that could result from the implementation of the project. The information included in this section is based on project-specific air quality modeling results utilizing California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0, the American Meteorological Society (AMS)/United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model (AERMOD) air dispersion model (Version 21112). Complete modeling output is provided in Appendix B. The following comments related to Air Quality were received during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) scoping period:
• The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should carefully assess and mitigate the proposed project’s impacts on air quality.
• Because of the proposed project’s proximity to residences and schools already disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of air pollution, the EIR should address the potential cumulative health impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project.
• The EIR should specifically quantify and discuss the potential cancer risks from on-site Transport Refrigeration Units.

3.2.2 - Environmental Setting
Regional Geography and Climate
The City of American Canyon is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin or SFBAAB). The Air Basin is approximately 5,600 square miles in area and consists of nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, including all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa Counties; the southwestern portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County. The San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) has a Mediterranean climate characterized by mild, dry summers and mild, moderately wet winters, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity.

A semi-permanent, high-pressure area centered over the northeastern Pacific Ocean dominates the summer climate of the West Coast. Because this high-pressure cell is persistent, storms rarely affect the California coast during the summer. Thus, the conditions that persist along the coast of California during summer are a northwest airflow and negligible precipitation. A thermal low-pressure area from the Sonoran-Mojave Desert also causes air to flow onshore over the Bay Area much of the summer.

The steady northwesterly flow around the eastern edge of the Pacific High (a high-pressure cell) exerts stress on the ocean surface along the West Coast. This airflow pattern induces upwelling of cold water from below the surface. Upwelling produces a band of cold water off San Francisco that is approximately 80 miles wide. During July, the surface waters off San Francisco are 3°F (degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than those off Vancouver, British Columbia, more than 900 miles to the north. Air 199
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-2 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx approaching the California coast, already cool and moisture-laden from its long trajectory over the Pacific Ocean, is further cooled as it flows across this cold bank of water near the coast, thus accentuating the temperature contrast across the coastline. This cooling is often sufficient to produce condensation, creating a high incidence of fog and stratus clouds along the Northern California coast in summer.

In summer, the northwest winds to the west of the Pacific coastline are drawn into the interior through the gap in the western Coast Ranges, known as the Golden Gate,1 and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately to the south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more nearly from the west as they stream through the Golden Gate.

This channeling of the flow through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward but widens downstream, producing southwest winds at Berkeley and northwest winds at San José; a branch also curves eastward through the Carquinez Straits and into the Central Valley. Wind speeds may be locally strong in regions where air is channeled through a narrow opening such as the Golden Gate, the Carquinez Strait, or San Bruno Gap. For example, the average wind speed at San Francisco International Airport from 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in July is about 20 miles per hour (mph), compared with only about 8 mph at San José and less than 7 mph at the Farallon Islands.

The sea breeze between the coast and the Central Valley2 commences near the surface along the coast in late morning or early afternoon; it may first be observed only through the Golden Gate. Later in the day, the layer deepens and intensifies while spreading inland. As the breeze intensifies and deepens, it flows over the lower hills farther south along the peninsula. This process frequently can be observed as a bank of stratus clouds “rolling over” the coastal hills on the west side of the Bay. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. The generally low elevation of this stable layer of air prevents marine air from flowing over the coastal hills. It is unusual for the summer sea breeze to flow over terrain exceeding 2,000 feet in elevation.

In winter, the SFBAAB experiences periods of storminess, moderate-to-strong winds, and periods of stagnation with very light winds. Winter stagnation episodes are characterized by outflow from the Central Valley, nighttime drainage flows in coastal valleys, weak onshore flows in the afternoon, and otherwise light and variable winds.

A primary factor in air quality is the mixing depth (the vertical air column available for diluting contaminant sources). Generally, the air temperature decreases with height, creating a gradient from warmer air near the ground to cooler air at elevation caused by the sun converting large amounts of energy to sensible heat at the ground, which warms the air at the surface. The warm air rises in the atmosphere, where it expands and cools. Sometimes, however, the temperature of air increases with height. This condition is known as a temperature inversion because the atmosphere's temperature profile is “inverted” from its usual state. Over the SFBAAB, the frequent occurrence of temperature inversions limits mixing depth and, consequently, limits the availability of air for dilution. 1 A strait on the West Coast of North America that connects the San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean. 2 A flat valley that dominates the geographical center of California stretching 450 miles from north-northwest to south-southeast, inland from and parallel to the Pacific Ocean coast. It is bound by the Sierra Nevada to the east and the Coast Range to the west. 200
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-3
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Air Pollutant Types, Sources, and Effects
Criteria Air Pollutants
Air pollutants are termed criteria air pollutants if they are regulated by developing specific public health- and welfare-based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels. Table 3.2-1 provides a summary of the types, sources, and effects of criteria air pollutants.

Table 3.2-1: Description of Criteria Pollutants of National and California Concern Criteria Pollutant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
Ozone Ozone is a photochemical
pollutant as it is not emitted
directly into the atmosphere
but is formed by a complex
series of chemical reactions
between volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrous
oxides (NOX), and sunlight.

Ozone is a regional pollutant
that is generated over a large
area and is transported and
spread by the wind.

Ozone is a secondary
pollutant; thus, it is not
emitted directly into the
lower level of the
atmosphere. The
primary sources of
ozone precursors (VOC
and NOX) are mobile
sources (on-road and
off-road vehicle
exhaust).

Irritate respiratory system;
reduce lung function; change
breathing pattern; reduce
breathing capacity; inflame and
damage cells that line the lungs;
make lungs more susceptible to
infection; aggravate asthma;
aggravate other chronic lung
diseases; cause permanent lung
damage; induce some
immunological changes;
increase mortality risk; damage
to vegetation and property.

Particulate
matter (PM10)
Suspended particulate matter
is a mixture of small particles
that consist of dry solid
fragments, droplets of water,
or solid cores with liquid
coatings. The particles vary in
shape, size, and composition.

PM10 refers to particulate
matter that is between 2.5 and
10 microns in diameter, (one
micron is one-millionth of a
meter). PM2.5 refers to
particulate matter that is 2.5
microns or less in diameter,
about one-thirtieth the size of
the average human hair.

Suspended particulate
matter sources include
fuel or wood combustion
for electrical utilities,
residential space heating,
and industrial processes;
construction and
demolition; the use of
metals, minerals, and
petrochemicals; wood
products processing;
mills and elevators used
in agriculture; erosion
from tilled lands; waste
disposal and recycling.

Mobile or transportationrelated sources are from
vehicle exhaust and road
dust. Secondary particles
form from reactions in
the atmosphere.
• Short-term exposure
(hours/days): irritation of the
eyes, nose, throat; coughing;
phlegm; chest tightness;
shortness of breath;
aggravate existing lung
disease, causing asthma
attacks and acute bronchitis;
those with heart disease can
suffer heart attacks and
arrhythmias.
• Long-term exposure:
reduced lung function;
chronic bronchitis; changes
in lung morphology; death.

Particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
During combustion of fossil
fuels, oxygen reacts with
nitrogen to produce nitrogen
oxides—NOX (NO, NO2, NO3,
N2O, N2O3, N2O4, and N2O5).

NOX is produced in
motor vehicle internal
combustion engines and
fossil fuel-fired electric
utility and industrial
boilers. Nitrogen
Potential to aggravate chronic
respiratory disease and
respiratory symptoms in
sensitive groups; risk to public
health implied by pulmonary
and extra-pulmonary
201
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-4 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Criteria Pollutant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
NOX is a precursor to ozone,
PM10, and PM2.5 formation.

NOX can react with
compounds to form nitric acid
and related small particles and
can result in PM-related health
effects.
dioxide forms quickly
from NOX emissions.

NO2 concentrations
near major roads can be
30 to 100 percent
higher than those at
monitoring stations.
biochemical and cellular
changes and pulmonary
structural changes;
contributions to atmospheric
discoloration; increased visits
to hospital for respiratory
illnesses.

Carbon
monoxide (CO)
CO is a colorless, odorless, toxic
gas. CO is somewhat soluble in
water; therefore, rainfall and
fog can suppress CO conditions.

CO enters the body through the
lungs, dissolves in the blood,
replaces oxygen as an
attachment to hemoglobin, and
reduces available oxygen in the
blood.

CO is produced by
incomplete combustion
of carbon-containing
fuels (e.g., gasoline,
diesel fuel, and
biomass). Sources
include motor vehicle
exhaust, industrial
processes (metals
processing and chemical
manufacturing),
residential
woodburning, and
natural sources.

Ranges depending on
exposure: slight headaches;
nausea; aggravation of angina
pectoris (chest pain) and other
aspects of coronary heart
disease; decreased exercise
tolerance in persons with
peripheral vascular disease and
lung disease; impairment of
central nervous system
functions; possible increased
risk to fetuses; death.

Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless,
pungent gas. At levels greater
than 0.5 parts per million
(ppm), the gas has a strong
odor similar to rotten eggs.

Sulfur oxides (SOX) include
sulfur dioxide and sulfur
trioxide. Sulfuric acid is formed
from sulfur dioxide, which can
lead to acid deposition and
can harm natural resources
and materials. Although sulfur
dioxide concentrations have
been reduced to levels well
below State and federal
standards, further reductions
are desirable because sulfur
dioxide is a precursor to
sulfate and PM10.

Human-caused sources
include fossil fuel
combustion, mineral ore
processing, and
chemical
manufacturing. Volcanic
emissions are a natural
source of sulfur dioxide.

The gas can also be
produced in the air by
dimethyl sulfide and
hydrogen sulfide. Sulfur
dioxide is removed from
the air by dissolution in
water, chemical
reactions, and transfer
to soils and ice caps.

The sulfur dioxide levels
in the State are well
below the maximum
standards.

Bronchoconstriction
accompanied by symptoms
which may include wheezing,
shortness of breath, and chest
tightness during exercise or
physical activity in persons with
asthma. Some populationbased studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects
associated with fine particles
show a similar association with
ambient sulfur dioxide levels. It
is not clear whether the two
pollutants act synergistically or
one pollutant alone is the
predominant factor.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a solid heavy metal
that can exist in air pollution
as an aerosol particle
component. Leaded gasoline
was used in motor vehicles
until around 1970. Lead
concentrations have not
exceeded State or federal
Lead ore crushing, lead
ore smelting, and
battery manufacturing
are currently the largest
sources of lead in the
atmosphere in the
United States. Other
sources include dust
Lead accumulates in bones, soft
tissue, and blood and can affect
the kidneys, liver, and nervous
system. It can cause
impairment of blood formation
and nerve conduction, behavior
disorders, mental retardation,
neurological impairment,
202
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-5
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Criteria Pollutant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
standards at any monitoring
station since 1982.
from soils contaminated
with lead-based paint,
solid waste disposal,
and crustal physical
weathering.
learning deficiencies, and low
IQs.

Sources:

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. Vinyl Chloride and Health. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/vinylchloride-and-health. Accessed July 20, 2021.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2001. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2021.

National Archives and Records Administration. 2009. Part II, Environmental Protection Agency. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 50 and 58, Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide; Proposed Rule. July 15.

Website: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-15/pdf/E9-15944.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2021.

National Toxicology Program. 2016. Report on Carcinogens, 14th Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Benzene. November 3. Website: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf.

Accessed July 20, 2021.

National Toxicology Program. 2016. Report on Carcinogens, 14th Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. November 3. Website:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/dieselexhaustparticulates.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2021.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2007. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. June.

Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2007-air-qualitymanagement-plan/2007-aqmp-final-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed July 20, 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Pollution. Basic Information about NO2. Website: https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#What%20is%20NO2. Accessed July 20, 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter. Website: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulatematter-pm. Accessed July 20, 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020. Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Website: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. Accessed July 20, 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). Volatile Organic Compounds’ Impact on Indoor Air Quality. Website: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoorair-quality. Accessed July 20, 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2021. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. Accessed July 20, 2021.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) are also used as indicators of air quality conditions.

TACs are defined as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at very low concentrations. TACs can cause long-term health effects (such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage) or short-term acute affects (such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, runny nose, throat pain, or headaches). For TACs that may cause 203
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-6 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx cancer, all concentrations present some risk. In other words, there is no threshold level below which some adverse health impacts are not expected to occur. This contrasts with the criteria pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined. The State and federal governments set ambient air quality standards.

TACs are separated into carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the physiological effects associated with exposure to a particular TAC. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. Cancer risk is typically expressed as excess cancer cases per million exposed individuals over a lifetime exposure or other prolonged duration. There is generally an assumed safe level of exposure for noncarcinogenic substances below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels may vary depending on the specific pollutant. Acute and chronic exposure to noncarcinogens is expressed as a hazard index (HI), which is the ratio of expected exposure levels to an acceptable reference exposure level (REL).

To date, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) has designated nearly 200 compounds as TACs. The ARB has implemented control measures for several compounds that pose high risks and show potential for effective control. The majority of the estimated health risk from TACs can be attributed to a relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines. Common TACs of national and California concern include DPM, reactive organic gases (ROG), benzene, asbestos, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, visibility-reducing particulates, vinyl chloride, and lead. Table 3.2-2 provides a summary of the types, sources, and effects of TACs.

Table 3.2-2: Description of Toxic Air Contaminants of National and California Concern Toxic Air
Contaminant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
Diesel
particulate
matter (DPM)
DPM is a source of PM2.5—
diesel particles are typically 2.5
microns and smaller. Diesel
exhaust is a complex mixture of
thousands of particles and
gases that is produced when an
engine burns diesel fuel.

Organic compounds account
for 80 percent of the total PM
mass, which consists of
compounds such as
hydrocarbons and their
derivatives and polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and
their derivatives. Fifteen
polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons are confirmed
carcinogens, a number of
which are found in diesel
exhaust.

Diesel exhaust is a
major source of
ambient PM
pollution in urban
environments.

Typically, the main
source of DPM is
from combustion of
diesel fuel in dieselpowered engines.

Such engines are in
on-road vehicles
such as diesel
trucks, off-road
construction
vehicles, diesel
electrical
generators, and
various pieces of
stationary
construction
equipment.

Some short-term (acute) effects of
DPM exposure include eye, nose,
throat, and lung irritation, coughs,
headaches, light-headedness, and
nausea. Studies have linked
elevated particle levels in the air to
increased hospital admissions,
emergency room visits, asthma
attacks, and premature deaths
among those suffering from
respiratory problems. Human
studies on the carcinogenicity of
DPM demonstrate an increased
risk of lung cancer, although the
increased risk cannot be clearly
attributed to diesel exhaust
exposure.
204
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-7
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Toxic Air
Contaminant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
VOCs ROGs, or VOCs, are defined as
any compound of carbon—
excluding carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, carbonic acid,
metallic carbides or
carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate—that participates in
atmospheric photochemical
reactions. Although there are
slight differences in the
definition of ROGs and VOCs,
the two terms are often used
interchangeably.

Indoor sources of
VOCs include paints,
solvents, aerosol
sprays, cleansers,
tobacco smoke, etc.

Outdoor sources of
VOCs are from
combustion and fuel
evaporation. A
reduction in VOC
emissions reduces
certain chemical
reactions that
contribute to the
formulation of
ozone. VOCs are
transformed into
organic aerosols in
the atmosphere,
which contribute to
higher PM10 and
lower visibility.

Although health-based standards
have not been established for
VOCs, health effects can occur
from exposures to high
concentrations because of
interference with oxygen uptake.

In general, concentrations of VOCs
are suspected to cause eye, nose,
and throat irritation; headaches;
loss of coordination; nausea; and
damage to the liver, the kidneys,
and the central nervous system.

Many VOCs have been classified as
TACs.

Benzene Benzene is a VOC. It is a clear or
colorless light-yellow, volatile,
highly flammable liquid with a
gasoline-like odor. The EPA has
classified benzene as a “Group
A” carcinogen.

Benzene is emitted
into the air from fuel
evaporation, motor
vehicle exhaust,
tobacco smoke, and
from burning oil and
coal. Benzene is
used as a solvent for
paints, inks, oils,
waxes, plastic, and
rubber. Benzene
occurs naturally in
gasoline at one to 2
percent by volume.

The primary route of
human exposure is
through inhalation.

Short-term (acute) exposure of high
doses from inhalation of benzene
may cause dizziness, drowsiness,
headaches, eye irritation, skin
irritation, and respiratory tract
irritation, and at higher levels, loss
of consciousness can occur. Longterm (chronic) occupational exposure of high doses has caused
blood disorders, leukemia, and
lymphatic cancer.

Asbestos Asbestos is the name given to a
number of naturally occurring
fibrous silicate minerals that
have been mined for their
useful properties, such as
thermal insulation, chemical
and thermal stability, and high
tensile strength. The three
most common types of
Chrysotile, also
known as white
asbestos, is the
most common type
of asbestos found in
buildings. Chrysotile
makes up
approximately 90 to
95 percent of all
asbestos contained
Exposure to asbestos is a health
threat; exposure to asbestos fibers
may result in health issues such as
lung cancer, mesothelioma (a rare
cancer of the thin membranes
lining the lungs, chest, and
abdominal cavity), and asbestosis
(a non-cancerous lung disease that
causes scarring of the lungs).

Exposure to asbestos can occur
205
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-8 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Toxic Air
Contaminant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
asbestos are chrysotile,
amosite, and crocidolite.
in buildings in the
United States.
during demolition or remodeling of
buildings that were constructed
prior to the 1977 ban on asbestos
for use in buildings. Exposure to
naturally occurring asbestos can
occur during soil-disturbing
activities in areas with deposits
present.

Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is a
flammable, colorless, poisonous
gas that smells like rotten eggs.

Manure, storage
tanks, ponds,
anaerobic lagoons,
and land application
sites are the primary
sources of hydrogen
sulfide.

Anthropogenic
sources include the
combustion of sulfur
containing fuels (oil
and coal).

High levels of hydrogen sulfide can
cause immediate respiratory arrest.

It can irritate the eyes and
respiratory tract and cause
headache, nausea, vomiting, and
cough. Long exposure can cause
pulmonary edema.

Sulfates Sulfates occur in combination
with metal and/or hydrogen
ions. Many sulfates are soluble
in water.

Sulfates are
particulates formed
through the
photochemical
oxidation of sulfur
dioxide. In
California, the main
source of sulfur
compounds is
combustion of
gasoline and diesel
fuel.

Sulfates can cause a decrease in
ventilatory function, aggravation
of asthmatic symptoms; and
aggravation of cardio-pulmonary
disease, as well as vegetation
damage, degradation of visibility,
property damage.

VisibilityReducing
Particles
Suspended PM is a mixture of
small particles that consist of
dry solid fragments, droplets of
water, or solid cores with liquid
coatings. The particles vary in
shape, size, and composition.

PM10 refers to particulate
matter that is between 2.5 and
10 microns in diameter (1
micron is one-millionth of a
meter). PM2.5 refers to
particulate matter that is 2.5
microns or less in diameter,
about one-thirtieth the size of
the average human hair.

Stationary sources
include fuel or wood
combustion for
electrical utilities,
residential space
heating, and
industrial processes;
construction and
demolition; the use
of metals, minerals,
and petrochemicals;
wood products
processing; mills and
elevators used in
agriculture; erosion
from tilled lands;
waste disposal; and
• Short-term exposure
(hours/days): irritation of the
eyes, nose, throat; coughing;
phlegm; chest tightness;
shortness of breath; aggravates
existing lung disease, causing
asthma attacks and acute
bronchitis; those with heart
disease can suffer heart attacks
and arrhythmias.
• Long-term exposure can result
in reduced lung function,
chronic bronchitis, changes in
lung morphology, and death.
206
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-9
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Toxic Air
Contaminant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
recycling. Mobile or
transportationrelated sources are
from vehicle exhaust
and road dust.

Secondary particles
form from reactions
in the atmosphere.

Vinyl Chloride Vinyl chloride, or chloroethene,
is a chlorinated hydrocarbon
and a colorless gas with a mild,
sweet odor. In 1990, the
California Air Resources Board
(ARB) identified vinyl chloride
as a toxic air contaminant and
estimated a cancer unit risk
factor.

Most vinyl chloride
is used to make
polyvinyl chloride
plastic and vinyl
products, including
pipes, wire and
cable coatings, and
packaging materials.

It can be formed
when plastics
containing these
substances are left
to decompose in
solid waste landfills.

Vinyl chloride has
been detected near
landfills, sewage
plants, and
hazardous waste
sites.

Short-term exposure to high levels
of vinyl chloride in the air causes
central nervous system effects,
such as dizziness, drowsiness, and
headaches. Epidemiological
studies of occupationally exposed
workers have linked vinyl chloride
exposure to development of a rare
cancer, liver angiosarcoma, and
have suggested a relationship
between exposure and lung and
brain cancers.

Lead (Pb) Lead is a solid heavy metal that
can exist in air pollution as an
aerosol particle component.

Leaded gasoline was used in
motor vehicles until around
1970. Lead concentrations
have not exceeded State or
federal standards at any
monitoring station since 1982.

Lead ore crushing,
lead ore smelting,
and battery
manufacturing are
currently the largest
sources of lead in
the atmosphere in
the United States.

Other sources
include dust from
soils contaminated
with lead-based
paint, solid waste
disposal, and crustal
physical weathering.

Lead accumulates in bones, soft
tissue, and blood and can affect
the kidneys, liver, and nervous
system. It can cause impairment of
blood formation and nerve
conduction, behavior disorders,
mental retardation, neurological
impairment, learning deficiencies,
and low IQs.
207
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-10 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Toxic Air
Contaminant
Physical Description and
Properties Sources
Most Relevant Effects from
Pollutant Exposure
Sources:

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. Vinyl Chloride and Health. Website: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/vinylchloride-and-health. Accessed July 20, 2021.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2001. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Website:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/indicators/diesel4-02.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2021.

National Archives and Records Administration. 2009. Part II, Environmental Protection Agency. 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 50 and 58, Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen Dioxide; Proposed Rule. July 15.

Website: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-07-15/pdf/E9-15944.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2021.

National Toxicology Program. 2016. Report on Carcinogens, 14th Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Benzene. November 3. Website: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/Benzene.pdf.

Accessed July 20, 2021.

National Toxicology Program. 2016. Report on Carcinogens, 14th Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. Diesel Exhaust Particles. November 3. Website:
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/dieselexhaustparticulates.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2021.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast AQMD). 2007. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan. June.

Website: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2007-air-qualitymanagement-plan/2007-aqmp-final-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed July 20, 2021.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Pollution. Basic Information about NO2.

Website: https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#What%20is%20NO2. Accessed July 20, 2021.

Air Quality
Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effect on air quality.

Regional Air Quality
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency regulating air quality within the nine-county SFBAAB. The SFBAAB includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, the western portion of Solano County, and the southern portion of Sonoma County.

Air Pollutant Standards and Attainment Designations
Air pollutant standards have been adopted by the EPA and the ARB for the following six criteria air pollutants that affect ambient air quality: ozone, NO2, CO, SO2, lead, and particulate matter (PM), which is subdivided into two classes based on particle size: PM with aerodynamic diameters equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10), and PM with aerodynamic diameters equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). These air pollutants are called “criteria air pollutants” because they are regulated by developing specific public health- and welfare-based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels.

California has also established standards for TACs such as visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Table 3.2-3 presents the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for these aforementioned air pollutants. Note that there are no State or federal ambient air quality standards for ROGs, benzene, or DPM.
208
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-11
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Table 3.2-3: Federal and State Air Quality Standards in the SFBAAB Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standarda Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm —
8 Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppmf
Nitrogen dioxideb (NO2) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Carbon monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Sulfur dioxidec (SO2) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm
3 Hour — 0.5 ppm
24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14
(for certain areas)
Annual — 0.030 ppm (for certain
areas)
Leade 30-day 1.5 µg/m3 —
Quarter — 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-month average — 0.15 µg/m3
Particulate matter (PM10) 24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Mean 20 µg/m3 —
Particulate matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour — 35 µg/m3
Annual 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3
Visibility-reducing particles 8 Hour See note belowd
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 —
Hydrogen sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm —
Vinyl chloridee 24 Hour 0.01 ppm —
Notes:
ppm = parts per million (concentration) µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Annual = Annual Arithmetic Mean 30-day = 30-day average Quarter = Calendar quarter a Federal standard refers to the primary national ambient air quality standard, or the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. All standards listed are primary standards except for 3-Hour SO2, which is a secondary standard. A secondary standard is the level of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. b To attain the 1-hour nitrogen dioxide national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (0.100 ppm). c On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked.

To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 part per billion (ppb). The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. d Visibility-reducing particles: In 1989, the ARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. 209
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-12 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Air Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standarda e The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for implementing control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. f The EPA Administrator approved a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppb on October 1, 2015. The new standard went into effect 60 days after publication the Final Rule in the Federal Register. The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2015, and became effective on December 28, 2015.

Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Website:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2021.

Air quality monitoring stations operated by the ARB and BAAQMD measure ambient air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB. In general, the SFBAAB experiences low concentrations of most pollutants compared to federal or State standards.

Both the EPA and ARB use ambient air quality monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants. These designations identify the areas with air quality problems and initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are nonattainment, attainment, and unclassified. “Attainment” status refers to those regions that are meeting federal and/or State standards for a specified criteria pollutant. “Nonattainment” refers to regions that do not meet federal and/or State standards for a specified criteria pollutant. “Unclassified” refers to regions with insufficient data to determine the region’s attainment status for a specified criteria air pollutant. Each standard has a different definition, or “form” of what constitutes attainment, based on specific air quality statistics. For example, the federal 8-hour CO standard is not to be exceeded more than once per year; therefore, an area is in attainment of the CO standard if no more than one 8-hour ambient air monitoring values exceeds the threshold per year. In contrast, the federal annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of the annual average PM2.5 concentration is less than or equal to the standard.

Table 3.2-4 shows the current attainment designations for the SFBAAB. The SFBAAB is designated as nonattainment for the State ozone, PM10, and PM2.5, standards and the national ozone and PM2.5 standards.

Table 3.2-4: San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Attainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment N/A
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
Sulfates Attainment N/A
Hydrogen Sulfates Unclassified N/A
210
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-13
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Pollutant State Status National Status
Visibility-reducing Particles Unclassified N/A
Lead N/A Attainment
Notes: N/A = information not available.

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. January

5. Website: http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. Accessed May 18, 2021.

Air Quality Index
The health impacts of the various air pollutants of concern can be presented in a number of ways.

The clearest comparison is to the State and federal ozone standards. If concentrations are below the standard, it is safe to say that no health impact would occur to anyone. When concentrations exceed the standard, impacts will vary based on the amount by which the standard is exceeded. The EPA developed the Air Quality Index (AQI) as an easy-to-understand measure of health impacts compared with concentrations in the air. Table 3.2-5 provides a general description of the health impacts of ozone at different concentrations.

Table 3.2-5: Air Quality Index and Health Effects from Ozone Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI—0–50—Good Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 0–54 ppb Health Effects Statements: None.

Cautionary Statements: None.

AQI—51–100—Moderate Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 55–70 ppb Health Effects Statements: Unusually sensitive individuals may experience respiratory symptoms.

Cautionary Statements: Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—101–150—Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups
Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 71–85 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasing likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing discomfort in active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
211
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-14 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Air Quality Index/
8-hour Ozone Concentration Health Effects Description
AQI—151–200—Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 86–105 ppb Health Effects Statements: Greater likelihood of respiratory symptoms and breathing difficulty in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; possible respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.

AQI—201–300—Very Unhealthy Sensitive Groups: Children and people with asthma are the groups most at risk.

Concentration 106–200 ppb Health Effects Statements: Increasingly severe symptoms and impaired breathing likely in active children and adults and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma; increasing likelihood of respiratory effects in general population.

Cautionary Statements: Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid all outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.

Source: Air Now. N.d. AQI Calculator: AQI to Concentration Calculator. Website: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqicalculator. Accessed May 18, 2021.

Local Air Quality
Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature inversions interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutant emissions and, consequently, their effect on air quality.

The local air quality can be evaluated by reviewing relevant air pollution concentrations near the project area. The air quality monitoring station closest to the project site is the Napa Valley College Air Monitoring Station, located approximately 5.5 miles north of the project site. Table 3.2-6 summarizes the recorded ambient air data at the representative monitoring stations for the years 2017 through 2019, which is the most current data available at the time of this analysis. As the Napa Valley College Air Monitoring Station does not have recorded data for 2017, the next closest monitoring station, Vallejo-304 Tuolumne Street Monitoring Station, approximately 6.5 miles south of the project site, was selected to identify the region’s air quality in 2017. As Table 3.2-6 shows, the recorded data show exceedances of the California standards for ozone (1-hour and 8-hour) and PM10, and national standards for 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and PM10, on multiple occasions from 2017 to 2019. No exceedances of either the State or national standards were recorded for CO, NO2, or SO2.

No recent monitoring data for Napa County or the SFBAAB was available for CO or SO2. Generally, no monitoring is conducted for pollutants that are no longer likely to exceed ambient air quality standards.
212
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-15
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Table 3.2-6: Air Quality Monitoring Summary
Air Pollutant
Averaging
Time Item 2017 2018 2019
Ozone(1) 1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.105 0.083 0.095
Days > State Standard (0.09 ppm) 1 0 1
8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) 0.089 0.068 0.076
Days > State Standard (0.07 ppm) 2 0 2
Days > National Standard (0.070 ppm)(2) 2 0 2
CO 8 Hour Max 8 Hour (ppm) ND ND ND
Days > State Standard (9.0 ppm) ND ND ND
Days > National Standard (9 ppm) ND ND ND
NO2
(1) Annual Annual Average (ppm) 0.008 ND 0.001
1 Hour Max 1 Hour (ppm) 0.049 0.040 0.040
Days > State Standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
SO2 Annual Annual Average (ppm) ND ND ND
24 Hour Max 24 Hour (ppm) ND ND ND
Days > State Standard (0.04 ppm) ND ND ND
Inhalable
coarse
particles
(PM10)
(1)
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.5 12.7 13.5
24 Hour Max 24 Hour (µg/m3) ND 26.0 39.0
Days > State Standard (50 µg/m3) ND ND ND
Days > National Standard (150 µg/m3) ND ND 0
Fine
particulate
matter
(PM2.5)
(1)
Annual Annual Average (µg/m3) 11.7 ND 6
24 Hour 24 Hour (µg/m3) 101.9 117.9 21.5
Days > National Standard (35 µg/m3) 9 ND 0
Notes:
> = exceed ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ID = insufficient data ND = no data max = maximum
Bold = exceedance
State Standard = California Ambient Air Quality Standard National Standard = National Ambient Air Quality Standard (1) San Pablo-Rumrill Boulevard
(2) On October 1, 2015, the EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level ozone to 70 parts per million through the adoption of a new standard. The Final Rule went into effect on December 28, 2015.

Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2018. iADAM: Top 4 Summary. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/sc8start.php. Accessed July 29, 2021.

Sensitive Receptors
Air pollution does not affect every individual in the population in the same way, and some groups are more sensitive to adverse health effects than others are. Land uses such as residences, schools, day 213
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-16 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx care centers, hospitals, nursing and convalescent homes, and parks are considered the most sensitive to poor air quality because the population groups associated with these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress or, as in the case of residential receptors, their exposure time is greater than that for other land uses. Therefore, these groups are referred to as sensitive receptors. Exposure assessment guidance typically assumes that residences would receive exposure to air pollution 24 hours per day, 350 days per year, for 70 years. BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as children, adults, and seniors occupying or residing in residential dwellings, schools, day care centers, hospitals, and senior-care facilities.

Project Vicinity
The closest off-site air pollution sensitive receptors near the project site in each direction include the following:
• A single-family residence approximately 200 feet southwest of the project site. • A single-family residence approximately 3,150 feet west of the project site. • A residential neighborhood approximately 2,510 feet south of the project site. • A single-family residence approximately 1,790 feet east of the project site. • A single-family residence approximately 1,860 feet northeast of the project site. • Calvary Baptist Christian Academy approximately 4,040 feet south of the project site.

Project Site
The project site is vacant and no sensitive receptors currently exist on the project site.

Existing Emission Sources
Project Vicinity
The primary sources of air pollutants (both criteria air pollutant and TACs) in the project site vicinity include the various other surrounding industrial properties, building-related energy use, and motorrelated vehicle trips associated with the local business use, particularly on State Route (SR) 29. The project site is located approximately 660 feet west of SR-29 and approximately 2,430 feet southeast of Napa County Airport. Other activities that result in emissions include space and water heating, landscape maintenance, and any surrounding industrial uses that can store, produce, decommission, or otherwise handle hazardous materials.

Project Site
The project site itself is currently vacant and does not produce any air pollutants.

3.2.3 - Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Air Act
Congress established much of the basic structure of the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1970 and made major revisions in 1977 and 1990. Six common air pollutants (also known as criteria pollutants) are addressed in the CAA. These are PM, ground-level ozone, CO, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA calls these pollutants criteria air pollutants because it regulates them by developing 214
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-17
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-based guidelines) for setting permissible levels. The set of limits based on human health are called primary standards. Another set of limits intended to prevent environmental and property damage are called secondary standards.
3 The federal standards are called NAAQS. The air quality standards provide benchmarks for determining whether air quality is healthy at specific locations and whether development activities will cause or contribute to a violation of the standards. The criteria pollutants are:
• Ozone • Particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
• Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) • Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Lead • Sulfur dioxide
The federal standards were set to protect public health, including that of sensitive individuals; thus, the EPA is tasked with updating the standards as more medical research is available regarding the health effects of the criteria pollutants. Primary federal standards are the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.

The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal CAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins, as reported by their jurisdictional agencies.

EPA Emission Standards for New Off-Road Equipment
Before 1994, there were no standards to limit the amount of emissions from off-road equipment. In 1994, the EPA established emission standards for hydrocarbons, NOX, CO, and PM to regulate new pieces of off-road equipment. These emission standards came to be known as Tier 1. Since that time, increasingly more stringent Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 (interim and final) standards were adopted by the EPA and the ARB. Each adopted emission standard was phased in over time. New engines built in and after 2015 across all horsepower sizes must meet Tier 4 final emission standards. In other words, new manufactured engines cannot exceed the emissions established for Tier 4 final emissions standards.

State
California Air Quality Control Plan (State Implementation Plan) An SIP is a document prepared by each state describing existing air quality conditions and measures that will be followed to attain and maintain federal air quality standards. The ARB, which has overall responsibility for Statewide air quality maintenance and air pollution prevention, administers the SIP for the State of California. California’s SIP incorporates individual federal attainment plans for regional air districts—an air district prepares their federal attainment plan, which is sent to the ARB to be approved and incorporated into the California SIP. Federal attainment plans include the technical foundation for understanding air quality (e.g., emission inventories and air quality 3 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014. Clean Air Act Requirements and History. Website:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/clean-air-act-requirements-and-history. Accessed May 18, 2021. 215
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-18 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx monitoring), control measures and strategies, and enforcement mechanisms for attaining and maintaining air quality standards.

Areas designated nonattainment must develop air quality plans and regulations to achieve standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the exceedances. For much of the country, implementation of federal motor vehicle standards and compliance with federal permitting requirements for industrial sources are adequate to attain air quality standards on schedule. For many areas of California, however, additional State and local regulation is required to achieve the standards.

California Clean Air Act
The California Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) in 1988 to address air quality issues of concern not adequately addressed by the federal CAA at the time. California’s air quality problems were and continue to be some of the most severe in the nation and required additional actions beyond the federal mandates. The ARB administers the CAAQS for the 10 air pollutants designated in the CCAA. The 10 State air pollutants are the six federal standards listed above and visibility-reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and vinyl chloride. The EPA authorized California to adopt its own more stringent regulations than similar federal regulations implementing the CAA for motor vehicles and other sources. Generally, the planning requirements of the CCAA are more stringent than the federal CAA; therefore, consistency with the CAA will also demonstrate consistency with the CCAA.

Other ARB responsibilities include, but are not limited to, overseeing local air district compliance with California and federal laws; approving local air quality plans; submitting SIPs to the EPA; monitoring air quality; determining and updating area designations and maps; conducting basic research aimed at providing a better understanding between emissions and public well-being, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, offroad vehicles, and fuels.

California Health and Safety Code Section 39655 and California Code of Regulations Title 17 Section 93000 (Substances Identified as Toxic Air Contaminants) The ARB identifies substances as TACs as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 39655 and listed in Title 17, Section 93000 of the California Code of Regulations, “Substances Identified As Toxic Air Contaminants.” A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, there are thresholds set by regulatory agencies below which adverse health impacts are not expected to occur.

This contrasts with the criteria pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the State and federal governments have set ambient air quality standards. According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, the majority of the estimated health risk from TACs for the State of California can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important of which is DPM from diesel-fueled engines.
216
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-19
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx California Low-Emission Vehicle Program
The ARB first adopted Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program standards in 1990. These first LEV standards ran from 1994 through 2003. LEV II regulations, running from 2004 through 2010, represent continuing progress in emission reductions. As the State’s passenger vehicle fleet continues to grow and more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks are used as passenger cars rather than work vehicles, more stringent LEV II standards were adopted to provide reductions necessary for California to meet federally mandated clean air goals outlined in the 1994 SIP. In 2012, the ARB adopted the LEV III amendments to California’s LEV regulations. These amendments, also known as the Advanced Clean Car Program, include more stringent emission standards for model years 2017 through 2025 for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for new passenger vehicles.4 California On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicle Program
The ARB has adopted standards for emissions from various types of new on-road heavy-duty vehicles. Section 1956.8, Title 13, California Code of Regulations contains California’s emission standards for on-road heavy-duty engines and vehicles, and test procedures. The ARB has also adopted programs to reduce emissions from in-use heavy-duty vehicles including the Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Reduction Program, the Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use Compliance Program, the Public Bus Fleet Rule and Engine Standards, and the School Bus Program and others. 5 California In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation
On July 26, 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. The regulation limits idling to no more than 5 consecutive minutes, requires reporting and labeling, and requires disclosure of the regulation upon vehicle sale.

The ARB is enforcing that part of the rule with fines up to $10,000 per day for each vehicle in violation. Performance requirements of the rule are based on a fleet’s average NOX emissions, which can be met by replacing older vehicles with newer, cleaner vehicles or by applying exhaust retrofits.

The regulation was amended in 2010 to delay the original timeline of the performance requirements, making the first compliance deadline January 1, 2014, for large fleets (over 5,000 horsepower), 2017 for medium fleets (2,501-5,000 horsepower), and 2019 for small fleets (2,500 horsepower or less).

The latest amendments to the Truck and Bus regulation became effective on December 31, 2014. The amended regulation requires diesel 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.

The regulation applies to nearly all privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks and buses and privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight of greater than 14,000 pounds. The regulation provides various flexibility options tailored to fleets operating low-use 4 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. Clean Car Standards—Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms /ccms.htm. Accessed May 18, 2021. 5 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2013. The California Almanac of Air Quality and Emissions—2013 Edition. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed May 18, 2021. 217
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-20 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx vehicles, fleets operating in selected vocations like agricultural and construction, and small fleets of three or fewer trucks.6
California Airborne Toxic Control Measures for Asbestos The ARB has adopted Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) for sources that emit a particular TAC.

If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Best Available Control Technology to minimize emissions.

In July 2001, the ARB approved an ATCM for construction, grading, quarrying and surface mining operations to minimize emissions of naturally occurring asbestos. The regulation requires applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control fugitive dust in areas known to have naturally occurring asbestos and requires notification to the local air district before ground-disturbing activities. The measure establishes specific testing, notification, and engineering controls before grading, quarrying, or surface mining in construction zones where naturally occurring asbestos is located on projects of any size. There are additional notification and engineering controls at work sites larger than one acre in size. These projects require the submittal of a “Dust Mitigation Plan” and approval by the air district before the start of a project.

Construction sometimes requires the demolition of existing buildings where construction occurs.

Asbestos is also found in a natural state, known as naturally occurring asbestos. Exposure and disturbance of rock and soil that naturally contain asbestos can result in the release of fibers into the air and consequent exposure to the public. Asbestos most commonly occurs in ultramafic rock that has undergone partial or complete alteration to serpentine rock (serpentinite) and often contains chrysotile asbestos. In addition, another form of asbestos, tremolite, can be found associated with ultramafic rock, particularly near faults. Sources of asbestos emissions include unpaved roads or driveways surfaced with ultramafic rock, construction activities in ultramafic rock deposits, or rock quarrying activities where ultramafic rock is present.

The ARB has an ATCM for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations, requiring the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize emissions of asbestos-laden dust. The measure applies to road construction and maintenance, construction and grading operations, and quarries and surface mines when the activity occurs in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be found. Areas are subject to the regulation if they are identified on maps published by the Department of Conservation as ultramafic rock units or if the Air Pollution Control Officer or owner/operator has knowledge of the presence of ultramafic rock, serpentine, or naturally occurring asbestos on the site. The measure also applies if ultramafic rock, serpentine, or asbestos is discovered during any operation or activity. Review of the Department of Conservation maps indicates that no ultramafic rock has been found near the project site with the areas more likely to contain naturally occurring asbestos are approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site. 7 6 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2015. On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) Regulation. Website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed May 18, 2021. 7 United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California Map.
218
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-21
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx California Airborne Toxic Control Measures for Transport Refrigerated Units The ARB also has an ATCM for in-use diesel-fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) and generator sets, which establishes performance targets for TRUs. TRUs are trailer-mounted units, powered by small diesel-fueled engines, which provide chilled air to tailers carrying perishable goods (e.g., produce, meats, and prescription drugs). The measure regulates PM emissions rates from TRUs powered by diesel internal combustion engines that range from 9 to 36 horsepower. According to the regulation, facilities with over 20 loading docks must submit a detailed report specifying the types of models and quantities of TRUs that would operate at the facility. The report is filed by the equipment operator and is submitted electronically to the ARB. By July 31, 2009, owners and operators of California-based TRUs were required to submit an application for an ARB identification number as part of the ARB Identification Numbering Requirements. By December 31, 2021, owners and operators of California-based TRUs must submit documentation demonstrating that TRUs with a model year 2013 or newer meet the Ultra Low-Emission TRU in-use standard by the end of the seventh year after the engine model year.

Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
The EPA and the ARB tiered off-road emission standards only apply to new engines and off-road equipment can last several years. The ARB has developed Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (VDECS), devices, systems, or strategies used to achieve the highest level of pollution control from existing off-road vehicles to help reduce emissions from existing engines. VDECS are designed primarily for the reduction of DPM emissions and have been verified by ARB. There are three levels of VDECS, the most effective of which is the Level 3 VDECS. Tier 4 engines are not required to install VDECS because they already meet the emissions standards for lower-tiered equipment with installed controls.

California Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The ARB Diesel Risk Reduction Plan has led to the adoption of new State regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road, and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles to reduce DPM emissions in 2020 by about 90 percent overall from year 2000 levels. The projected emission benefits associated with the full implementation of this plan, including federal measures, are reductions in DPM emissions and associated cancer risks of 75 percent by 2010 and 85 percent by 2020. 8 Tanner Air Toxics Act and Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act TACs in California are primarily regulated through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (Assembly Bill 2588), also known as the Hot Spots Act. To date, the ARB has identified more than 21 TACs, and has adopted the EPA’s list of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) as TACs.

Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program), a partnership between the ARB and local air districts, issues grants to replace or retrofit older engines and equipment with engines and equipment that exceed current regulatory requirements to reduce air 8 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines and Vehicles. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2021. 219
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-22 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx pollution. Money collected through the Carl Moyer Program complements California’s regulatory program by providing incentives to effect early or extra emission reductions, especially from emission sources in environmental justice communities and areas disproportionately affected by air pollution.

The program has established guidelines and criteria for the funding of emissions reduction projects.

Within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), the BAAQMD administers the Carl Moyer Program. The program has established guidelines and criteria for the funding of emissions reduction projects. Within the Air Basin, the BAAQMD administers the Carl Moyer Program. The program establishes cost-effectiveness criteria for funding emission reductions projects, which under the final 2017 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines are $30,000 per weighted ton of NOX, ROG, and PM.9 California Refrigerant Management Program
California’s Refrigerant Management Program (RMP) regulates refrigerants used in larger facilities, primarily industrial and supermarket land uses. Refrigerants regulated under the RMP include any refrigerant that is an ozone depleting substance as defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulation, Part 82, and any compound with a global warming potential (GWP) value equal to or greater than 150 according to the GWPs specified in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report of 2007. According to the RMP, all supermarket and industrial refrigeration systems with a full recharge capacity of 50 pounds (22.7 kilograms) or greater will be required to limit the refrigerants used to no greater than 150 GWP beginning in 2022. Similarly, according to the RMP, all room air conditioning unit systems with a full recharge capacity of 50 pounds or greater will be required to limit the refrigerants used to no greater than 750 GWP beginning in 2023.10
Regional
BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for ensuring that air quality standards (NAAQS and CAAQS) are attained and maintained in the SFBAAB through comprehensive planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The BAAQMD prepares plans to attain ambient air quality standards in the SFBAAB and prepares ozone attainment plans for the national ozone standard, clean air plans for the California standard, and PM plans to fulfill federal air quality planning requirements. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources of air pollution; responds to citizen complaints; monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions; and implements programs and regulations required by the CAA and the CCAA.

The BAAQMD developed quantitative thresholds of significance for its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines in 2010, which were also included in its updated 2011 Guidelines. The BAAQMD’s adoption of the 2010 thresholds of significance was later challenged in court. In an opinion issued on December 17, 2015, related to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require an analysis of the impacts on project 9 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. 2017 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Website: California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. 2017 Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. Accessed May 19, 2021. 10 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020. Proposed Amendments to ARB’s HFC Regulation. December 10. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/board/books/2020/121020/20-13-4pres.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2021. 220
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-23
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx residents and users of locating development in areas subject to environmental hazards unless the proposed project would exacerbate those existing environmental hazards (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377-378).

The California Supreme Court also found that specific legislation within CEQA requires the analysis of exposing people to environmental hazards in specific circumstances, including the location of development near airports, schools near sources of toxic contamination, and certain exemptions for infill and workforce housing (Id. at pp. 391-392). On N remand from the California Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal later held that public agencies remain free to voluntarily conduct this analysis not required by CEQA for their own public projects (CBIA v. BAAQMD (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1083).

In view of the California Supreme Court’s opinion, the BAAQMD published a new version of its CEQA Guidelines in May 2017. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that local agencies may rely on thresholds designed to reflect the impact of locating development near areas of toxic air contamination where CEQA requires such an analysis or where the agency has determined that such an analysis would assist in making a decision about the proposed project. However, the thresholds are not mandatory, and agencies should apply them only after determining that they reflect an appropriate measure of a project’s impacts. The BAAQMD’s guidelines for implementing the thresholds are for informational purposes only, to assist local agencies.

BAAQMD Particulate Matter Plan
To fulfill federal air quality planning requirements, the BAAQMD adopted a PM2.5 emissions inventory for the year 2010 at a public hearing on November 7, 2012. The Bay Area Clean Air Plan also included several measures for reducing PM emissions from stationary sources and woodburning. On January 9, 2013, the EPA issued a final rule determining that the Bay Area has attained the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, suspending federal SIP planning requirements for the SFBAAB.11 Despite this EPA action, the SFBAAB will continue to be designated as nonattainment for the national 24-hour PM2.5 standard until the BAAQMD submits a redesignation request and a maintenance plan to the EPA and the EPA approves the proposed redesignation.

The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the State PM10 and PM2.5 standards, but the Air Basin is currently unclassified for the federal PM10 standard and nonattainment for federal PM2.5 standards. The EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006 and designated the Air Basin as nonattainment for the new PM2.5 standard effective December 14, 2009.

On December 8, 2011, the ARB submitted a “clean data finding” request to the EPA on behalf of the Bay Area. If the clean data finding request is approved, then EPA guidelines provide that the region can fulfill federal PM2.5 SIP requirements by preparing either a redesignation request and a PM2.5 maintenance plan, or a “clean data” SIP submittal. Because peak PM2.5 levels can vary from year to year based on natural, short-term changes in weather conditions, the BAAQMD believes that it 11 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Determination of Attainment for the San Francisco Bay Area Nonattainment Area for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California; Determination Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements. January 9. Website: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-01-09/pdf/2013-00170.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2021.
221
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-24 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx would be premature to submit a redesignation request and PM2.5 maintenance plan at this time.

Therefore, the BAAQMD will prepare a “clean data” SIP to address the required elements, including:
• An emission inventory for primary PM2.5, as well as precursors to secondary PM formation • Amendments to the BAAQMD’s New Source Review regulation to address PM2.5 BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan
In May 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the final Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD prepared the 2017 Clean Air Plan in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to reduce regional air pollutants and climate pollutants to improve the health of Bay Area residents for the next decades. The 2017 Clean Air Plan aims to lead the region into a post-carbon economy, continue progress toward attaining all State and federal air quality standards, and eliminate health risk disparities from air pollution exposure in Bay Area communities. The Plan includes 85 distinct control measures to help the region reduce air pollutants and has a long-term strategic vision that forecasts what a clean air Bay Area will look like in the year 2050. The 2017 Clean Air Plan envisions a future whereby the year 2050:
• Buildings will be energy efficient—heated, cooled and powered by renewable energy. • Transportation will be a combination of electric vehicles, both shared and privately owned, and autonomous public transit fleets, with a large share of trips by bicycling, walking, and transit.
• The Bay Area will be powered by clean, renewable electricity and will be a leading incubator and producer of clean energy technologies leading the world in the carbon-efficiency of our products.
• Bay Area residents will have developed a low-carbon lifestyle by driving electric vehicles, living in zero net energy homes, eating low-carbon foods, and purchasing goods and services with low-carbon content.
• Waste will be greatly reduced, waste products will be re-used or recycled, and all organic waste will be composted and put to productive use.

The focus of control measures includes aggressively targeting the largest source of GHG, ozone pollutants, and PM emissions: transportation. This includes more incentives for electric vehicle infrastructure, off-road electrification projects such as Caltrain and shore power at ports, and reducing emissions from trucks, school buses, marine vessels, locomotives, and off-road equipment.

Additionally, the BAAQMD will continue to work with regional and local governments to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) through the further funding of rideshare, bike and shuttle programs.

BAAQMD Regulations
Regulation 2, Rule 1 (Permits–General Requirements)
The BAAQMD regulates new sources of air pollution and the modification and operation of existing sources through the issuances of authorities to construct and permits to operate. Regulation 2, Rule 1 provides an orderly procedure which the project would be required to comply with to receive 222
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-25
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx authorities to construct or permits to operate from the BAAQMD for new sources of air pollutants, as applicable.

Regulation 2, Rule 5 (New Source Review Permitting)
The BAAQMD regulates backup emergency generators, fire pumps, and other sources of TACs through its New Source Review (Regulation 2, Rule 5) permitting process.12 Although emergency generators are intended for use only during periods of power outages, monthly testing of each generator is required; however, the BAAQMD limits testing to no more than 50 hours per year. Each emergency generator installed is assumed to meet a minimum of Tier 2 emission standards (before control measures). As part of the permitting process, the BAAQMD limits the excess cancer risk from any facility to no more than 10 per 1-million-population for any permits that are applied for within a 2-year period and would require any source that would result in an excess cancer risk greater than 1 per 1 million to install Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Toxics.

Regulation 6, Rule 1 (Particulate Matter–General Requirements) The BAAQMD regulates PM emissions through Regulation 6 by means of establishing limitations on emission rates, emissions concentrations, and emission visibility and opacity. Regulation 6, Rule 1 provides existing standards for PM emissions that could result during project construction or operation that the project would be required to comply with, as applicable, such as the prohibition of emissions from any source for a period or aggregate periods of more than 3 minutes in any hour which are equal to or greater than 20 percent opacity.

Regulation 6, Rule 6, (Particulate Matter–Prohibition of Trackout) One rule by which the BAAQMD regulates PM includes Regulation 6, Rule 6, which prohibits PM trackout during project construction and operation. Regulation 6, Rule 6 requires the prevention or timely cleanup of trackout of solid materials onto paved public roads outside the boundaries of large bulk material sites, large construction sites, and large disturbed surface sides such as landfills.

Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings)
This rule governs the manufacture, distribution, and sale of architectural coatings and limits the ROG content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rule does not directly apply to the proposed project, it does dictate the ROG content of paint available for use during the construction.

Regulation 8, Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts)
Although this rule does not directly apply to the proposed project, it does dictate the reactive organic gases content of asphalt available for use during the construction through regulating the sale and use of asphalt and limits the ROG content in asphalt.

Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants–Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines)
Under Regulation 9, Rule 8, the BAAQMD regulates the emissions of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide from stationary internal combustion engines with an output rated by the manufacturer at more than 50 brake horsepower. As such, any proposed stationary source equipment (e.g., backup 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2016. NSR [New Source Review] Permitting Guidance. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/permits/permitting-manuals/nsr-permitting-guidance. Accessed May 18, 2021. 223
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-26 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx generators, fire pumps) which would be greater than 50 horsepower would require a BAAQMD permit under Regulation 9, Rule 8 to operate.

Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Hazardous Pollutants–Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing) Under Regulation 11, Rule 2, the BAAQMD regulates emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, milling, and manufacturing and establishes appropriate waste disposal procedures. Any of these activities which pose the potential to generate emissions of airborne asbestos are required to comply with the appropriate provisions of this regulation.

Regulation 1, Rule 301 (Odorous Emissions)
The BAAQMD is responsible for investigating and controlling odor complaints in the Bay Area. The agency enforces odor control by helping the public to document a public nuisance. Upon receipt of a complaint, the BAAQMD sends an investigator to interview the complainant and to locate the odor source if possible. The BAAQMD typically brings a public nuisance court action when there are a substantial number of confirmed odor events within a 24-hour period. An odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year, averaged over 3 years, is considered to have a substantial effect on receptors.

Several BAAQMD regulations and rules apply to odorous emissions. Regulation 1, Rule 301 is the nuisance provision that states that sources cannot emit air contaminants that cause nuisance to several people. Regulation 7 specifies limits for the discharge of odorous substances where the BAAQMD receives complaints from 10 or more complainants within a 90-day period. Among other things, Regulation 7 precludes discharge of an odorous substance that causes the ambient air at or beyond the property line to be odorous after dilution with four parts of odor-free air and specifies maximum limits on the emission of certain odorous compounds.

Lastly, the BAAQMD enforces the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) ATCM on behalf of the ARB. Under the PERP, owners or operators of portable engines and other types of equipment which meet the qualifications of the ATCM can register their equipment to operate throughout California. However, owners and operators of portable engines which meet the qualifications of this ATCM who do not register their equipment under the PERP must obtain individual permits from local air districts. Permits issued under the PERP must be honored by all air districts throughout California.

Plan Bay Area
On July 18, 2013, ABAG and the MTC approved the Plan Bay Area. The Plan Bay Area includes integrated land use and transportation strategies for the region and was developed through OneBayArea, a joint initiative between ABAG, BAAQMD, MTC, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The plan’s transportation policies focus on maintaining the extensive existing transportation network and utilizing these systems more efficiently to handle density in Bay Area transportation cores.13 Assumptions for land use development come from local and regional planning documents. Emission forecasts in the Bay Area Clean Air Plan rely on projections of VMT, population, employment, and land use projections made by local jurisdictions 13 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2013. Plan Bay Area. Website:
https://www.planbayarea.org/previous-plan. Accessed April 1, 2021. 224
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-27
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx during development of Plan Bay Area. The Plan Bay Area 2040 was adopted July 2017 and updates Plan Bay Area.

Plan Bay Area 2040, published by the MTC and ABAG, is a long-range integrated transportation and land use/housing strategy through 2040 for the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2040 functions as the sustainable communities’ strategy mandated by Senate Bill (SB) 375. As a regional land use plan, Plan Bay Area 2040 aims to reduce per capita GHG emissions by promoting more compact, mixed use residential and commercial neighborhoods located near transit. Plan Bay Area 2040 is a limited and focused update that builds upon a growth pattern and strategies developed in the original Plan Bay Area (adopted by MTC in 2013) but with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends from the last 4 years.

Local
City of American Canyon General Plan
The City of American Canyon adopted its General Plan in 1994, which contains objectives and policies that help address air quality and reduce the community’s vulnerability to air pollution. The following objectives and policies from the City’s General Plan are relevant to air quality and apply to the proposed project:

Goal 8F Reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy sources and support the development and utilization of new energy sources.

Objective 8.22 Minimize transportation-related energy consumption.

Policy 8.22.1 Encourage the development of mixed use, pedestrian friendly employment/residential centers that help minimize vehicle trips in American Canyon and contribute to a reduction in energy consumption.

Policy 8.22.3 Require that Development Plans provide for linkages between bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems and transit and employment centers, in accordance with established areawide plans.

Policy 8.22.4 Maintain a system of traffic signals and controls that minimizes waiting time and vehicle speed changes through routes.

Policy 8.22.5 Require that Development Plans provide for High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) and public transportation, where feasible, through the provision of appropriate transit areas and park-and-ride locations along public transportation routes.

Objective 8.23 Reduce Energy consumption in buildings.

Policy 8.23.1 Require that developers employ energy-efficient subdivision and site planning methods as well as building design. Measures to be considered include building orientation and shading, landscaping, building reflectance, use of active and passive solar heating and hot water system, etc. In establishing these energy related design 225
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-28 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx requirements, the City shall balance energy-efficient design with good planning principles.

Objective 1.37 Consider initiatives to reduce direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation sources, and from new, renovated, and existing development in the City.

Policy 1.37.6 Reduce vehicle engine idling in American Canyon by educating the broader community (i.e., businesses, commuters, residents) on the greenhouse gas impacts caused by engine idling, and implementing feasible commercial vehicle regulations.

3.2.4 - Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines is a sample Initial Study Checklist that includes questions for determining whether impacts to air quality are significant. These questions reflect the input of planning and environmental professionals at the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California Natural Resources Agency, based on input from stakeholder groups and experts in various other governmental agencies, nonprofits, and leading environmental consulting firms. On the subject of air quality, Appendix G states that, “[w]here available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.” As a result, many lead agencies derive their significance criteria from the questions posed in Appendix G and input from relevant air districts. The City has chosen to do so for this project.

Additional guidance on the significance of air quality impacts is found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, subdivision (a)(4), which provides that a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if “the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” According to the California Supreme Court, this “mandatory finding of significance” applies to potential effects on public health from environmental impacts such as those associated with air pollutant emissions from projects. (California Business Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386-392.) In light of the foregoing, the proposed project would have a significant effect related to air quality if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (and thereby possibly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly); or d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
226
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-29
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Significance Criteria
The preceding thresholds of significance are stated in general terms. It is therefore desirable to formulate additional, more precise thresholds based on guidance from the BAAQMD, as is encourage in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines. As explained earlier, BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. 14 The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recommended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and GHGs. The analysis below was prepared using these BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.

Regional Significance Criteria
Table 3.2-7 shows the BAAQMD’s criteria for regional significance for project construction and operations.

Table 3.2-7: BAAQMD Regional (Mass Emissions) Air Pollutant Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction Phase Operational Phase
Average DailyEmissions
(pounds/day)
Average DailyEmissions
(pounds/day)
Maximum
Annual Emissions
(tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOX 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
PM10 and PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Best Management
Practices None None
Notes:

ROG = reactive organic gas
NOX = oxides of nitrogen
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017. May. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.

In developing the above significance thresholds, the BAAQMD considers the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project were to exceed the emission thresholds in Table 3.2-7, that project’s emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality 14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed March 17, 2021.
227
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-30 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx conditions.15 Known health effects related to ozone include worsening of bronchitis, asthma, and emphysema and a decrease in lung function. Health effects associated with PM include premature death of people with heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Reducing emissions would further contribute to reducing possible health effects related to criteria air pollutants. However, for projects that exceed the emissions thresholds shown in Table 3.2-7, it is speculative to determine how exceeding regional thresholds would affect the number of days the region is in nonattainment—as mass emissions are not linearly correlated with concentrations of emissions—or how many additional individuals in the Air Basin would be affected by the health effects cited above.

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

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

Ozone concentrations, for instance, depend upon various complex factors, including the presence of sunlight and precursor pollutants, natural topography, nearby structures that cause building downwash, atmospheric stability, and wind patterns. Because of the complexities of predicting ground-level ozone concentrations related to the NAAQS and CAAQS, it is not possible to link health risks to the magnitude of emissions exceeding the significance thresholds. To achieve the healthbased standards established by the EPA, the air districts prepare air quality management plans that detail regional programs to attain the Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS). However, if a project within the BAAQMD exceeds the regional significance thresholds, the proposed project could 15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Accessed:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 228
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-31
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx contribute to an increase in health effects in the basin until the attainment standards are met in the Air Basin.

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

Consistency with Air Quality Plan
The applicable air quality plan is BAAQMD’s 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which identifies measures to:
• Reduce emissions and reduce ambient concentrations of air pollutants; • Safeguard public health by reducing exposure to the air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution; and
• Reduce GHG emissions to protect the climate.

A project would be determined to conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan if it would result in substantial new regional emissions not foreseen in the air quality planning process.

Local CO Hotspots
Congested intersections have the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO, referred to as CO hotspots. The significance criteria for CO hotspots are based on the CAAQS for CO, which is 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) and 20.0 ppm (1-hour average). However, with the turnover of older vehicles, the introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology, the SFBAAB is in the attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS, and CO concentrations in the SFBAAB have steadily declined.

Because CO concentrations have improved, the BAAQMD does not require a CO hotspot analysis if all the following criteria are met:
• The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans; and • The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour; and
• The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersection to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., 229
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-32 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).16
Community Risk and Hazards
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for local community risk and hazard impacts apply to both the siting of a new source and to the siting of a new receptor. Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can have significant health impacts at the local level.
• The proposed project would generate TACs and PM2.5 during construction activities that could elevate concentrations of air pollutants at the nearby school and residential sensitive receptors. The thresholds for construction-related local community risk and hazard impacts are the same as for project operations. The BAAQMD has adopted screening tables for air toxics evaluation during construction.17 Construction-related TAC and PM2.5 impacts should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, considering each project's specific construction-related characteristics and proximity to off-site receptors, as applicable.18 • The proposed project involves the construction of new industrial warehouse facilities and would be a source of operational TACs and PM2.5 from trucking activity. The BAAQMD thresholds related to siting new sources of TACs and PM2.5 near existing or planned sensitive receptors are applicable.

Since the City of American Canyon does not have a qualified risk reduction plan, a site-specific analysis of TACs and PM2.5 impacts on sensitive receptors was conducted. The thresholds identified below are applied to the proposed project’s construction and operational phases.

Community Risk and Hazards: Project
Project-level emissions of TACs or PM2.5 from individual sources that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered a potentially significant community health risk:
• An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0 would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution.
• An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) annual average PM2.5 from a single source would be a significant cumulatively considerable contribution.
16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed July 20, 2021. 17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2010. Air Toxics NSR Program, Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Engineering/Air%20Toxics%20Programs/hrsa_guidelines.ashx. Accessed July 20, 2021. 18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed 18, 2021. 230
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-33
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Community Risk and Hazards: Cumulative
Cumulative sources represent the combined total risk values of each of the individual sources within the 1,000-foot evaluation zone. A project would have a cumulatively considerable impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000-foot radius from the fence line of a source or location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the proposed project, meets any of these conditions:
• Has excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic non-cancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0.
• Exceeds 0.8 μg/m3 annual average PM2.5.

In February 2015, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) adopted new HRA guidance that includes several efforts to be more protective of children’s health.

These updated procedures include age sensitivity factors to account for the higher sensitivity of infants and young children to cancer-causing chemicals, and age-specific breathing rates.19 Odors
The BAAQMD thresholds for odors are qualitative based on BAAQMD Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. This rule places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Odors are also regulated under BAAQMD Regulation 1, Rule 1-301, Public Nuisance, which states that no person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public; or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public; or which causes, or has a natural tendency to cause, injury, or damage to business or property. Under BAAQMD Rule 1-301, the BAAQMD has established odor screening thresholds for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints, including wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, and chemical plants. Table 3.2-8 shows the screening distances for various land uses that are considered to have objectionable odors.20
Table 3.2-8: BAAQMD Odor Screening-level Distances Thresholds Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance
Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 miles
Wastewater Pumping Facilities 1 mile
Sanitary Landfill 2 miles
Transfer Station 1 mile
19 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Website: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf.

Accessed May 18, 2021. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.

Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 18, 2021.
231
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-34 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Land Use/Type of Operation Project Screening Distance
Composting Facility 1 mile
Petroleum Refinery 2 miles
Asphalt Batch Plant 2 miles
Chemical Manufacturing 2 miles
Fiberglass Manufacturing 1 mile
Painting/Coating Operations 1 mile
Rendering Plant 2 miles
Coffee Roaster 1 mile
Food Processing Facility 1 mile
Confined Animal Facility/Feed Lot/Dairy 1 mile
Green Waste and Recycling Operations 1 mile
Metal Smelting Plants 2 miles
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017.

Approach to the Analysis
Emission factors represent the emission rate of a pollutant over a given time or activity; for example, grams of NOX per VMT or grams of NOX per horsepower-hour of equipment operation. The ARB has published emission factors for on-road mobile vehicles/trucks in the Emission Factors (EMFAC) mobile source emissions model and emission factors for off-road equipment and vehicles in the OFFROAD emissions model. Activity levels measure how active a piece of equipment is and can be represented as the amount of material processed, elapsed time that a piece of equipment is in operation, horsepower of a piece of equipment used, or VMT per day. An air emissions model (or calculator) combines the emission factors and the various levels of activity and outputs the emissions for the various pieces of equipment.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was developed in collaboration with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other air districts throughout the State. CalEEMod is designed as a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction and operation from various land uses.

The modeling follows BAAQMD guidance where applicable from its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The following criteria air pollutants and precursors are assessed in this analysis:
• Reactive organic gases
• Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
• Carbon monoxide (CO)
• Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) • Particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 232
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-35
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Note that the proposed project would emit ozone precursors ROG and NOX. However, the proposed project would not directly emit ozone since it is formed in the atmosphere during the photochemical reactions of the ozone precursors.

At the time of this analysis, the construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project was anticipated to begin in early 2022 and be completed 10 months later. Construction of Phase 2 of the proposed project was expected to begin immediately following the completion of Phase 1 construction and be completed 10 months later. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements. In general, this analysis also included estimated project trip generation and trip length provided by W-Trans (Appendix H). As the proposed project is a speculative warehouse development which could accommodate cold storage and accompanying TRUs, this analysis considers two project scenarios: a cold warehouse project scenario and a dry warehouse project scenario. Where appropriate, both project scenarios are presented herein to determine project impacts.

Construction-related Criteria Pollutants
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from both on-site and off-site activities. On-site emissions consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Additionally, paving operations and the application of architectural coatings would release ROG emissions. Off-site emissions result from motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5).

Equipment Tiers and Emission Factors
Equipment tiers refer to a generation of emission standards established by the EPA and ARB that apply to diesel engines in off-road equipment. The “tier” of an engine depends on the model year and horsepower rating; generally, the newer a piece of equipment is, the greater the tier it is likely to have. Excluding engines greater than 750 horsepower, Tier 1 engines were manufactured generally between 1996 and 2003. Tier 2 engines were manufactured between 2001 and 2007. Tier 3 engines were manufactured between 2006 and 2011. Tier 4 engines are the newest and some incorporate hybrid electric technology; they have been manufactured since 2007.

Construction emissions are generally calculated as the product of an activity factor and an emission factor. The activity factor for construction equipment is a measure of how active a piece of equipment is and can be represented as the amount of material processed, elapsed time that a piece of equipment is in operation, horsepower of a piece of equipment used, or the amount of fuel consumed in a given amount of time. The emission factor relates the process activity to the amount of pollutant emitted. Examples of emission factors include grams of emissions per miles traveled and grams of emissions per horsepower-hour. The operation of a piece of equipment is tempered by its load factor, which is the average power of a given piece of equipment while in operation compared with its maximum rated horsepower. A load factor of 1.0 indicates that a piece of equipment continually operates at its maximum operating capacity. This analysis uses the CalEEMod default load factors for off-road equipment.
233
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-36 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Operation-related Criteria Pollutants
The operational-phase emissions are based on the development of the proposed industrial park. The modeling accounts for the average daily vehicle and truck trips and VMT, energy usage, water demand, and wastewater and solid waste generation. For purposes of this analysis, hours of operation for the proposed project are 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

Transportation
On-road transportation sources are based on passenger vehicle and truck trip generation rates and VMT provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIS) prepared by W-Trans for the proposed project (see Appendix H). According to the VMT information provided therein, the proposed project would result in an average employee daily VMT of 16.24 miles. As this VMT would represent all travel to and from the project site for employees, an average of 8.12 miles per vehicle trip was utilized in this analysis to estimate associated emissions from employee passenger vehicle activity. However, as provided in the TIS, the proposed project would also generate truck traffic for deliveries and shipments. As indicated by the project applicant, the most probable port of origin for freight deliveries and shipments would be the Port of Oakland, approximately 32.8 miles from the project site. Therefore, truck travel distances utilized in this analysis were assumed to be 32.8 miles per trip.

Furthermore, the proposed project would include locomotive operations beginning with operation of Phase 1. The quantity and frequency of rail shipments to the project site are currently unknown; therefore, various assumptions are utilized in this analysis to characterize future operations. For instance, according to the United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the average weight of a loaded railcar ranges from 63 to 67 tons;21 therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, a loaded railcar being shipped to the proposed project is assumed to weigh 65 tons on average. Assuming an average travel distance of 50 miles and an average loaded railcar weight of 65 tons,22 this would represent nearly two loaded, 20-railcar locomotive deliveries per week. Please refer to the locomotive emissions estimations contained in Appendix B for more details.

CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0 was used to quantify passenger vehicle and truck emissions using vehicle emission rates based on vehicle emissions data obtained from the ARB EMFAC2017 Version

1.0.2 web database and adjusted based on methodology provided in Appendix B of the CalEEMod User’s Guide.23 The passenger vehicle trips were assumed to be distributed among the light-duty auto (LDA), light-duty truck 1 (LDT1), light-duty truck 2 (LDT2), and medium-duty vehicle (MDV) EMFAC2007 vehicle categories, proportional to that respective vehicle category’s share of those four-passenger vehicle categories within the CalEEMod for Napa County. 21 United States Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2012. Railcar Weights. Website:
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/chapter_02/railcar_weights#:~:text=The% 20average%20weight%20of%20a,trends%20among%20selected%20freight%20commodities. Accessed July 29, 2021. 22 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2012. Railcar Weights. Website:
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/chapter_02/railcar_weights#:~:text=The% 20average%20weight%20of%20a,trends%20among%20selected%20freight%20commodities. Accessed August 2, 2021. 23 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2020.4.0 Prepared by: BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts.
234
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-37
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Truck and TRU emissions were calculated utilizing the ARB’s EMFAC2017 Version 1.0.3 and OFFROAD web databases, respectively, and adjusted based on methodology provided in Appendix B. Please refer to the fleet mix adjustment calculations contained in Appendix B for more details.

Other Operational Emissions
Solid Waste Disposal. Indirect emissions from waste generation are based on the CalEEMod default solid waste generation rates, which are based on data from the California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle).

Water/Wastewater. GHG emissions from this sector are associated with the embodied energy used to supply treat and distribute water, and then treat wastewater and fugitive GHG emissions from wastewater treatment. Indoor water consumption is based on CalEEMod default indoor water use rates.

Area Sources. Area and stationary sources are based on the CalEEMod defaults for use of consumer products and cleaning supplies.

Energy. Emissions from this sector are principally from use of natural gas for space and water heating at the proposed buildings.

Stationary Sources. Stationary sources are based on the anticipated stationary source equipment included in the proposed project. Given the type and size of the proposed project, the project applicant anticipates the use of a backup diesel generator and diesel-fueled fire pump for each of the proposed buildings; however, the exact specifications for this equipment is unknown at the time of this analysis. To account for potential operational emissions generated from the non-emergency use of this equipment, the proposed project was assumed to include three backup diesel generators and three diesel-fueled fire pumps, each assumed to be rated at 50 horsepower and operate for a four-hour maintenance period one day per month, totaling an estimated 48 hours of operation per year.

Construction- and Operation-related Toxic Air Contaminants TACs are air pollutants in minuscule amounts in the air that could increase the chances of experiencing health problems if a person receives exposure to them. Exposures to TAC emissions can have both chronic long-term (over a year or longer) and acute short-term (over a period of hours) health impacts. Construction-period TAC emissions could contribute to increased health risks to nearby residents or sensitive receptors.

This analysis assesses the potential health impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors resulting from TAC emissions during project construction. The TACs of greatest concern are those that cause serious health problems or affect many people. Health problems can include cancer, respiratory irritation, nervous system problems, and birth defects. Some health problems occur soon after a person inhales TACs. These immediate effects may be minor, such as watery eyes; or they may be serious, such as life-threatening lung damage. Other health problems may not appear until many months or years after a person’s first exposure to the TAC. Cancer is one example of a delayed health problem.

Fine particle pollution can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere. PM2.5 health impacts are important because their size can be deposited deep in the lungs, causing respiratory 235
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-38 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx effects. For purposes of this analysis, exhaust emissions of DPM are represented as exhaust emissions of PM2.5. Studies indicate that DPM poses the greatest health risk among airborne TACs. A 10-year ARB research program demonstrated that DPM from diesel-fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic long-term health risk. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel-fueled internal combustion engines emit DPM, the composition of the emissions varies, depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emission control system is present. The CalEEMod emissions model has been used to estimate DPM emissions during construction and operation of the proposed project.

Odors
The impact analysis qualitatively evaluates the types of land uses proposed to evaluate whether major sources of anticipated odors would be present and, if so, whether those sources would likely generate objectionable odors. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a project that involves the siting of a new odor source would consider the screening-level distances and the complaint history of the odor sources, described below. Projects that would site a new odor source farther than the screening-level distances provided in Table 3.2-8 would not likely result in a significant odor impact.

3.2.5 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses potential impacts associated with the development of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures where appropriate.

Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan
Impact AIR-1: The proposed project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Impact Analysis
The BAAQMD is responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the SFBAAB to achieve National and California AAQS. The BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan is a regional and multiagency effort to reduce air pollution in the Air Basin. A consistency determination with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the 2017 Clean Air Plan. It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision-makers of the proposed project's environmental effects under consideration early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to the clean air goals in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The BAAQMD compiles the regional emissions inventory for the SFBAAB. In part, the regional population, housing, and employment projections developed by the ABAG are based on cities’ general plan land use designations. These projections form the foundation for the emissions inventory of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. These demographic trends are incorporated into Plan Bay Area, compiled by ABAG and the MTC, to determine priority transportation projects and VMT in the Bay Area. Projects consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the regional air 236
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-39
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx quality plan. Large projects that exceed regional employment, population, and housing planning projections have the potential to be inconsistent with the regional inventory compiled as part of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

The proposed project would build a 2.4-million-square-foot logistics center on approximately 161 acres of the project site. The remaining approximately 47 acres would be preserved as open space.

The 94.7-acre area east of what will be Devlin Road would support two high-cube warehouse buildings totaling 1,069,904 square feet (Phase 1). Phase 2, the 113.1-acre area west of Devlin Road, would develop the remaining 1.3 million square feet of high-cube warehouse. The project site is designated “Industrial” by the City of American Canyon General Plan and zoned “General Industrial.” As previously described, demographics trends such as employment and population growth were estimated in ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2040 based on local general plan land use patterns, which the BAAQMD utilized in part to inform the emissions inventory and projections contained in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As a result, the ABAG regional population, housing, and employment estimates for this project site would be reasonably accounted for because the proposed project is consistent with these General Plan land use designations. Thus, the proposed project would generally be consistent with the underlying general plan land use designation and would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections in the region that are the basis of the 2017 Clean Air Plan projections.

Table 3.2-9 identifies the control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan required by BAAQMD to reduce emissions for a wide range of stationary and mobile sources and the project’s consistency analysis with these control measures. As shown in Table 3.2-9, the proposed project would not conflict with the control measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Table 3.2-9: Consistency With 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures Type Measure Number/Title Consistency Analysis
Stationary Source
Control Measure
SS 1–Fluid Catalytic Cracking in Refineries
SS 2–Equipment Leaks
SS 3–Cooling Towers
SS 4–Refinery Flares
SS 5–Sulfur Recovery Units
SS 6–Refinery Fuel Gas
SS 7–Sulfuric Acid Plants
SS 8–Sulfur Dioxide from Coke Calcining
SS 9–Enhanced NSR Enforcement for Changes
in Crude Slate
SS 10–Petroleum Refining Emissions Tracking
SS 11–Petroleum Refining Facility-Wide
Emission Limits
SS 12–Petroleum Refining Climate Impacts
Limit
SS 13–Oil and Gas Production, Processing and
Storage
SS 14–Methane from Capped Wells
SS 15–Natural Gas Processing and Distribution
Consistent. Stationary sources are
regulated directly by the BAAQMD,
which routinely adopts/revises rules or
regulations to implement the Stationary
Source (SS) control measures to reduce
stationary source emissions. Therefore,
any new stationary sources associated
with the proposed project would be
required to comply with BAAQMD’s
regulations. Based on the proposed
warehousing use for the project site, it
is not anticipated that the proposed
project would result in any new major
stationary source emissions.

Additionally, in the event stationary
equipment is installed on-site, it is
anticipated that the equipment would
be small-quantity emitters and would
require review by BAAQMD for
237
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-40 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Type Measure Number/Title Consistency Analysis
SS 16–Basin-Wide Methane Strategy
SS 17–GHG BACT Threshold
SS 18–Basin-Wide Combustion Strategy
SS 19–Portland Cement
SS 20–Air Toxics Risk Cap and Reduction from
Existing Facilities
SS 21–New Source Review for Toxics
SS 22–Stationary Gas Turbines
SS 23–Biogas Flares
SS 24–Sulfur Content Limits of Liquid Fuels
SS 25–Coatings, Solvents, Lubricants, Sealants
and Adhesives
SS 26–Surface Prep and Cleaning Solvent
SS 27–Digital Printing
SS 28–LPG, Propane, Butane
SS 29–Asphaltic Concrete
SS 30–Residential Fan Type Furnaces
SS 31–General Particulate Matter Emission
Limitation
SS 32–Emergency Backup Generators
SS 33–Commercial Cooking Equipment
SS 34–Wood Smoke
SS 35–PM from Bulk Material Storage, Handling
and Transport, Including Coke and Coal
SS 36–PM from Trackout
SS 37–PM from Asphalt Operations
SS 38–Fugitive Dust
SS 39–Enhanced Air Quality Monitoring
SS 40–Odors
permitted sources of air which would
ensure consistency with the 2017 Clean
Air Plan.

Transportation
Control Measures
TR 1–Clean Air Teleworking Initiative
TR 2–Trip Reduction Programs
TR 3–Local and Regional Bus Service
TR 4–Local and Regional Rail Service
TR 5–Transit Efficiency and Use
TR 6–Freeway and Arterial Operations
TR 7–Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes to
Transit
TR 8–Ridesharing, Last-Mile Connection
TR 9–Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and
Facilities
TR 10–Land Use Strategies
TR 11–Value Pricing
TR 12–Smart Driving
TR 13–Parking Policies
TR 14–Cars and Light Trucks
TR 15–Public Outreach and Education
TR 16–Indirect Source Review
TR 17–Planes
TR 18–Goods Movement
TR 19–Medium and Heavy-Duty Trucks
TR 20–Ocean Going Vessels
Consistent. Transportation (TR) control
measures are strategies to reduce
vehicle trips, vehicle use, VMT, vehicle
idling, and traffic congestion to reduce
motor vehicle emissions. Although most
of the TR control measures are
implemented at the regional level—that
is, by MTC or California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)—the 2017
Clean Air Plan relies on local
communities to assist with the
implementation of some measures.

Electrical conduits would be provided in
the parking lot to accommodate future
electric vehicle parking spaces.

The proposed project would also be
subject to the Bay Area’s Commuter
Benefits Program, which requires all
employers in BAAQMD’s jurisdiction
that have 50 or more full-time
238
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-41
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Type Measure Number/Title Consistency Analysis
TR 21–Commercial Harbor Craft
TR 22–Construction, Freight and Farming
Equipment
TR 23–Lawn and Garden Equipment
employees to offer commuter benefits
to their employees.

Energy and
Climate Control
Measures
EN 1–Decarbonize Electricity Production
EN 2–Renewable Energy Decrease Electricity
Demand
Consistent. The Energy and Climate (EN)
control measures are intended to
reduce energy use as a means of
reducing adverse air quality emissions.

Additionally, the proposed buildings
would comply with 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards’ solar requirements
and would be constructed to support
future roof-mounted solar systems.

Moreover, compliance with the 2019
Building Energy Efficiency Standards
would improve energy efficiency by an
overall 30 percent compared to the
2016 Building Energy Efficiency
Standards.24
Buildings Control
Measures
BL 1–Green Buildings
BL 2–Decarbonize Buildings
BL 3–Market-Based Solutions
BL 4–Urban Heat Island Mitigation
Consistent. The Buildings (BL) control
measures focus on working with local
governments to adopt the best GHG
emissions control practices and policies.

As discussed above for the EN control
measures, the proposed buildings would
comply with 2019 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards—i.e., constructed
to support a roof-mounted solar system
and achieving greater energy efficiency
compared to the 2016 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards.

Agriculture
ControlMeasures
AG 1–Agricultural Guidance and Leadership
AG 2–Dairy Digesters
AG 3–Enteric Fermentation
AG 4–Livestock Waste
Not Applicable. Agricultural (AG)
practices in the Bay Area account for a
small portion, roughly 1.5 percent, of
the Bay Area GHG emissions inventory.

The GHGs from agriculture include
methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon
dioxide. The proposed project would
not involve any agricultural activities or
operations.

Natural and
WorkingLands
Control Measures
NW 1–Carbon Sequestration in Rangelands
NW 2–Urban Tree Planting
NW 3–Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands
Consistent. The control measures for
the Natural and Working Lands (NW)
sector focus on increasing carbon
sequestration on rangelands and
wetlands. The proposed project would
include the planting of various
ornamental and shade trees throughout
24 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Website:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf. Accessed July 29, 2021. 239
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-42 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Type Measure Number/Title Consistency Analysis
the project site. Additionally, the
proposed project would include an
approximately 45-acre Wetland
Preserve to include existing wetlands as
well as established/created wetlands
intended to offset wetland impacts of
buildout development of the project
site. These actions would support the
State’s working lands and would
therefore make the proposed project
consistent with this measure.

Waste
Management
Control Measures
WA 1–Landfills
WA 2–Composting and Anaerobic Digesters
WA 3–Green Waste Diversion
WA 4–Recycling and Waste Reduction
Consistent. The Waste Management
(WA) control measures include
strategies to increase waste diversion
rates through efforts to reduce, reuse,
and recycle. The proposed project
would comply with Assembly Bill (AB)
341, which requires mandatory
commercial recycling for businesses that
generate four cubic yards or more of
commercial solid waste per week.

Additionally, the proposed project
would be required to reduce
construction waste by 75 percent and
use 30 percent recycled content during
the construction of the proposed
facility. Therefore, the proposed project
would not conflict with these WA
control measures.

Water Control
Measures
WR 1–Limit GHGs from publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs)
WR 2–Support Water Conservation
Consistent. The 2017 Clean Air Plan
includes measures to reduce water use.

The proposed project would include
water efficiency measures required
under CALGreen. In addition, the
proposed project would include waterefficient indoor fixtures consistent with the requirements of CALGreen and
water-efficient landscaping outdoors.

Super GHG
ControlMeasures
SL 1–Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
SL 2–Guidance for Local Planners
SL 3–GHG Monitoring and Emissions
Measurements Network
Consistent. Super-GHGs include
methane, black carbon, and fluorinated
gases. These compounds are sometimes
referred to as short-lived climate
pollutants because their lifetime in the
atmosphere is generally fairly short.

Measures to reduce super-GHGs are
addressed on a sector-by-sector basis in
the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As discussed
under Impact AIR-2, the proposed
project would be required to implement
Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-2d, which
240
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-43
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Type Measure Number/Title Consistency Analysis
would require the use of a trucking fleet
utilizing model year 2010 trucks or
newer. This requirement would
contribute to reducing black carbon.

Furthermore, the proposed project
would comply with AB 341, which
mandates commercial recycling for
businesses that generate four cubic
yards or more of commercial solid waste
per week, which could contribute to
reducing methane by diverting waste
from landfills.

Further Study
ControlMeasures
FSM SS 1–Internal Combustion Engines
FSM SS 2–Boilers, Steam Generator and
Process Heaters
FSM SS 3–GHG Reductions from Non Cap-andTrade Sources
FSM SS 4–Methane Exemptions from
Wastewater Regulation
FSM SS 5–Controlling start-up, shutdown,
maintenance, and malfunction (SSMM)
Emissions
FSM SS 6–Carbon Pollution Fee
FSM SS 7–Vanishing Oils and Rust Inhibitors
FSM SS 8–Dryers, Ovens and Kilns
FSM SS 9–Omnibus Rulemaking to Achieve
Continuous Improvement
FSM BL 1–Space Heating
FSM AG 1–Wineries
Consistent. The majority of the Further
Study Control Measures (FSM) apply to
sources regulated directly by the
BAAQMD. Because the BAAQMD is the
implementing agency, any new sources
of stationary and area sources in the
project site would be required to
comply with these additional study
control measures in the 2017 Clean Air
Plan.

Notes:

AG = Agricultural
BL = Buildings
EN = Energy and Climate
FSM = Further Study Measures
NW = Natural and Working Lands
SL = Super GHG (Short-Lived)
SS = Stationary Sources
TR = Transportation
WA = Waste Management
WR = Water Control Measures
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017, April 19. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposedfinal-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed July 27, 2021.

As shown in Table 3.2-9, the proposed project would not conflict with the clean air measures contained in the Clean Air Plan after mitigation. Nonetheless, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines further recommend determining a project’s consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, in part, by determining a project’s consistency with the significance thresholds presented in Table 241
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-44 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx

3.2-7.
25 As discussed under Impact AIR-2, the proposed project would generate emissions which exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds after the implementation of applicable and feasible mitigation and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Because the proposed project would exceed these thresholds after implementation of feasible mitigation, the proposed project would be considered by the BAAQMD to be a substantial emitter of criteria air pollutants. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

As discussed under Impact AIR-2, the proposed project would generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions during construction and operation. The BAAQMD does not have a bright-line emissions threshold for determining potentially significant impacts related to construction fugitive dust. Instead, the BAAQMD determines a project to result in a potentially significant impact if that project were not to implement construction BMPs to minimize the extent of fugitive dust emissions, such as soil erosion, sediment migration, roadway dust re-entrainment, and soil trackout, during project construction. In the absence of specific information related to the proposed project’s intended implementation of construction BMPs to minimize fugitive dust emissions, the proposed project is assumed to not include any construction BMPs. Therefore, Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR2a would be required to ensure implementation of construction BMPs recommended by the BAAQMD irrespective of the emissions reductions achieved by those BMPs.

As discussed under Impact AIR-2, unmitigated project construction ROG emissions would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. Specifically, architectural coating activities during project construction would principally contribute to the exceedance. As such, MM AIR-2b would require project construction to utilize low-VOC (i.e., ROG) architectural coating products containing no greater than 50 grams of VOC per liter of product to reduce the generation of ROG emissions during architectural coating activities. Implementation of MM AIR-2b would result in reducing ROG emissions from 68 average pounds per day to 33 average pounds per day, which is below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day for ROG emissions.

As discussed under Impact AIR-2, unmitigated project operation would result in ROG and NOX emissions which exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. ROG emissions generated during project operation would principally be generated by consumer products, which cannot be sufficiently controlled by the proposed project due to the possible use of cleaning products, hairsprays, and other personal care products by employees. As ROG emissions generated under the control of the proposed project during project operation would principally be generated by the periodic reapplication of architectural coatings, MM AIR-2c would be required to ensure the use of low-VOC (i.e., ROG) architectural coating products that contain no more than 50 grams of VOC per liter of product to reduce the generation of ROG emissions during project operation. Additionally, as NOX emissions generated during project operation would principally be generated by the operation of the trucking fleet, irrespective of whether the fleet would accommodate the use of TRUs, MM AIR-2d would be required to ensure the trucking fleet accessing the project site would be comprised of vehicles no older than model year 2014 to reduce tailpipe NOX emissions. 25 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed December 15, 2021.
242
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-45
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Under a dry storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2c would result in a reduction of ROG emissions during project operation from approximately 13 tons per year and 70 average pounds per day to approximately 12 tons per year and 64 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG emissions of 10 tons per year and 54 average pounds per day. Under a cold storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2c would result in a reduction of ROG emissions during project operation from approximately 16 tons per year and 90 average pounds per day to approximately 15 tons per year and 85 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG emissions of 10 tons per year and 54 average pounds per day.

Under a dry storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2d would result in a reduction of NOX emissions during project operation from approximately 40 tons per year and 217 average pounds per day to approximately 35 tons per year and 192 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOX emissions of 10 tons per year and 54 average pounds per day. Under a cold storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2d would result in a reduction of NOX emissions during project operation from approximately 71 tons per year and 388 average pounds per day to approximately 66 tons per year and 362 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOX emissions of 10 tons per year and 54 average pounds per day.

Consequently, implementation of MM AIR-2a and MM AIR-2b would sufficiently reduce project construction emissions to less than significant levels; however, implementation of MM AIR-2c and MM AIR-2d would not be sufficient to reduce project operation emissions to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would generate emissions which exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds after the implementation of applicable and feasible mitigation and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. As previously discussed, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend determining a project’s consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan, in part, by determining a project’s consistency with the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Because the proposed project would exceed significance thresholds after mitigation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact, the proposed project would be inconsistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Therefore, this impact would be significant unavoidable impact after the incorporation of identified mitigation.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures MM AIR-2a, MM AIR-2b, MM AIR-2c, MM AIR-2d.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant unavoidable impact.
243
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-46 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Cumulative Criteria Pollutant Emissions Impacts
Impact AIR-2: The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

Impact Analysis
This impact is related to the cumulative effect of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact resulting from emissions generated over a large geographic region. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants results from past and present development within the Air Basin, and this regional impact is a cumulative impact.

Therefore, new development projects (such as the proposed project) within the Air Basin would contribute to this impact only on a cumulative basis. No single project would be sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of regional air quality standards. Instead, a project’s emissions may be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when evaluated in combination with past, present, and future development projects.

Potential localized and regional impacts would result in exceedances of State or federal standards for NOX, particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or CO. NOX emissions are of concern because of potential health impacts from exposure to NOX emissions during both construction and operation and as a precursor in the formation of airborne ozone. PM10 and PM2.5 are of concern during construction because of the potential to emit exhaust emissions from the operation of off-road construction equipment and fugitive dust during earth-disturbing activities (construction fugitive dust). CO emissions are of concern during project operation because operational CO hotspots are related to increases in on-road vehicle congestion and potential health effects.

ROG emissions are also important because of their participation in the formation of ground-level ozone. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children.

The cumulative analysis focuses on whether a specific project would result in cumulatively considerable emissions. According to Section 15064(h)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, the existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone does not constitute substantial evidence that the project’s incremental effects would be cumulatively considerable. Rather, the determination of cumulative air quality impacts for construction and operational emissions is based on whether the project would result in regional emissions that exceed the BAAQMD regional thresholds of significance for construction and operations on a project level. The significance thresholds represent the allowable amount of emissions each project can generate without generating a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts. Therefore, a project that would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance on the project level also would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to these regional air quality impacts. Construction and operational emissions are discussed separately below. 244
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-47
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Construction
During construction, fugitive dust would be generated from site grading and other earthmoving activities. The majority of this fugitive dust would remain localized and deposited near the project site; however, fugitive dust's potential impacts exist unless control measures are implemented to reduce this source's emissions. Exhaust emissions would also be generated from the operation of the off-road construction equipment and on-road construction vehicles.

Construction Fugitive Dust
The BAAQMD does not recommend a numerical threshold for fugitive dust PM emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the determination of significance for fugitive dust on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented, referred to as BMPs. If all appropriate emissions control measures are implemented for a project as recommended by the BAAQMD, then fugitive dust emissions during construction are not considered significant. Therefore, the BAAQMD determines a project to result in a potentially significant impact if that project were not to implement construction BMPs to minimize the extent of fugitive dust emissions, such as soil erosion, sediment migration, roadway dust re-entrainment, and soil trackout, during project construction. In the absence of specific information related to the proposed project’s intended implementation of construction BMPs to minimize fugitive dust emissions, the proposed project is assumed to not include any construction BMPs. Therefore, MM AIR-2a would be required to ensure implementation of construction BMPs recommended by the BAAQMD irrespective of the emissions reductions achieved by those BMPs. With the incorporation of this mitigation, short-term construction impacts associated with violating an air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation would be less than significant for fugitive dust.

Construction Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, was used to estimate the proposed project’s construction emissions.

CalEEMod provides a consistent platform for estimating construction and operational emissions from various land use projects and is the model recommended by the BAAQMD for estimating project emissions. Estimated construction emissions are compared with the applicable thresholds of significance established by the BAAQMD to assess ROG, NOX, exhaust PM10, and exhaust PM2.5 construction emissions to determine significance for this impact.

At the time of this analysis, the construction of Phase 1 of the proposed project was anticipated to begin in early 2022 and be completed 10 months later. Construction of Phase 2 of the proposed project was expected to begin immediately following the completion of Phase 1 construction and be completed 10 months later. If the construction schedule moves to later years, construction emissions would likely decrease because of improvements in technology and more stringent regulatory requirements.

Construction activities such as grading, excavation, and travel on unpaved surfaces would generate dust and lead to elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5. According to the project site plans dated November 11, 2020, an estimated 5,400 cubic yards are anticipated to be imported during Phase 1 grading activities, and, according to telephone correspondence with the project applicant, Phase 2 is assumed to balance grading activities on-site. As the BAAQMD dust control measures would be required to ensure fugitive dust impacts are less than significant, the emission estimates shown 245
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-48 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx below account for the implementation of MM AIR-2a. The operation of construction equipment results in exhaust emissions, which include ROG and NOX. Table 3.2-10 presents construction-period emissions that would result from the development of the proposed project.

Table 3.2-10: Unmitigated Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Tons)

ROG NOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Project Phase 1
Site Preparation (2022) <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Grading (2022) 0.03 0.39 0.01 0.01
Building Construction (2022) 0.54 4.00 0.10 0.09
Paving (2022) 0.05 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating (2022) 5.90 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Project Phase 2
Site Preparation (2022) <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Grading (2022) 0.03 0.33 0.01 0.01
Building Construction (2022) 0.10 0.70 0.02 0.01
Building Construction (2023) 0.47 3.42 0.07 0.06
Paving (2023) 0.06 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating (2023) 7.32 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total Construction Emissions (Tons) 14.51 9.03 0.22 0.21 Average Daily Emissions
Total Construction Emissions (Pounds) 29,029 18,065 437 411 Average Daily Construction Emissions (Pounds/Day) 68 42 1 1 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Significant Impact? Yes No No No
Notes:

This analysis relies on a 427-day construction schedule, consistent with the construction schedule and modeling results contained in Appendix B.

ROG = reactive organic gases NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Source: Appendix B.

As shown in Table 3.2-10, ROG emissions generated mainly during architectural coating activities during project construction would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, requiring the implementation of MM AIR-2b, which would require the use of low-VOC (i.e., ROG) architectural coating products during project construction. Table 3.2-11 displays emissions generated during 246
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-49
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx project construction incorporating the implementation of MM AIR-2b. As shown therein, MM AIR-2b would reduce ROG emissions to below the applicable BAAQMD significance thresholds during project construction by implementing the use of architectural coating products that contain no greater than 50 grams of VOC (i.e., ROG) per liter of product. As a result, MM AIR-2b would result in reducing ROG emissions from 68 average pounds per day to 33 average pounds per day, which is below the BAAQMD significance threshold of 54 pounds per day for ROG emissions during project construction. Therefore, project construction emissions would be less than significant with the implementation of MMs AIR-2a and AIR-2b.

Table 3.2-11: Mitigated Construction Emissions
Construction Activity
Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Tons)

ROG NOX
PM10
(Exhaust)
PM2.5
(Exhaust)
Project Phase 1
Site Preparation (2022) <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Grading (2022) 0.03 0.39 0.01 0.01
Building Construction (2022) 0.54 4.00 0.10 0.09
Paving (2022) 0.05 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating (2022) 2.59 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Project Phase 2
Site Preparation (2022) <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01
Grading (2022) 0.03 0.33 0.01 0.01
Building Construction (2022) 0.10 0.70 0.02 0.01
Building Construction (2023) 0.47 3.42 0.07 0.06
Paving (2023) 0.06 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
Architectural Coating (2023) 3.22 0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Total Construction Emissions (Tons) 7.09 9.03 0.22 0.21 Average Daily Emissions
Total Construction Emissions (Pounds) 14,190 18,065 437 411 Average Daily Construction Emissions (Pounds/Day) 33 42 1 1 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Significant Impact? No No No No
Notes:

This analysis relies on a 427-day construction schedule, consistent with the construction schedule and modeling results contained in Appendix B.

ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM10 = particulate matter, including dust, 10 micrometers or less in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter, including dust, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Source: Appendix B.
247
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-50 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Operation
Operational Air Pollutant Emissions: ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5 Operational emissions would include area, energy, and mobile sources. Area sources would include emissions from architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape equipment. Energy sources include emissions from the combustion of natural gas for water heaters and other heat sources. Mobile sources include exhaust and road dust emissions from the automobiles that would travel to and from the project site. Mobile sources also include exhaust from trailer-mounted TRUs which would accompany any freight truck carrying refrigerated goods. Stationary sources include emissions from stationary source equipment, such as backup generators, that would require a permit issued by the BAAQMD. Pollutants of concern include ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.

Project operations were analyzed at full buildout immediately following the completion of construction for Phase 2 in August 2023 as a conservative estimate of operational emissions beginning in the earliest year of full operation. According to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project, 26 during full operation, the proposed project is expected to generate an estimated 528 daily truck trips and 2,832 daily passenger vehicle trips. According to the site plan set for the proposed project, dated November 11, 2020, Phase 1 of the proposed project would construct a warehouse that will connect to the existing railroad bordering the eastern boundary of the project site. Because of the lack of information regarding the potential future tenants, the proposed warehouse space is analyzed for a cold storage scenario and a dry storage scenario.

The cold storage project scenario would also include the operation of TRUs. In the absence of specific project information, all TRUs analyzed herein utilize weighted averages for emission factors retrieved from the ARB’s OFFROAD2017 database for in-state truck TRUs, in-state van TRUs, in-state gen-set TRUs, in-state trailer TRUs, out-of-state gen-set TRUs, out-of-state trailer TRUs, and locomotive TRUs, all utilizing aggregate horsepower bins. These vehicle categories were selected as they encompass all possible TRU emission factors contained in the ARB’s OFFROAD2017 database. As each truck is assumed to be accompanied by a TRU under the cold storage scenario and each of the 528 truck trips is one-way, this analysis assumes a truck and TRU population of 266. Each TRU is assumed to spend an average of four hours running on-site for unloading and loading purposes,27 and an average of two hours off-site traveling to and from the Port of Oakland—the closest major freight origin.

Furthermore, in the absence of more specific information, the locomotive emission estimates contained herein assume a monthly average of 500,000 ton-miles of product and material locomotive deliveries. Assuming an average travel distance of 50 miles and an average loaded railcar weight of 65 tons,
28 this would represent nearly two loaded, 20-railcar locomotive deliveries per week. 26 W-Trans. 2021. Traffic Impact Study for the Giovannoni Logistics Center. March 11. 27 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2021. Appendix I Health Analyses: Transport Refrigeration Units. Website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/board/rulemaking/tru2021/appi.pdf. Accessed August 19, 2021. 28 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2012. Railcar Weights. Website:
https://www.bts.gov/archive/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2003/chapter_02/railcar_weights#:~:text=The% 20average%20weight%20of%20a,trends%20among%20selected%20freight%20commodities. Accessed August 2, 2021. 248
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-51
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Operational emission estimates for the proposed project are contained in Table 3.2-12. For detailed assumptions used to estimate emissions, see Appendix B.

Table 3.2-12: Unmitigated Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
ROG NOX PM10 Total PM2.5 Total
Tons per Year
Dry Storage Project Scenario
Area 10.93 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.04 0.40 0.03 0.03
Mobile–Passenger Vehicles 0.83 0.90 3.07 0.83
Mobile–Trucks 0.92 36.51 1.17 0.59
Mobile–Locomotives ND 1.68 0.04 0.04
Mobile–TRUs – – – –
Stationary 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total (tons/year) 12.74 39.54 4.32 1.49
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Total Average (pounds/day) 70 217 24 8
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Cold Storage Project Scenario
Area 10.93 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.05 0.44 0.03 0.03
Mobile–Passenger Vehicles 0.83 0.90 3.07 0.83
Mobile–Trucks 0.92 36.51 1.17 0.59
Mobile–Locomotives ND 1.68 0.04 0.04
Mobile–TRUs 3.71 31.15 0.43 0.40
Stationary 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total (tons/year) 16.46 70.73 4.76 1.89
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 10 10 15 10
249
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-52 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Emissions Source
ROG NOX PM10 Total PM2.5 Total
Tons per Year
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Total Average (pounds/day) 90 388 26 10
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Notes:
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded results. 365 working days per year is assumed to estimate average daily emission rates.
lb. = pounds ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameterPM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter ND = No Data
Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix B).

Table 3.2-12 indicates that the proposed project would result in operational-related criteria air pollutants or ozone precursors which would exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance, specifically with respect to ROG and NOX emissions. As area sources would generate the majority of operational ROG emissions, MM AIR-2c would be required to ensure the use of low-VOC architectural coatings for any reapplication of paints and coatings and the use of electric landscaping equipment, including chainsaws, lawnmowers, and leaf blowers during project operation. In addition, as the trucking fleet would generate the majority of operational NOX emissions, MM AIR-2d would be required to ensure that a more fuel-efficient, lower-emission trucking fleet—one which demonstrates a model year 2014 or newer for all heavy-duty trucks upon first implementation—is utilized during project operation. Model year 2014 was selected because it is the first homogenous model year for a trucking fleet in Napa County to demonstrate a reduction in NOX emissions when compared with unmitigated emission estimates. This is considered a feasible trucking mitigation measure as the ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation29 would otherwise require trucks greater than a 26,000-pound gross vehicle weight rating which operate in California be no older than 2010 model year by the time the proposed project would become operational in 2023. This would allow the proposed project to utilize trucks which are 9 years old and would not constitute an infeasible financial burden.

Table 3.2-13 displays emissions generated by project operation with the implementation of MMs AIR-2c and AIR-2d. As shown therein, under a dry storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2c would result in a reduction of ROG emissions during project operation from approximately 13 tons per year and 70 average pounds per day to approximately 12 tons per year and 64 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG emissions of 10 tons per year 29 California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2019. Truck and Bus Regulation Compliance Requirement Overview. June 18. Website:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/documents/fsregsum.pdf?_ga=2.176823522.653555524.1631722616- 611272733.1590599157. Accessed September 16, 2021.
250
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-53
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx and 54 average pounds per day. Under a cold storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2c would result in a reduction of ROG emissions during project operation from approximately 16 tons per year and 90 average pounds per day to approximately 15 tons per year and 85 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG emissions of 10 tons per year and 54 average pounds per day.

Under a dry storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2d would result in a reduction of NOX emissions during project operation from approximately 40 tons per year and 217 average pounds per day to approximately 35 tons per year and 192 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOX emissions of 10 tons per year and 54 average pounds per day. Under a cold storage scenario, implementation of MM AIR-2d would result in a reduction of NOX emissions during project operation from approximately 71 tons per year and 388 average pounds per day to approximately 66 tons per year and 362 average pounds per day, which exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for NOX emissions of 10 tons per year and 54 average pounds per day.

Table 3.2-13: Mitigated Operational Emissions
Emissions Source
ROG NOX PM10 Total PM2.5 Total
Tons per Year
Dry Storage Project Scenario
Area 10.18 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.04 0.40 0.03 0.03
Mobile–Passenger Vehicles 0.83 0.90 3.07 0.83
Mobile–Trucks 0.67 31.93 1.13 0.56
Mobile–Locomotives ND 1.68 0.04 0.04
Mobile–TRUs – – – –
Stationary 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total (tons/year) 11.74 34.95 4.28 1.46
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Total Average (pounds/day) 64 192 23 8
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Cold Storage Project Scenario
251
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Air Quality Draft EIR

3.2-54 FirstCarbon Solutions
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx Emissions Source
ROG NOX PM10 Total PM2.5 Total
Tons per Year
Area 10.18 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy 0.05 0.44 0.03 0.03
Mobile–Passenger Vehicles 0.83 0.90 3.07 0.83
Mobile–Trucks 0.67 31.93 1.13 0.56
Mobile–Locomotives ND 1.68 0.04 0.04
Mobile–TRUs 3.71 31.15 0.43 0.40
Stationary 0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01
Total (tons/year) 15.46 66.14 4.71 1.86
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 10 10 15 10
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Total Average (pounds/day) 85 362 26 10
Significance Threshold
(Tons/Year) 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Significance
Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Notes:
1 Totals may not add up due to rounding. Calculations use unrounded results. 365 working days per year is assumed to estimate average daily emission rates.
lb. = pounds ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = oxides of nitrogen PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameterPM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter ND = No Data
Source: CalEEMod Output (see Appendix B).

As previously discussed, unmitigated project operation would result in ROG and NOX emissions which exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. ROG emissions generated during project operation would principally be generated by consumer products, which cannot be sufficiently controlled by the proposed project due to the possible use of cleaning products, hairsprays, and other personal care products by employees. As ROG emissions generated under the control of the proposed project during project operation would principally be generated by the periodic reapplication of architectural coatings, MM AIR-2c would be required to ensure the use of low-VOC (i.e., ROG) architectural coating products that contain no more than 50 grams of VOC per liter of product to reduce the generation of ROG emissions during project operation. Additionally, as NOX emissions generated during project operation would principally be generated by the operation of the trucking fleet, irrespective of whether the fleet would accommodate the use of TRUs, MM AIR-2d would be 252
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR Air Quality
FirstCarbon Solutions 3.2-55
https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/5460/54600001/EIR/2 - Screencheck EIR/54600001 Sec03-02 Air Quality.docx required to ensure the trucking fleet accessing the project site would be comprised of vehicles no older than model year 2014 to reduce tailpipe NOX emissions.

It is important to note that the principal source for operational ROG emissions would be the use of consumer products by employees and visitors. Consumer products in this context consist of cleaning solvents and personal care products, such as hairspray. CalEEMod, Version 2020.4.0, utilizes a Statewide average VOC (i.e., ROG) per building square foot metric, irrespective of land use type, derived from the ARB’s Statewide 2008 Consumer Product Inventory. 30 Because of this assumption
built into the emissions modeling, nonresidential land uses, such as the proposed project, are likely to result in fewer operational ROG emissions generated by the use of consumer products than what is demonstrated in this analysis. Nonetheless, more accurate information is not available for the use of consumer products during project operation, thus this assumption must be relied upon for purposes of this analysis. In addition, because consumer products would be consumed by employees and visitors on-site and the use of those products would not be under the control of the property owner or tenant, consumer products cannot be guaranteed to be regulated through mitigation. As such, mitigation targeting the use of consumer products was omitted from this analysis.